Our Klamath Basin Water Crisis
Upholding rural Americans' rights to grow food,
own property, and caretake our wildlife and natural resources.
Verses from the KBRA Bible, Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, the new Law of the Land
and comments by Rex Cozzalio, 1/29/2010
As with the other state and federal agencies involved with the Klamath debacle, the KBRA performs its own reviews and assessments based upon its own ‘data’, presenting its own conclusions, parsing, justifications, and self determined future directions and funding options.
If KBRA didn’t know the historical facts that salmon were never known in numbers above Spencer Creek, why have they included provisions to plant non ‘natural’ salmon ‘if the re-colonization is proceeding too slowly’. The resulting impositions will not reduce upon failure, but increase.
‘The implementation plan will identify near-term and long-term actions necessary to address key uncertainties and develop specific strategies for achieving the goals of reintroduction’ (11.2.2 KBRA).
‘Research investigations shall be undertaken during Phase I Reintroduction to determine appropriate stocks which meet strict disease criteria and migration ability, potential competition and interaction of re-introduced Fish with existing native stocks, and natural production potential for anadromous Fish in the upper basin.’ (11.3.1.D) This reveals the intent and willingness to use non native species in contradiction to the premises often stated to public justifying removal of dams to ‘restore native salmon’. This is at the same time admitting they have no current knowledge and the need to perform ‘research’ after implementation of ‘actions’ upon the environment and people.
‘The Plan shall include an adaptive management approach during reintroduction to allow for inclusion of new information as it becomes available and provide flexibility in the methods used to achieve established goals. For example, if monitoring reveals that re-colonization is not occurring or is too slow, the Fish Managers may pursue active reintroduction of native anadromous fish. Such reintroduction actions could include a variety of release and rearing strategies to optimize opportunities for success. The adaptive management approach would be utilized to determine appropriate race(s) and life history of Chinook to release (spring and/or fall Chinook) with best opportunities for successful rearing, emigration to the ocean and return. Research would inform any adaptive management of active reintroduction efforts. One such research priority would be to determine appropriate stocks for active reintroduction which meet strict disease criteria and migration ability. Research would also need to address, potential competition and interaction of reintroduced fish with existing native stocks, and natural production potential for anadromous fish.’(11.4.3) ‘Adaptive Management’ is the catchphrase used throughout the KBRA in all aspects including ‘management’, ‘funding’, ‘regulation’, and ‘research’. This translates to no assurances, no knowledge, and no consequence of failed decisions such as ‘reintroduction is not occurring’.
‘The Fisheries Monitoring Plan will also include assessments to evaluate factors limiting recovery and restoration of Fish populations in order to identify measures to eliminate, reduce or mitigate such threats.’(12.2.4) ‘Eliminate’ is the appropriate term for the increasing impositions that will take place.
‘...the Federal Agency Parties and the Tribes shall periodically meet and confer to review whether the intended fisheries outcomes of this Agreement are being realized for tribal trust as well as public benefits and to determine appropriate remedial actions (if any).(12.2.7) Apparently no necessity for public input or access over decisions regarding ‘public benefits’.
‘Each funding entity shall retain its authority and final approval to make funding decisions.’(13.3.2) ‘The FWS and NMFS shall be co-Lead Parties for managing the process described above for the prioritized funding allocation. The funding entities shall perform expenditures as described in Section 13.3.2. Each funding entity shall retain its authority and final approval to make funding decisions under Applicable Law.’(13.5) Apparently, the primary priority is more about funding guarantees, control of the ‘process’ (job security), and autonomy, not environment.
‘This Agreement provides for limitations on specific diversions for the Klamath Reclamation Project, as described in this Section 15.1.1 and as provided in Appendix E-1. The limitations are intended, particularly in drier years, to increase water availability for Fisheries purposes, while Section 15.1.2 provides terms for the allocation and delivery of water to National Wildlife Refuges.’(15.1.1) The KBRA lie of ‘balance’ told to the public, assuring ‘guarantees to farmers’ is here shown to have never been the intent or reality.
‘Determination of Adverse Impact will be based on the most probable value for a specific location provided by USGS modeling and monitoring, regardless of associated confidence intervals or expressions of uncertainty or imprecision.’(15.2.4.A) Ability to determine ‘adverse impacts’ granting themselves subjective regulatory authority over groundwater use related to flows in springs, even if that authority is based upon insufficient or inaccurate information.
‘Siskiyou County agrees not to file a claim in federal or state court, or before the California Board of Control or any other administrative agency, against the State of California, the State of Oregon, any state agency, department, division or subdivision thereof, or the United States, arising from any decrease in property tax revenue or alleged business or economic losses, including property values, due to Facilities Removal.’ (28.6.1KBRA) It is clear that in the interest of obtaining greatest position for County governmental concession, they have thrown the individuals under the dam by divesting themselves of their representative authority.
‘Negative Determination: If the Secretary determines not to proceed with facilities removal, the Hydroelectric Settlement terminates unless the parties agree to a cure for this potential termination event. Prior to adopting or public release of such a determination, the Secretary will notify the parties of his tentative determination and its basis. The parties will consider whether to amend the Settlement in a manner that will permit the Secretary to make an affirmative determination.’ (KHSA summary) Regardless of ‘evidence’, the KBRA in place at that time could still orchestrate additional requirements for dams removal using the weight and motivation of the Secretary of Interior.
Page Updated: Saturday January 30, 2010 04:10 AM Pacific
Copyright © klamathbasincrisis.org, 2009, All Rights Reserved