Our Klamath Basin
Upholding rural Americans' rights to grow food,
own property, and caretake our wildlife and natural resources.
Proposed agreement doesnít reach problem
Herald and News
letter to the editor by
Glenn M. Howard, Klamath Falls
I agree that the status quo hasnít worked well for water
allocations in the past eight years, but were satisfactory for
many years prior to the 2001 cutoff. The problem stems from the
Endangered Species Act requirements for the various fish species.
The proposed settlement agreement does not change that
situation at all. The biological opinions will still apply when
water supplies are reduced due to lack of rain fall, snow packs
and other reasons.
I am extremely opposed to removing the dams, the Mazama
Tree Farm purchase for the Klamath Tribes, making
the reach of the Klamath River from Iron Gate dam to Interstate 5
fishery for the Klamath Tribes as that reach is indigenous to the
Shasta Tribal Nation, and as declared in Section 30 Klamath County
Part 30.3.2 Property Taxes (i) and (ii) the reduction of water
deliveries and reduced agricultural land values.
I quite simply can not comprehend any one finding the
agreement acceptable with the aforementioned issues included.
There are many other options available that are too
numerous to mention in this correspondence, but have been sent to
various parties involved in the settlement.
I am not in favor of the proposed settlement, but I am in favor of
a proper, well thought out, publicly developed, broadbased,
Thursday May 07, 2009 09:15 AM Pacific
Copyright © klamathbasincrisis.org, 2008, All Rights