Proposed agreement doesn’t reach problem    

Herald and News letter to the editor by Glenn M. Howard, Klamath Falls 3/10/08

I agree that the status quo hasn’t 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, non-biased settlement.