Lawsuits, Measures, Bills and Testimony pertaining to the KBRA
|Wyden, Merkley Feinstein, Boxer Introduce Klamath Basin Legislation, posted to KBC 5/23/14.|
|(Klamath dam removal) bill must pass House committees, H&N 11/20/11. "Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., is chairman of a Natural Resources subcommittee, Water and Power, which will play a key role in advancing or killing legislation…'To tear down four perfectly good hydroelectric dams at enormous cost is insane,' McClintock said in September."|
|Resolution proposed in Tulelake Irrigation District case (regarding KBRA / Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement), Siskiyou Daily, posted to KBC 9/18/11|
Stipulation for Judgement, Proposed Order Case No. SC CV CV 10-0463 Posted 9/15/11
TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT, Plaintiff,
ALL PERSONS HAVING OR CLAIMING TO HAVE AN INTEREST IN THE VALIDITY OF AGREEMENTS ENTERED INTO BY TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT ENTITLED “KLAMATH BASIN RESTORATION AGREEMENT FOR THE SUSTAINABILITY OF PUBLIC AND TRUST RESOURCES AND AFFECTED COMMUNITIES” AND “KLAMATH HYDROELECTRIC SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT”;
COUNTY OF SISKIYOU; SISKIYOU COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
TriMet loses free speech case over bus, train ads -- again, Oregonian, posted to KBC 3/21/11. "But when TriMet rejected an ad proposed by Friends of the River and the Karuk Tribe of California, the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon sued on the tribe's behalf."
California judge approves Klamath dam removal surcharge, Siskiyou Daily, posted to KBC 2/25/11. "The ruling, issued by Judge Karen V. Clopton, approves PacifiCorp’s request to add a $13.76 million surcharge for its approximately 45,000 California customers to cover its obligation for dam removal costs under the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement."
House approves amendment blocking funding for Klamath dam removal study. KDRV Staff 2/22/11
Judge hears water
KBRA validation decision
|Congressman McClintock's speech on the House floor to defund Klamath dam removal study||
Group says their water rights will be negotiated away under current plan. Capitol Press 2/18/11
Congressman McClintock successfully defunded by amendment the $1.9 million+ dam removal study at the EPA from a funding bill. Lars mentioned this on his show at about 2:40pm today. Respectfully, Jeff Woodwick
"3. [112nd] H.AMDT.33 to H.R.1 An amendment numbered 297 printed in the Congressional Record to reduce funds used for the Klamath Dam Removal and Sedimentation Study being conducted by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Fish and Wildlife Service by $1.897 million and apply the amount to the deficit reduction account.
|Court reinstates irrigators' lawsuit. Herald and News, 2/18/11||
Siskiyou water users want county support in Klamath suit (involving Klamath Dam removal agreements), Siskiyou Daily, posted to KBC 1/19/11
|Irrigation districts file Klamath agreement validation request, by David Smith, Siskiyou Daily News, posted to KBC 1/19/11||***Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement / KBRA and Klamath Hydro Agreement Circuit Court petition by Klamath Irrigation District, Malin Irrigation District, and Shasta View Irrigation District. YOU MUST file a legal response to the petition before 10 days after Jan 23rd to contest the legality of your boards of directors executing the settlement agreements. 1/16/11|
Siskiyou County Pomona Grange vs Tulelake Irrigation
District regarding KBRA/Klamath Basin Restoration
Agreement, posted to KBC 12/16/10. Filed
November 26 in Siskiyou County Superior Court.
PRESS RELEASE - Amicus Curiae filed in Siskiyou County Superior Court by the Siskiyou County Pomona Grange (opposing Tulelake Irrigation District regarding KBRA and KHSA, posted to KBC 12/16/10
|Siskiyou water users suit alleges CEQA violations with Klamath agreements, Siskiyou Daily, posted to KBC 12/21/10||Siskiyou Pomona Grange files brief in KBRA, KHSA Suit, Siskiyou Daily News, posted to KBC 12/8/10|
|For Siskiyou County: Measure G: advisory election with respect to removal of dams along Klamath River, Siskiyou Daily 10/19/10||Plaintiffs in Klamath deal suit say state exceeded authority, Capital Press, posted to KBC 8/28/10|
|Legislature delays water bond to 2012 ballot, SF Chronicle 8/10/10. (KBC NOTE: This bond included California's $250 million contribution to destroy Klamath hydropower dams, according to Doug LaMalfa)||* Tulelake Irrigation District lawsuit on KBRA; must respond by 7/30/10|
|Court may keep Oregon Water Resources Department out of KBRA negotiations *Corrected*, Siskiyou Daily News 1/5/10. "Also sought by the plaintiffs is an injunction restraining the OWRD and its director from participating in the KBRA negotiations or signing the KBRA without first having “publicly disclosed all records of the confidential negotiations that have previously taken place, affording the public meaningful participation in the negotiations consistent with ORS 539.010..."||* Water For Life Motion for Preliminary Injunction, with 6 plaintiffs, v. Oregon Water Resources Department and Phil Ward, Director posted to KBC 12/27/09, Preliminary injunction to restrain defendants from participating in negotiations with the Klamath Tribes that pertain to the federal reserved water rights of the Klamath Tribes unless said negotiations are open to the public. This relates to the secret negotiations in the controversial Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement.|
|* PRESS RELEASE: Water for Life Files Lawsuit Challenging Secret Water Right Negotiations, 12/11/09. (KBC NOTE: The lawsuit is regarding the secret Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement water right negotiations) "'Oregon law is very clear,' said Water for Life spokesman, Richard Kosesan. 'The Department has legal authority to participate in Tribal water right negotiations, but the negotiations must be open to the public.' "||* Water for Life Final Complaint, posted 12/11/09. According to ORS539 310, the Oregon Water Resources Director may engage in negotiations with federally recognized Indian Tribes defining water rights, however they must be open to the public, with public notice and progress reports. The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement is not open to the public, and people effected are not welcomed at the negotiation table.|
|Water group suing state, Lawsuit claims closed-door talks violate state law (Regarding Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement), H&N 12/10/09||Oral and written testimony by James Ottoman, Klamath Falls, to the Southern Oregon legislative delegation who hosted the public input forum on 11/10/09 regarding the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement and Klamath dam removal.|
|* Water For Life Motion for Preliminary Injunction, with 6 plaintiffs, v. Oregon Water Resources Department and Phil Ward, Director posted to KBC 12/27/09, Preliminary injunction to restrain defendants from participating in negotiations with the Klamath Tribes that pertain to the federal reserved water rights of the Klamath Tribes unless said negotiations are open to the public. This relates to the secret negotiations in the controversial Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement.||* PRESS RELEASE: Water for Life Files Lawsuit Challenging Secret Water Right Negotiations, 12/11/09. (KBC NOTE: The lawsuit is regarding the secret Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement water right negotiations) "'Oregon law is very clear,' said Water for Life spokesman, Richard Kosesan. 'The Department has legal authority to participate in Tribal water right negotiations, but the negotiations must be open to the public.' "|
|* Water for Life Final Complaint, posted 12/11/09. According to ORS539 310, the Oregon Water Resources Director may engage in negotiations with federally recognized Indian Tribes defining water rights, however they must be open to the public, with public notice and progress reports. The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement is not open to the public, and people effected are not welcomed at the negotiation table.||Dam removal bond bill gets signature, H&N posted to KBC 11/16/09. (KBC NOTE: Just a reminder that Klamath Water Users Association, tribes, gov't agencies and environmental groups have heavily lobbied for the bonds for taxes and power rates to pay for tearing out Klamath River hydro dams. However, your representatives justify boycotting the public listening session on dam removal and the KBRA, saying they want the agreement done first before they hear the people's wishes and concerns.)|
|Water Special: November 7 Update of $11.1 billion California Water bill that passed legislature. It tells where the money will go, by California Federation of Republican Women, 11/8/09|
State Legislature approves comprehensive package to overhaul
water system, including an $11-billion bond,
LA Times, posted to KBC 11/6/09
(includes Klamath dam removal
Money for Klamath dam removal included in California water bill, Oregonian, posted to KBC 11/6/09
Historic state water deal now up to voters, Contra Costa Times, posted to KBC 11/6/09. "The package would require state residents to cut water use by an average of 20 percent over the next decade and, for the first time, require water users to measure and report their use of underground water, ending California's status as the only Western state that does not regulate ground water."
|Latest environmental lawsuit by Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement stakeholders against Scott and Shasta agriculture October 2009. Petitioners: KLAMATH RIVERKEEPER (Craig Tucker boardmember on KBRA negotiation table with Karuks), QUARTZ VALLEY INDIAN RESERVATION, PACIFIC COAST FEDERATION OF FISHERMEN’S ASSOCIATIONS (on KBRA negotiation table), ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION INFORMATION CENTER, SIERRA CLUB, NORTHCOAST ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER (KBRA negotiator), and INSTITUTE FOR FISHERIES RESOURCES. (KBC NOTE - Why do KBRA supporters claim these environmental groups will not sue them, when the enviros are already litigating against family farmers?)|
Farmer vs. farmer: Klamath water controversies well up,
Capital Press, posted to KBC 9/5/09.
(Klamath Tribal member at negotiation table) said the
contestants stayed out of the settlement negotiations of their
own volition, and characterized the group's motion to vacate
the agreement as an unnecessary complication."
* Roger Nicholson, president of Klamath Resource Conservancy, exposes Klamath tribal member's divergence "from what is factual." Nicholson sent to KBC the following response: "It is odd that Jeff Mitchell's remembrances diverge from what is factual. It can easily be verified that Resource Conservancy, which represents the Upper Basin contestants, asked for a seat at the table. This request was never honored." (KBC NOTE: Resource Conservancy represents more than 100,000 acres on Klamath Off-Project land.)
* Here is the Klamath Tribe document of intensions in the closed-door KBRA/settlement agreement: putting land into tax-exempt trust, ...intends to "buy back private lands....and secure funding for purchasing retired water rights, conservation easements...assert tribes senior water rights...expand gaming...exchange for federal lands..."
|State to respond to adjudication request, H&N, posted to KBC 9/5/09|
***August 18, 2009. Upper Basin Contestants' motion
Case 282, and
PRESS RELEASE: (Klamath) Irrigators seek fairness in case to determine tribal water claims, posted 8/21/09 by Resource Conservancy which represents irrigators from 125,000 off-project acres. "This order conditionally settled the Klamath Water Users (KWU) contests of the Klamath Tribes unsubstantiated claims to all of the water in the Klamath Lake and the Klamath River."
Testimony of SB 76 by Katherine Lehman at the Salem Senate Committee Hearing 2/3/09
Representative Bill Garrard R-Klamath Falls, District 56:
Committee: "Vote on Senate
Bill 76 Delayed . . . Again. The chair of the
House Environment committee again delayed the vote on Senate
Bill 76 (Klamath Dam Removal proposal). A work session on
this bill has been re-scheduled for
Thursday, May 28th at 3:00pm
in Hearing Room D. I will post the results of the committee
vote as soon as they happen."
|Irrigators: KBRA violates our rights; Judge asked to toss agreement, H&N 8/21/09. "According to filed legal documents, off-Project water users said the Tribes haven’t shown evidence they are entitled to any of the water in the lake or river, as specified by an adjudication judge. The document also claims the settlement leads the adjudication to a specific outcome, preventing outsiders from challenging it...The Resource Conservancy requested on several occasions to join the groups working on the restoration agreement, but its requests were denied."|
|Judge asked to throw out water deal: "Irrigators off the Klamath Reclamation Project say a water agreement between the Klamath Tribes and on-Project irrigators violates their rights to challenge the arrangement. Those irrigators, represented primarily by the Resource Conservancy, are asking the administrative law judge overseeing the Klamath Basin water adjudication process to throw out the settlement, which settled water claims from Upper Klamath Lake and the Klamath River. “They’ve circumvented the process of adjudication,” said Garrett Roseberry, president of the Sprague River Water Users." More Friday, H&N 8/20/09|
Klamath Basin Bill Passes House, Office of the Speaker Dave Hunt (D), Oregon House of Representatives 6/12/09
Oregon House passes Klamath dam bill, returns it to Senate, Capital Press 6/12/09
House panel moves forward Klamath bill (SB76), Capital Press 5/29/09
Oregon SB76 passed.
Proposed Amendments to SB 76, 2/12/09
Updated: Testimony of geologist Gail Hildreth Whitsett on SB 76, Klamath Dam Removal Bill, posted to KBC 5/14/09Testimony on SB 76 by Dr. Richard A. Gierak, at the Salem Senate Committee Hearing 2/3/09
|Is your property surrounded by tribal land? California Senate Bill 331, 3/25/08|
|Water quality comments submitted for Siskiyou County by our environmental consultants to the State of Calif. Water Resources Control Board on the likely impacts of considering dam removal as a cure for water quality issues (algae, temperature) in the operation of the hydroelectric dams 11/14/08||
From transcripts of testimony given at a public meeting before the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors at Yreka, CA on March 25, 2008 regarding Klamath Settlement and Klamath dam removal:
* Mr. Miner is a Siskiyou County consultant from Brownfield Partners. Mr. Lambie is dam sediment expert from E-Pur, LLC
* Preliminary Review of Klamath River Dam and Sediment Investigation, Brownfield Partners
* Mr. Dean Brockbank and Mr. Toby Freeman of PacifiCorp
* Greg Hurner represents California Fish and Game, David Diamond U.S. Fish and Wildlife and Phil Detrich representative of U.S. Fish and Wildlife
* Mr. Addington represents Klamath Water Users; Mr. Tucker represents Karuk tribe; Mr. Fletcher represents Yurok tribe; Mr. Crawford represents Tulelake Irrigators and Mr. Bartel is from the off-Project irrigators .
* Copco Lake landowners
Commission adopts plan to reintroduce salmon into Upper Klamath Lake, DFW, posted to KBC 7/21/08
KWUA comments sent to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Commission regarding salmon introduction into Upper Klamath Basin, posted to KBC 7/21/08.
State oks Klamath salmon plan, H&N 7/19/08. "The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission has approved restoration of chinook salmon to the area now blocked by dams on the Klamath River." (KBC NOTE - “Let’s grow salmon in the swamp” policy is adopted in Sisters, OR )
Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission (Commission) to take final public testimony and consider amendments to the Klamath River Basin Fish Management Plan to authorize initiation of efforts to re-establish anadromous fish in the Oregon portion of the Klamath River Basin..." posted 7/19/08
Page Updated: Wednesday February 13, 2019 02:52 AM Pacific
Copyright © klamathbasincrisis.org, 2009, All Rights Reserved