Dennis Linthicum recommends :
Vote YES on 18-80
In my opinion we ought to discontinue the
supporting the entanglements encompassed
within KBRA/KHSA documents. Additionally, I
recommend a slowing of the implementation
process, regardless of whether 18-80 passes
or fails, and regardless of whether I am
elected to Klamath County Commissioner
Voting YES will
send a clear message to our new Senate,
our Congress, our Oregon Legislature and
our State's new Governor.
The measure is a non-binding advisory
measure. It DOES NOT bind our County to
It is purposefully worded to confuse
It DOES advise to Klamath County
Commissioners to avoid
participation which might be destructive
to our local agricultural, industrial,
commercial and residential interests.
Why is this important? ― Klamath citizens
will make a positive statement about private
property and our free-market economy and its
historically efficient allocation of
economic and capital resources. Central
planning has never worked ― Any political
allocation of resources needs to be
re-thought and demands a slow and prudent
I added the word "compliant"
as qualifier to "participation" because we
want leadership with "our seat at the
table." Otherwise, our
participation is like a sheep being led to
"No More Compliant Participation" is not the
same as "No More Participation".
Don't be fooled; the measure was worded with
this obvious slant to cause confusion.
Now, for an explanation:
The dams are private property. Period.
With that fact, try to understand why the
As provided in Sections 1.5.1 and 37, each
Non-Federal Party shall execute this
Agreement and the Hydroelectric Settlement
How did a "private property decision" get
tied to the Restoration of the Klamath
Basin? If restoration is a public goal, why
is it dependent upon how some other private
party deals with their private assets?
Whenever public policy demands some private
enterprise's specific action there will be
coercion in the market place. In this case,
it reads like this, "re-licensing with the
FERC will be far costlier." Note, the FERC
is exercising regulatory authority to create
obstacles to the efficient allocation of
private resources. This is a concerted
political effort. Can policy makers make it
less expensive? YES! Where do the expenses
come from? Policy requirements!
Note, the KBRA/KHSA does not make rain
happen. It can’t produce more water than
exists. The only way to increase water
supply is to increase efficiency and
storage. Which is why I’m always beating
this drum. Rather than promise a limited
supply to a limited few farmers, our focus
must be on increasing the water supply. More
water for fish, or farm is the only
long-term option to agriculture and habitat
restoration. Why isn’t this in the KBRA/KHSA?
Naturally, let's suppose the KBRA/KHSA makes
sound economic sense. How? There is no
logical reason that a downstream private
property decision (Dam Removal) should be
linked to the Upper Klamath Basin's Water
usage. Remember, the dams are downstream.
Additionally, if the dams never held
irrigation water than tearing them out
should make no difference to local
agriculture's water usage. Why does the
Biological Opinion change? What caused the
"opinion" to change? More water? This is not
science! This is another form of coercion in
the marketplace. Regulatory power is being
used to achieve specific goals.
Plus, I'm sure you read the Herald & News -
When Water is Limited - Fish come First.
The radical left has no plan for your, or
your family's, future in the Klamath Basin.
(Commentary from 2001,
By the way, how did our concern for the
downstream health and vitality of the
Klamath River Basin work into $21,000,000.00
for 92,000 acres of private forest for the
Klamath Tribes, in Chiloquin? And, what
about the $92,500,000.00 for KWAPA, or
$50,000,000.00 for the various irrigation
district power subsidies? (Does dam removal
lower cost of electricity? Apparently not,
they'll need money from the some magic
Not to mention the $200,000,000.00 of public
money for the ever present "private property
decision" regarding dam removal. Besides,
the money that will be wasted will be
scandalous, even if you think the given
goals are admirable objectives. There are
too many loose ends.
Regardless of the hype
don't fall for this Local Control sound-bite.
Here are the agencies involved in this
"local decision making process" - BIA (and
several Native American Tribal interests -
Hoopa, Klamath, Shasta, Karuk, Yurok), along
with the BLM, CDFG, USDA, FS, FERC, NMFS,
NPS, ODEQ, OWRD, ODFW, SWRCB, USGS, KWAPA,
LKNWR, TNLWR, KOPWU, KPWU, KDD, KID, TID,
KDD, KBID, EID, PGIG, PDIC, VBDC, ADIC, PVID,
SVID, SID, MID, PDIC, MDIC, IPTC, CP. LLC,
and the KBAC. Plus, don’t forget, your
County Commissioners, here in Oregon, and
any County Supervisors, in California, who
also have a "seat at the table".
So, as you can see,
your local interests do not take priority.
These convoluted agreements (KBRA/KHSA) make
tracing details difficult. In fact, most of
the KBRA/KHSA details are not yet known. (By
the way, would you personally sign an
agreement where many of the details are not
This is why the Hoopa Tribe also opposes
these agreements (online
here...). The Hoopa Tribes objections
mirror my Guest Opinion piece,
KBRA lacks necessary rigor, legal precision.
Last week (10/7), at OIT, the initial review
of the “Drought Plan” took place. Wait! I
thought the KBRA/KHSA “ensured water in
times of drought”? Yet, even today, the
details aren’t yet known, let alone
reviewed, revised, or approved. I'm sure you
read the paper, the 9/30 deadline was
missed. Now it will be 11/30. This
emphasizes my point!
I believe the Commissioners ought to weigh
these ideas heavily before disengaging the
free-market in favor of the "full steam
ahead" political allocation of scarce
Frankly, I don’t care if the political
allocation comes from the federal, state, or
local level because in every case, I see a
moral hazard facing both recipients and
This is not in our community’s best interest.
Vote YES on 18-80
forward to other interested parties