Our Klamath Basin Water Crisis
Upholding rural Americans' rights to grow food,
own property, and caretake our wildlife and natural resources.
Jim Foley comments to Glen Spain and Troy Fletcher on Oregonian Blog regarding Klamath dams
Posted by JamesFoley on 01/28/08 at 6:39PM
These people just keep saying the same old phrase over and over again with no science to back their assertions. That phrase is: " the Klamath dams have been a source of toxic algae blooms, which is a major public health concern."
The dams are not the source, dams produce nothing. The source of algae blooms is nutrient loading in the lake from ground sources. Phosphorous and Nitrogen are fed into the lake from the various streams that feed the lake. They originate from the volcanic nature of the land mass, they are natural, not man made.
Scientists have said that even if the dams came down, there are enough nutrients in the sediment that makes up the bottom 200 feet of the lake to feed algae blooms for the next 200 years.
●The dams shut off the upstream habitat decades before the fish production fell. Salmon counts have fallen and risen with dams in place, this year's high numbers of returning salmon is indisputable evidence of this, so it's hard to argue that tearing out the dams would restore the salmon runs. There is no science to show that dam removal will restore salmon. Only a fool would agree to dam removal based solely on the whim of wild eyed idealists with no scientific proof.
●The Klamath debate isn't just about fish and irrigation. It's also about precious, clean, renewable energy. But even more than that, behind the scenes it is about power, money, and actions that will give more oppressive power to government, environmental interests and tribes. To allow minority special interests to hold the majority of our citizens accountable and answerable to these special interests is unconscionable.
● The settlement agreement was originally supposed to remove dams, instead it speaks to every issue but the dams. Anser this in your own mind; what does $90 million dollars of our money, given to a tribe to buy forest land have to do with dam removal, or water issues? It sure smacks of a "sweetheart deal" Or could we say bribery?
●When you read this farce of a supposed settlement agreement, it is not difficult to see the motives behind this agreement, the dam removal and salmon restoration; the special interest groups stand to profit in windfall amounts of money for collaborative management and partnering.
●The tribes alone have secured an active role in "collaborative management of the fisheries program" and will also receive $80 million for their part. I am sure that our residents will be overjoyed to know that they will live and work under the supervision and whim of groups that have litigated against just about every resource user in this county.
●How convenient is a back door agreement that shuts out the only entity that can stand in the way of their nefarious goals; the citizens of the basin. This settlement group is a minority trying to push their agenda off on the majority of two states citizens.
Page Updated: Thursday May 07, 2009 09:15 AM Pacific
Copyright © klamathbasincrisis.org, 2007, All Rights Reserved