Time to Take Action
Our Klamath Basin Water Crisis
Upholding rural Americans' rights to grow food,
own property, and caretake our wildlife and natural resources.

The KBRA / Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement contains dangerous provisions locally and nationally

by Kathy Lehman, Ashland, OR

I've read the KBRA, and can tell you it contains many, many very dangerous provisions.......dangerous not only locally, but nationally. The best action, IMO, if for you to relentlessly broadcast the truth about the KBRA........facts such as:

* the KBRA awards the Klamath Tribes the right to more water than exists in the Basin in most years
* the KBRA endruns around the federal court's (Adair III decision) ruling that the quantification of the Klamath Tribes' water right be determined by adjudication of the Oregon court
* the KBRA does not guarantee one irrigator sure water delivery
* the KBRA takes Siskiyou County's (northern CA) control over their own groundwater (and therefore, endangers ALL wells in SisCo)
* the KBRA is NOT supported by most irrigators.........not on Project, and not off......although it is supported by some of the irrigation districts
* the KBRA did not allow input from ~ 95% of the irrigators dependent on the Klamath River
* the KBRA establishes a wholly unconstitutional regional governance council, dissolving state and county boundaries.........a de facto "Petitions Council" right out of the Biodiversity Treaty (UN)
* Klamath Commissioners have reported massive local opposition to the KBRA.........as high as 90%
* the federal and state agencies involved are attempting to lead their respective legislatures into taking action, rather than just doing the jobs those legislatures command and fund
* the KBRA has not consulted or allowed a seat "at the table" to the one tribe within whose territory all four dams are located, the Shasta (perhaps because the Shasta can tell you Coho salmon are not indigenous to the Klamath River, they traded salmon with the Klamath tribes [explaining the salmon bones found in the Upper Basin], Coho were planted in the Klamath River since the late 1800s by the Baird hatchery in McCloud, all salmon were almost dead and largely inedible by the time they reached the Yreka area, the Shasta do not want the dams removed, etc.)
* the KBRA goes after the 30,000 acre foot irrigation diversion to the Rogue Basin
* the blue-green algae is a product of natural conditions in the Upper Basin, and will exist with or without any dams
* overall water temperature is cooler and water quality is better following use of the Klamath Project and construction of the dams
* the Klamath Project uses only 3-4% of the water in the Klamath River
* the KBRA will give the Klamath Tribes fishing rights in Shasta territory (why, if dam removal will return so many salmon upriver?)
* the Karuk tribe has no treaty fishing rights to the Klamath River
* FERC stated in their Draft EIS that dam removal could cost upwards of $4.5 billion dollars, unless toxins are found in the (20,000 cubic yards) sediment behind the dams - two preliminary studies have found dioxin and other toxins
* required NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) studies and coordination with local government entities have not been done
* coordination with local government entities mandated by the ESA, the Clean Water Act, the Federal Power Act, etc., has not been done
* required CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) studies have not been done
* there is no science showing dam removal will improve salmon habitat or increases in population

Kathy Lehman, Ashland


Home Contact


              Page Updated: Thursday July 09, 2009 02:56 AM  Pacific

             Copyright klamathbasincrisis.org, 2009, All Rights Reserved