Our Klamath Basin Water Crisis
Upholding rural Americans' rights to grow food,
own property, and caretake our wildlife and natural resources.
Response to California Department of Fish and Game’s regional official’s letter in Redding Record Searchlight, July 4, 2010
By Frank Tallerico, Siskiyou County Superintendent of Schools, retired
I am writing in response to the Letter to the Editor written by Dennis Lynch and Mark Stopher in the Record Searchlight dated July 4, 2010
The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA) and the Hydro-Electric Settlement Agreement (HESA) are not all about fish and habitat restoration. Its all about greed and power on the part of certain interests including government agencies both state and federal, several Native American Tribes and at least 9 non-governmental organizations. (NGO’s) who call themselves “stakeholders.”
These documents were conceived in secret with no public meeting postings or input. These secret meetings totally ignored established laws which were put in place to govern the Klamath River water allocations in 1957.
The Klamath Basin Compact was signed by both California and Oregon legislatures and signed by the governors of the two states. The Compact was later approved by both the Senate and the House of Representatives and sent on to then President Eisenhower who signed it into law in the Fall of 1957. This document is still in force today and should not be ignored by the signatories to the KBRA and the KHSA.
There are elements in the KBRA that calls for congress to authorize CHARTERS which will create a REGIONAL GOVERNANCE authority. This regional governance authority would super-cede county boards of supervisors and/or commissioners. The Hydro Agreement defines how we, the rate payers, are going to pay for dam removal and alternative energy to replace the lost clean, green energy created by hydro-power.
From Frank Tallerico, Yreka, CA
If the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, which includes the removal of 4 hydro-electric generating dams on the Klamath River does indeed come to pass, the entire region would come under the control of the Klamath Basin Coordinating Council and the Technical Advisory Team to coordinate implementation. The term of the agreement is for 50 years and can be extended by the parties to the agreement, and some water provisions would become permanent. This council is made up of representatives from the following: 3 federal agencies, 1 California agency, 3 Oregon agencies, 3 Tribes, 1 Oregon county, 2 California counties, On-project irrigators and at least 9 non-governmental-organizations. This Governance Agreement will provide for a NEW DECISION MAKING AUTHORITIES OR CHANGE EXISTING STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS. (1)
The citizens of the region will not be able to vote for these council members, they will be appointed by the organization of which they represent. And upon the effective date of the Agreement the Parties will initiate the interim Governance Council for the purpose of making recommendations to the federal agencies. The appropriate federal agency will immediately undertake the formal steps to obtain CHARTERS for the Klamath Basin Coordinating Council and necessary subgroups. (1)
These Charters will then govern the Klamath River Basin and local control will have been wrested from local government, the last voice of the people. (The Board of Supervisor and/or Commissioners).
1: There is no election provision of the governing bodies’ officers by the general population.
2: Who, other than the signatories, will have oversight authority over these Councils that have given themselves a 50 year lifespan plus an opportunity for more? (1)
HYDRO-ELECTRIC SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
We, the public have been told on numerous occasions, that dam removal would be a business decision made by Pacific Corp. However, this business decision to be made by Pacific Corp means that we, the rate payers, will be responsible for paying the cost of removing these dams. The Hydro-Electric Settlement Agreement will require that the ratepayers help offset the costs of replacement energy by an additional surcharge on your power bill. (2)
The Parties agree to identify third-party funding and cost offset options in the Final Agreement. These options may include: (1) additional flows created by the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, (2) third-party funding for the restoration and replacement power, (3) earnings on the surcharge trust, (4) generation during
Facility removal stage, and (5) and other options that can be identified and agreed upon by the Parties. (2)
Is this the kind of government and loss of clean energy we want for our region?
I say No to this fraudulent take over of the region by some special interest groups who have nothing to lose and everything to gain. Over 150 years of growth and prosperity would be destroyed and the region’s customs and culture will be lost forever.
Now is the time to say
NO to dam removal
on the Klamath River.
Siskiyou County Superintendent of Schools, Retired
1. Appendix C-1 Dated January 28, 2008, of the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement
Part 1: Purpose and Scope of Governance of the Klamath River Basin Restoration Agreement
Part 2: Klamath Basin Coordinating Council (A.) Purpose and Function (B) Organization and Membership (C) Roles and
Responsibility (D) Operations (E) Funding
2. Hydro-Electric Settlement Agreement Exhibit 1, page 21
Page Updated: Sunday September 19, 2010 02:41 PM Pacific
Copyright © klamathbasincrisis.org, 2010, All Rights Reserved