Our Klamath Basin Water Crisis
Upholding rural Americans' rights to grow food,
own property, and caretake our wildlife and natural resources.
Concerns of dam removal
Weed, Calif. — Many are not aware of the serious financial impact, or the serious loss of our property rights that will result with the removal of dams situated in Siskiyou County.
I would like to site a few examples, starting with the former Savage Rapids Dam located in Southern Oregon. Since the removal of this dam, Pacific Power increased its power rates to businesses 17 percent to residents by 14 percent.
There are four dams in Siskiyou County, which provide green energy. Their removal would impose a tremendous cost to the taxpayers. The energy generation that is now in place, if destroyed, from my understanding, would be replaced by natural gas generators (a natural gas line that runs from Nevada). Electrical generation provided by natural gas would be at an exorbitant cost far out of reach of what the people could afford to pay on a power bill. The production of this type of energy would put far more emissions into our air.
From history by those opposing the burning of hydrocarbons, environmentalists would be against. The estimated figures of this newly supplied energy would be on the average three to four times higher, which is another financial burden. Further injury, dam removal would affect recreational revenues that tourism brings, including the loss of employment that facilitates local businesses. With this increased financial burden, land owners and business people are in jeopardy of losing their property and businesses.
I believe the reasons for dam removal comes from the implementation of Agenda 21 (sustainable development). I also believe it is responsible for the recent closure of dredge mining, another employment confiscation. Sustainable development was ushered in by the United Nations and was signed by executive order by presidents Bill Clinton and George H. W. Bush. This “soft law” was never ratified by Congress. I would like to point out, the signing of this executive order by these presidents is against Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution of the United States ... which is: the law of the land!
NGOs (non-governmental organizations), are groups that work in partnership with government entities to push environmental controls and “over the top” regulations. The implementation of Agenda 21 was unveiled in 1992 during the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), known as the Rio Earth Summit. These three powerful international NGOs, the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), the World Resource Institute (WRI) and the International Union for Conservation and Nature (IUCN), influence the objectives and methodology of the international environmental agenda in reports such as: World Conservation Strategy, published in 1980; Global Biodiversity Strategy, published in 1992; and Global Biodiversity assessment, published in 1996. I would like you to know, a copy of this biodiversity map has been given to you and further information can be obtained through FreedomAdvocates.org.
Sustainable development has no respect or concern for the human population, but uses the environment as the “guise” to take away our unalienable rights by implementing regulations that force the citizens of this great nation, out of jobs and property. Case in point: the spotted owl (Endangered Species Act) destroyed the timber industry in the Pacific Northwest from Northern California to Canada which not only closed hundreds of mills, but destroyed thousands of jobs, ruining the tax base for many counties and worst of all ... took away the timber tax revenue for schools.
Noticeably, these acts have caused financial hardships and loss of employment to many in Siskiyou County plus those connected economically. The American citizens in most cases are law abiding, support regulations and laws of the environment, and most are stewards of the lands. We do not need nor do we want implemented strategies that require surrendering our God given inalienable rights, which are firmly planted in the U.S. Constitution!
As a veteran of the Vietnam War, I took an oath of support and defend the United States Constitution not only for the sake of its citizenry but also for my family and their future. The “intent” of the document, written by our founding fathers, was to protect this republic and “we the people.” In the government’s decision on dam removal, it will either follow the laws of the land or take a path propagated by the United Nations that does not respect, recognize nor support the United States Constitution!
Page Updated: Friday November 04, 2011 11:46 PM Pacific
Copyright © klamathbasincrisis.org, 2001 - 2011, All Rights Reserved