[env-trinity] Speak For the Klamath FRIDAY APR 1 at Bayside Grange????
summerhillfarmpv at aol.com
summerhillfarmpv at aol.com
Wed Mar 30 18:03:58 PDT 2011
I knew when I replied that I'd get this type of response back. I'm not
interested in continued exchanges, only in getting this done, realizing some
will battle to the end to block. The perfect is the enemy of the good in
this case. Opinions are unlikely to change, and the proof will be in the
doing. Tom, I respect you, just don't agree.
Mark R.
In a message dated 3/28/2011 11:03:19 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
t.schlosser at msaj.com writes:
Bill's point about utility regulation is generally right but I think
PacifiCorp cannot show that incurring the cost of providing up/down fish passage
is recoverable from ratepayers. FERC won't mandate those improvements but
their offer of a license will be conditioned on acceptance of the costs of
improvements. PacifiCorp will reject that license. Their submissions to the
Oregon PUC and the CPUC in support of surcharging ratepayers to raise funds
for dam removal showed that dam removal was the most cost effective
solution. I don't think they can change their minds now and say that the public
interest favors incurring the larger costs and risks of building volitional
passage. The OPUC's informative but length _order on the subject is here_
(http://www.schlosserlawfiles.com/~hoopa/Surchargeorder091610.pdf) .
Mark's claim that "in most years there will be much more water going to
the river than in the past, especially during dry years" is just hogwash.
This compares the river trickles released by Reclamation (in defiance of the
ESA and the needs of fish from 1974 until 2001) with the post KBRA flows. A
fairer comparison is between the ESA BiOp and KBRA: the KBRA does not fare
better in that comparison, indeed it seeks to reduce the ESA requirements.
Mark's efforts to "prevent waiver of the ESA requirements in the
critically dry years" failed. Instead, he and other parties agreed in sec. 21.3.1.B
to support changes in the BiOp requirements in order to facilitate the
Reclamation diversions of water that have nearly destroyed the fishery. That
subsection says:
" ii. Support for Regulatory Approvals of Diversion Limitations
a. Each such Party shall support the issuance of Regulatory Approvals for
diversion of water for the Klamath Reclamation Project subject to the
diversion limitations identified in Appendix E-1, including the obligations of
Federal and State Agency Parties stated in Section 21.3.1.A."
The draft drought plan doesn't change any of this--one of the reasons all
should comment on it before the April 15, 2011 deadline.
And one final sore point--the "nearly $600 million was already committed
to the Klamath basin recovery, so to say we're adding a $1 Billion dollar
deal here is not totally accurate" The idea of reprogramming $600 million of
federal funding in the Basin--money going to things like the Trinity River
Restoration Program--to pay instead for the huge subsidies to irrigation
pumpers and the "on-project water plan" is just ridiculous.
Tom
The claim that
On 3/28/2011 10:12 AM, _summerhillfarmpv at aol.com_
(mailto:summerhillfarmpv at aol.com) wrote:
Tom, Bill, et all, I think we are getting distracted from the real issues
here. We have differing opinions on what the KHSA and KBRA will do for the
river and fishery. Some say it means less water for the river and some
the opposite. The fact is that in most years there will be much more water
going to the river than in the past, especially during dry years. Take a
look at the graphs on historical diversions vs. what will happen under the
KBRA. Glen Spain and I worked for nearly 2 months to prevent waiver of the
ESA requirements in the critically dry years, so meeting the BiOp
requirements is still required, and thus the ag allotment can be lowered based on
that if needed. It's true, more water is going to Ag than we in the
negotiations wanted, but that was the compromise we made based on additional
restoration, ground water management and over-sight, along with a volunteer water
right reduction program for upper basin Ag.
Tom Hardy was very clear in our science meeting in Mt. Shasta that he felt
the reduced flows in the river under drought conditions would work for
fish as long as the dams were out. My memory was that flows as low as 700 cfs
would support the fishery. I realize Hoopa biologist disagreed, as did
Bill Trush, but all others agreed with Tom (24 biologists).
The KBRA and KHSA are not perfect agreements only because they don't
provide everything the environmental community and Tribes would like. That
said, if they were perfect to all of us, it never would have reached the
agreement state we now have. Frankly, all sides have to feel they can "live with
the final agreement" and that is what happened. No side felt "they won",
yet neither did they feel they lost.
Let's not forget that nearly $600 million was already committed to the
Klamath basin recovery, so to say we're adding a $1 Billion dollar deal here
is not totally accurate. Pacific Corp has done their work to determine what
is in their best interest and that is the KHSA, and I don't think any of
the rest of us want the dams to stay. This is the best path forward in the
shortest amount of time. Why can't we work together to get it done instead
of fighting over who is right? The deals are only as good as the effort
put in to get them completed. If the two deals get completed the basin will
be better off than today, and we have the chance to have salmon and
steelhead in the upper basin for the first time in nearly 100 years.
Implementation of the other pieces are critical to flows, and that needs to get
completed. Undermining the agreements only means that none of it gets completed,
which I see as a huge loss for the basin, its communities and the fishery.
Mark Rockwell
In a message dated 3/28/2011 9:48:04 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
_kierassociates at suddenlink.net_ (mailto:kierassociates at suddenlink.net) writes:
Tom
With the greatest respect and regard for your counsel, believe me, Ive
just got to stick my oar in here :
At the time of the administrative proceedings in Sacramento - when was
that, 2007 ? - most of the fish agency folks thoroughly believed your
proposition, below, that 'The only license FERC can issue to PacifiCorp will
require construction of full volitional fish passage, work so expensive that
PacifiCorp will remove the dams instead.'
The prob with the way that we regulate utilities, however, is that the
utility can recover the full cost of mandated improvements to its assets -
plus its established rate of profit - X% on top of its (the ratepayers') out
of pocket costs
So the world of utility regulation is this sort of upside-down business
model where greater expenses actually add profit (and dividends for the
utilities' shareholders) - goofy, I know, and hard to keep one's brain wrapped
around - but that's the way it is.
The volitional fish passage work, had it been the path taken, would have
been idiotic - but profitable to the utility/ its shareholders
That said, I, too, wish for satisfaction of PacifiCorps' Clean Water Act
responsibilities.
'Best to all,
Bill
At 08:58 AM 3/28/2011, Tom Schlosser wrote:
Please note that this event raises funds for the legislative effort that's
very questionable and quite controversial in the Basin.B The legislation
demanded by PacifiCorp and the other KHSA parties must also ratify the
KBRA, complete with its unfair allocation of water away from the Klamath River,
and its required billion in federal appropriations. Rather than lobbying
Congress for this poorly designed legislation, parties should be lobbying
the SWRCB and ODEQ to complete their CWA Sec. 401 application processes and
let the FERC process resume.B The only license FERC can issue to PacifiCorp
will require construction of full volitional fish passage, work so
expensive that PacifiCorp will remove the dams instead. FERC has a decommissioning
policy that works. See Tacoma v. FERC
_http://www.msaj.com/cases/051054a.pdf_ (http://www.msaj.com/cases/051054a.pdf)
Legislation isn't necessary for dam removal. PacifiCorp made a deal (with
some groups and pols) which has no fixed removal date. They like that.
They're cheerfully watching the process go sideways, ...which they have every
right to do under the KHSA. Folks need to read the documents carefully and
examine the exit options.
Tom
On 3/27/2011 3:09 PM, Byron Leydecker wrote:
B
B
From: Dan Bacher [_ mailto:danielbacher at fishsniffer.com_
(mailto:danielbacher at fishsniffer.com) ]
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2011 1:49 PM
Subject: Speak For the Klamath FRIDAY APR 1 at Bayside Grange!
B
Below is information about a great event hosted by the Klamath Justice
Coalition and Klamath Riverkeeper in Arcata this Friday, April 1, at 6 p.m.
B
Thanks
Dan
B
Dear friends,
B
This Friday, April 1 is the Speak for the Klamath fundraiser hosted by the
Klamath Justice Coalition and Klamath Riverkeeper at the Bayside Grange in
Arcata (flyer attached). It would be great to see you there.
B
The event features frybread tacos, local beer and wine, an auction of
local art, film shorts, spoken word, live music and t-shirt sales. Doors open
at 6 p.m., and there's a suggested $10 donation. Proceeds from the event
will help send a delegation of Klamath River activists to Washington D.C. to
advocate dam removal on the Klamath.
B
We'd really appreciate your support, whether it's by attending the event,
volunteering (if you or someone you know can volunteer, please e-mail me)
or spreading the word! Become a shareholder in one of the world's largest
restoration projects and join the movement to restore an almost 16,000 square
mile ecosystem.
B
Erica Terence
Conservation Director/Executive Director
Klamath Riverkeeper
PO Box 751
Somes Bar, CA 95568
B
530.627.3311 (office)
530.340.5415 (cell)
B
_http://www.klamathriver.org_ (http://www.klamathriver.org/)
B
B
Byron Leydecker
Chair, Friends of Trinity River
PO Box 2327
Mill Valley, CA 94942-2327
415 383 4810 land
415 519 4810 mobile
_bwl3 at comcast.net_ (mailto:bwl3 at comcast.net)
_bleydecker at stanfordalumni.org_ (mailto:bleydecker at stanfordalumni.org)
_http://www.fotr.org_ (http://www.fotr.org/)
B
B
B
B
_______________________________________________
env-trinity mailing list
_
env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us_
(mailto:env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us)
_
http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity_
(http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity)
--
_Important notices_
(http://www.schlosserlawfiles.com/CONFIDENTIALITY%20NOTICE%20040606.pdf)
_______________________________________________
env-trinity mailing list
_env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us_
(mailto:env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us)
_http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity_
(http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity)
Kier Associates, Fisheries and Watershed Professionals
P.O. Box 915
Blue Lake, CA 95525
707.668.1822
mobile: 498.7847
_http://www.kierassociates.net
_ (http://www.kierassociates.net/) GSA Advantage Contractor GS-10F-0124U
_______________________________________________
env-trinity mailing list
_env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us_
(mailto:env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us)
_http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity_
(http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity)
--
_
Important notices_
(http://www.schlosserlawfiles.com/CONFIDENTIALITY%20NOTICE%20040606.pdf)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20110330/1d9c41f7/attachment.html>
More information about the env-trinity
mailing list