Re: [env-trinity] KlamBlog-Before the storm – Behind the scenes
FISH1IFR at aol.com
FISH1IFR at aol.com
Tue Sep 20 15:23:38 PDT 2011
Colleagues....
While Felice's analysis in this KlamBlog post is uniquely his own, is in
my view seriously flawed in several places, or based on his increasingly
obsolete information base (since he is now voluntarily "boycotting" all the
Klamath Basin Coordinating Council (KBCC) public informational meetings),
plus he tends to characterize any meeting he is not personally invited to as
"secretive backroom dealings," his characterization of the next few weeks as
a likely to be a "wild ride" is probably accurate. The Draft EIS for
Klamath Dam Removal, together with a very careful and thorough cost analysis of
dam removal itself, will be coming out on the official web site sometime
tomorrow (_www.klamathrestoration.gov_ (http://www.klamathrestoration.gov) )
together with ALL the many and detailed study reports on which that DEIS is
based.
Interior Secretary Salazar gave an important speech in SF on Sept. 19th in
which he summarized some of the findings on dam removal under the Klamath
Settlement Agreement coming out in the DEIS. The relevant Klamath portion
of that speech is attached below. These are benefits from both the two
components of the Klamath Settlement Agreement -- the hydropower only Klamath
Hydropower Settlement Agreement (KHSA), and the "related program" also
analyzed under NEPA of the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA). Without
the KBRA many of those benefits -- such as a guaranteed water supply for
the National Wildlife Refuges and up to 230,000 more acre-feet of water back
into the river for salmon recovery -- would not exist even with the dams
removed. Though it is a necessary pre-condition, Klamath dam removal alone
will not bring back the Klamath's once mighty salmon runs nor put more
water back into the river.
It is for this reason that PCFFA supports both Agreements.
=============================================
Glen H. Spain, NW Regional Director
Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations (PCFFA)
PO Box 11170, Eugene, OR 97440-3370
O:(541)689-2000 -- Fax:(541)689-2500
Email: fish1ifr at aol.com
Home Page: _www.pcffa.org_ (http://www.pcffa.org/)
========================================================
Klamath portion of interior Secretary Salazar's Speech Today in SF on west
water issues, this section on the impacts of Klamath Dam removal. The
formal Draft EIS/EIR will be released this Thursday (9/21st).
Klamath River Basin
First, in the Klamath River Basin, severe drought and strain on the system
exploded in 2001 with water shortages for agriculture and other users. It
was followed in 2002 by the largest fish die off in the Basin’s history, if
not in U.S. history.
After years of litigation, the parties reached an agreement, signed in
early 2010. Under that agreement, the parties are to undertake a comprehensive
environmental and economic analysis of the impacts of removing four dams
on the Klamath River.
The agreement, which the Obama Administration stands behind fully, sets up
an open, transparent process for choosing the best path for the Klamath
Basin. Science and public engagement are at the heart of the process.
That’s why, for the past several months, the Department has been publicly
releasing the individual science reports as they become final. The Draft
Environmental Impact Statement, which compliments these scientific studies,
will be available for public review and comment beginning Thursday.
The analysis and studies will say a few things.
First, they will show there are pluses and minuses to dam removal on the
Klamath River. The studies estimate that dam removal would result in the
loss of hydroelectric power generation and the loss of around 50 jobs from
managing those facilities. It would also result in the loss of some
recreational opportunities on the Klamath River reservoirs, and some decrease in
property values for landowners nearby.
On the other hand, the watershed-wide restoration program that is proposed
could add more than 4,600 jobs to the regional economy over 15 years,
including around 1,400 during the year of dam removal. The studies say that the
reliability in water supplies that would be gained would boost gross farm
income and add between 70 and 695 jobs annually to the agricultural economy.
Moreover, Klamath restoration would help address tribal trust issues for
the Klamath River Basin Tribes and would be beneficial to their water
quality, fisheries, and traditional cultural practices.
The analysis also suggests there would be benefits to commercial salmon
fishermen. It seems like more often than not in the last decade, there have
been salmon fishery closures in California or Oregon.
With removal of the dams, though:
· coho would reclaim 68 miles of historical habitat;
· steelhead, the Klamath River’s most popular sport fishery, would regain
420 miles of historical habitat; and
· commercially harvested Chinook salmon production would increase by more
than 80 percent .
All together, eleven coastal counties in Oregon and California would see
gains of more than 400 jobs as a result of improved fishing conditions.
Those are significant numbers.
But we will also be looking closely at the cost of the restoration.
The analysis that will be available Thursday will show that the most
probable cost of removing the four dams is around $290 million in 2020 dollars,
which is below the $450 million state cost cap identified in the KHSA.
To date, we have maintained a very public process. But we need the
continued input of the public and local communities on the draft EIS.
Their voices – and all of the economic, environmental, and scientific
information we have gathered - will be critical as I approach my decision on
dam removal in the Klamath River Basin in March, 2012.
====================================================================
In a message dated 9/20/2011 2:52:29 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
tstokely at att.net writes:
_http://klamblog.blogspot.com/2011/09/before-storm-behind-scenes.html_
(http://klamblog.blogspot.com/2011/09/before-storm-behind-scenes.html)
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2011
Before the storm – Behind the scenes
The Coming Storm
In Klamath Country the late summer lull is about to end. As light wanes
and nights become chill the Klamath River – and its controversial Dam and
Water Deals - are about to be in the national headlines again. Soon after the
Fall Equinox the environmental report needed to “inform” a decision on
the Deals by Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar will come out in draft form.
That will kick off a round of review, hearings, teach-ins, newspaper
reports and attempts by promoters, opponents and those who favor key improvements
to promote their different views on the Klamath Dam and Water Deals.
For these extraordinary and perhaps unprecedented* Deals to work, however,
and before the Secretary makes his decision, Congress must pass a bill
authorizing the unusual Deals. According to at least one of the tribe’s
promoting them (the Klamath Tribes), Congress will have to come up with the _full
price tag_
(http://www.capitalpress.com/mobile/TH-klamath-update-w-photos-infobox-091611) for the KBRA or Water Deal. That price tag is nearly $1
billion dollars over ten years.
It is hard to imagine that legislation with a billion dollar price tag
could make it through a divided and cash strapped Congress even if powerful
forces were not opposed. And powerful forces are opposed including Northern
California congressman Tom McClintock (R), the Hoopa Tribe, the basin’s Tea
Party groups and (presumably) other federal tribes across the nation whose
budgets would be raided to provide the tribal share of the ten-year price
tag.
Strange things can happen in Congress, however, when powerful interests
stand to gain. In the Klamath case the big winners in theDeals are members of
not one but three of the West’s most powerful interests:
-- A Power Utility and its major investors
-- Large private irrigation interests receiving taxpayer subsidized
water from federal agencies
-- Federal Land and Resource Agencies
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-dSU31cxG6GQ/TneSgyUlZTI/AAAAAAAAASU/4dmx5vJ8GLw/s1600/Warren+Buffett.jpg)
Warren Buffet: his investment company – Berkshire-Hathaway – owns
PacifiCorp and five Klamath River Dams.
When someone with the power and influence of a Warren Buffet want
legislation to go through the US Congress, many obstacles can be overcome. Buffet’
s Berkshire Hathaway owns PacifiCorp which owns the Klamath Dams.
Compliance with all laws would make the dams a money loser and going the formal
route to dam removal would cost investors/shareholders. The Dam Deal is a much
cheaper alternative for PacifiCorp, Berkshire Hathaway and Buffet. All
that means theDam Deal – under which PacifiCorp’s customers and taxpayers
will foot the total bill for dam removal – has a good chance of making it
through Congress one way or another.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-MqKq359Hu3I/TneT3tnIHLI/AAAAAAAAASY/5jlMu_msAlY/s1600/UpKlamBsnAg_7-2-01+%285%29.jpg)
Klamath Irrigators got what they wanted in the Water Deal. If the deal is
memorialized in federal legislation these irrigators will be first in line
for Klamath Water ahead of at risk salmon and other private irrigators
Whether the Water Deal remains part of the final legislative package is
another story. Due to its cost and the controversy it has generated,
prospects for it to be enacted as negotiated appear slim. The Bureau of Reclamation
and the _Irrigation Elite_
(http://klamblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/meet-klamath-river-basins-irrigation.html) they serve will have a hard time holding
on to the first-in-line-for-Klamath-water provisions they negotiated; the
damage to non-federal irrigators is just too great.
Even if some Water Deal provisions manage to remain in final Klamath dam
removal legislation, however, there is a good chance Congress will make
changes to those provisions. Those who want to fix theWater Deal, not kill it,
have a good chance for success if they are organized, determined and can
find champions in Congress for those changes. For example, a better
guarantee of water for the Klamath Refuges and the _basin-wide flow study_
(http://www.siskiyoudaily.com/news/x1528811269/National-Research-Council-Basin-wide-
study-needed-to-assess-water-flows-in-Klamath) recommended by the National
Research Council in order to properly set in-river flows could become part
of what emerges from Congress.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-nP0d9UoYMdU/TneZfaXLU3I/AAAAAAAAASg/-Uz6TMcOhvY/s1600/Lower+Klamath+Sunset_001.jpg)
Lower Klamath and Tule Lake NWRs - and the 80% of Pacific Flyway birds
which rely upon them - are dependent on the Bureau of Reclamation and the
Irrigation Elite for water supply
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-wwpyN1PWtjg/TnebWaX0WfI/AAAAAAAAASk/nZkavEs9ZZU/s1600/Scott+R+nr+Ft+Jones+10-2-09_001.JPG)
The dewatered Scott River near Fort Jones on October 2, 2009. A basin-wide
flow assessment would encompass major tributaries including the Scott,
Shasta and Trinity.
KlamBlog previously pointed out that the federal land and resource
management agencies– the Bureaus of Reclamation and Land Management and the Forest
, National Marine and National Wildlife Services - collectively known
these days as the “Federal Family” - are the real architects of the Klamath
Deals. Key federal bureaucrats recognized years ago that the likelihood of
dam removal (money loosing dams can’t survive relicensing) presented an
opportunity to get back control of Klamath River Basin water management from the
courts acting on behalf of salmon, fishermen and the federal tribes.
The bureaucrats decided then to try to hitch a Water Deal which suited
them to what would likely be a popular dam removal deal. Without changes,
legislation implementing the Water Deal will provide federal bureaucrats with
what they most desire – the authority to manage water, land and resources
professionally - that is, undemocratically - and out of the public eye.
Whether Congress will go along with undemocratic Water Deal governance
provisions, however, is not clear.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qh9eaChDQfc/Tneqk0klO9I/AAAAAAAAASw/zjhqzLITpas/s1600/federal+bureaucracy.jpg)
Since the opening of the American West, federal bureaucrats have competed
with locals for control of land, water and resources
Historically, these federal agencies – the Bureaus of Reclamation and Land
Management and the Forest, National Marine and National Wildlife Services
- have competed with westerners for control of water, land and resource
management. As KlamBlog has pointed out before, The Water Deal provides for
renewed federal dominance in Klamath water management. Under it decisions on
how water is managed would be made by federal and tribal bureaucrats
meeting behind closed doors.
The alternative to federal back room management is the _democratic
basin-governance model _ (http://bigthink.com/ideas/24964) which was originally
championed by scientist and western explorer John Wesley Powell. We see the
democratic model in operation today in traditional irrigation districts and
in those river basins which have empowered and effective, all-party river
commissions. The closest thing we have seen to that model proposed so far
in the Klamath River Basin is Siskiyou County’s call for an open process to
develop a basin-wide restoration plan.
Behind the Scenes
In advance of the coming legislative battle those who are promoting the
Deals, those who oppose them, and those who want to fix what they consider
fatal flaws are all active.
The Two Rivers Tribune recently _reported _
(http://www.tworiverstribune.com/2011/08/klamath-bill-circulating-in-secret/) that draft legislation to
implement the Dam and Water Deals is “circulating in secret". The Hoopa
Tribe is upset that the feds have not shared the draft bill with them and all
other federal tribes which will be affected by it. Only those tribes and
private parties which signed the Deals have been invited to review and
comment on the draft; the Hoopa and Quartz Valley Tribes and the Resighini
Rancheria have been denied the opportunity to review and comment.
Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley and California Congressman Mike Thompson have
reportedly agreed to sponsor the legislation. Key environmental
constituents who have supported Mike Thompson in the past, have asked him to fix what
they consider fatal flaws in the Dealsin any legislation he sponsors.
There is no indication, however, that Thompson is consulting with these
supporters.
On the opposition side, Siskiyou County’s supervisors are in the midst of
a major effort to get the federal agencies to “consult” with them about
Klamath River and all other land and resource management issues. Four deluded
supervisors out of five apparently believe that_federal managers must
defer_ (http://users.sisqtel.net/armstrng/opinion091311.html) to their local
radical right, anti-tribe sentiment. So far the county supervisors get lip
service from the_Forest Service _
(http://www.siskiyoudaily.com/news/x1249731927/County-KNF-meet-to-discuss-travel-management-policies) which dutifully
appears when called but the National Marine Fisheries Service recently
_refused a similar demand_
(http://www.siskiyoudaily.com/lifestyle/agriculture/x351390313/National-Marine-Fisheries-Service-a-no-show) for them to appear.
Siskiyou County’s radical right supervisors appear convinced that Siskiyou
voters will back their efforts to get the feds to defer to them on water,
land and resource management. In the midst of cuts to most county services,
they recently voted to pay lawyer _Fred Kelly Grant_
(http://justicemyass.com/id1.html) $250 per hour to act as their “coordination counsel”.
A criminal lawyer by profession, in recent years Grant has worked for the
property rights group Stewards of the Range which has now become _American
Stewards of Liberty_ (https://www.americanstewards.us/) . His current
effort is promoted by an organization calling itself _Trademark America_
(http://www.trademarkamerica.org/34.html) . For an introduction to the network of
interconnected property rights organizations see _this link_
(http://www.pollutionissues.com/Pl-Re/Property-Rights-Movement.html) .
While Grant forcefully presents _legal arguments_
(http://www.citizensforaconstitutionalrepublic.com/grant_How_Coordination_Plans_Work.html) for a
federal coordination requirement, he does not site nor has he apparently been
involved with a single court case upholding a requirement that federal
officials defer to county land and resource management plans and policies.
Instead, Grant and the American Stewards of Liberty of which he is a part
appear to be attempting to ride the Tea Party wave into a new era of
county-level political resistance to state and federal authority.
Meanwhile those who see much good in the Klamath Deals but also fatal
flaws are organizing to secure the changes they say are needed. For these
folks the devil is in critical details which they would like to see all
affected citizens understand. The Redwood Chapter Sierra Club, the Environmental
Protection Information Center, Northcoast Environmental Center and Redwood
Chapter of the Audubon Society are sponsoring a teach-in on the Secretarial
Determination Process, the Draft EIS/EIR to inform that decision and the
issues which will arise when Klamath legislation is introduced in Congress.
The teach-in will take place on Wednesday October 19th at the Warfinger
Building in Eureka. Other educational efforts are also being planned.
_Informed Consent_
(http://www.globalforestcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Short-Guide-to-Indigenous-Peoples-Rights.pdf) is a process which
Indigenous Karuk-Yurok leader Chris Peters has stressed is missing from Dam
and Water Dealprocesses. According to Peters - who is a member of the
Yurok Tribe - when Indigenous water and other rights are involved, all tribal
members should be fully informed and a majority of members should give
their consent before the tribal governing body signs on. Oregon’s Klamath
Tribes is the only tribal government to yet hold a referendum on the Deals. That
tribe’s members voted to support the Deals which would provide them with
the means to regain a land and resource base.
Into the light
KlamBlog has pointed out many times how and why secret and back room
dealing has come to dominate Klamath River water, land, resource and restoration
management and decision making. We have not hidden the fact that we see
that dominance as morally, socially and environmentally wrong. Undemocratic,
backroom management by any collection of entities is not in the interest of
the Klamath River or Klamath Salmon.
KlamBlog is a strong advocate for open, democratic and science-driven
water management and restoration because it is the People’s right to see how
public water and public resources are being managed. While back room dealing
will no doubt continue, once the Draft EIS/EIR is released and Klamath
Legislation is introduced into Congress essential decisions will have to be
made in public.
Finally, all those with an interest in the Klamath River will have an
opportunity to understand what is at stake and the trade-offs their leaders
have accepted. All citizens who have a stake will have the opportunity to
weigh in as is their right; the Klamath is – after all is said and done – a
public river.
As public deliberations replace back room shenanigans KlamBlog will be
there enthusiastically pushing for full disclosure, continuing to publicize
what others seek to keep hidden and thereby seeking to empower citizens to
get involved and to make a difference.
It is likely to be a wild ride.
___________________________
* The unprecedented nature of the Dam and Water Deals may be the
combination of a tribal water rights settlement (Klamath Tribes) with a dam removal
deal. Tribal water rights settlements have been going on in the West since
the 80s; for the most part, tribes have traded vast unperfected water
rights for money and other considerations. History will not look kindly on this
second great swindle of America’s Indigenous peoples. The_ proposed
termination of the federal trust responsibility _
(http://digital.law.washington.edu/dspace-law/bitstream/handle/1773.1/1043/1WJELP042.pdf?sequence=4) with
respect to the rights of all six of the Basin’s federally recognized tribes –
whether or not they agree to that termination – also appears to be
unprecedented.
=
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20110920/57da0e1f/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Warren+Buffett.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 7342 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20110920/57da0e1f/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: UpKlamBsnAg_7-2-01+%285%29.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 41637 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20110920/57da0e1f/attachment-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Lower+Klamath+Sunset_001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 24025 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20110920/57da0e1f/attachment-0002.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Scott+R+nr+Ft+Jones+10-2-09_001.JPG
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 47917 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20110920/57da0e1f/attachment.jpe>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: federal+bureaucracy.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 6658 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20110920/57da0e1f/attachment-0003.jpg>
More information about the env-trinity
mailing list