Klamath deal presented to supervisors

Well, finally the parties come together and start to agree on a solution for the Salmon and the People and their communities. The rest of us are are watching with hope that you can set a needed example to so many that keep the feuds going on other issues.Just down the Coast watching it all unfold. Thanks from Santa Maria.

This is going to be hilariousl Watching all the eco-freak agencies and interest groups trying to out-eco each other over a project that will, by any wild stretch of the imagination, improve the environment (it might take 100 years for the improvement to really manifest itself). Someone will find an endangered algae blooking behind a dam someplace and file an ESA lawsuit. You'll have a new "River-Keeper" variant spring up and sue over some element of methodology (sustainable bio-diesel use in dozers used to dismantle dams). While everybody argues and points fingers, fish will continue to die.

And by the way, how are we going to replace the admittedly limited electricity production from these facilities? New coal plant? Re-activate Humboldt nuke? Wind farm (cough--dead raptors and bats--cough)? I know, we'll all just reduce our usage...yeah, right.

If I were "them"--those presenting the "deal" or the "Agreement in Priniple"--I would stall at whatever cost that was necessary with whatever is necessary to accomplish my goals as a corporation in order for me to make money for my shareholders and myself, all the while thinking to myself and NOT out loud, its just fish.

Since I am not "them", we all still need to follow the money.

I hope one day action will be seen--not heard-- and not books and books of notes taken at a meetings.

Al.

Irrigators not getting water guarantees what a crock, Simmons and all the deal supporters forgot to mention the deal GUARANTEES a minimum of 330,000 acre feet a year to the irrigators and the modeling in the river shows that it will kill fish 40% of the time. The rest if any goes to the river. Funny thing is, the irrigators never had any rights to the river and had no legal means to stop dam removal. They just say they like dams, but the dams that are to be removed do not affect them in any way. No harm comes to them. Why are they there?

Fletcher is wrong that that dams dam removal will take longer if FERC had been properly followed. Unfortunately, none of the deal supporters have any real experience in actual FERC litigation and dam removal. If they did they would understand they don't need to kill the river, give all the water away, and make allow PacificCorp to continue to operate as they have. If they had continued to push FERC upon PacificCorp the river would already see healthy changes. Instead they have allowed it to be continued to be poisoned and played right into PacificCorps relicensing playbook.

So sad, they must have all been drinking the poisoned Klamath river water.

Tough sub-issues within issues created by historical decision makers of years ago. At least everyone still appears cordial in trying to accomplish this MAJOR GOAL (dam removal). Got to give credit to those who are working for a solution(s).

Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville - 5th District

Ten years is a very long time, however, I hope that this is a trend and water CONSERVATION and habitat restoration become a priority for ALL of us.

Jeffrey --

What would have happened if the dams were never put in place?

Where would the northern california Salmon be without the dams?

Giving credit to those who are working diligently at removing the dams I do, but those that are delaying and delaying and delaying I do not.

I am not here to debate you on this, I am here to point out a simple fact. Delay is from the Corporation, not from the people, not from the animals who wish to survive by utilizing the rivers, and certainly not from the people who live by ensuring the river is used properly.

While the Federal Energy Regulatory Commision is a federal agency, it will continue to do the Federal thing... Delay, and since the FERC uses our money, which is unending in and of itself, the delays will continue abound.

I do hope I am wrong. Please prove me wrong.

Al.

Classic. http://humboldtmirror.wordpress.com/2009/11/1...

Adapt and Learn wrote:

Delay is from the Corporation, not from the people, not from the animals who wish to survive by utilizing the rivers, and certainly not from the people who live by ensuring the river is used properly.

Delay is part of the agreement, and without the agreement there will be no salmon. It's a compromise, and without compromise there could be no agreement. Certainly you're not so naive as to insist everything happen when and how you want it to happen, and to withdraw support from it happening at all if it doesn't happen exactly your way and exactly according to your timeframe. That's childish and uninformed.

Wow wrote:

<quoted text>
Delay is part of the agreement, and without the agreement there will be no salmon. It's a compromise, and without compromise there could be no agreement. Certainly you're not so naive as to insist everything happen when and how you want it to happen, and to withdraw support from it happening at all if it doesn't happen exactly your way and exactly according to your timeframe. That's childish and uninformed.

Uninformed is how the dams were constructed and put in.
Who was childish?

Yes, I understand the idea of getting the job done and those working within the time frame. I do not discredit those who are wokring diligently to get the dams removed, because delay is not a part of their plan--as you can read in my last comments, but to have someone commit to a slow time frame is childish as well.

Somone was not thinking properly about the effects of the dam, when money was being flashed in the first place.

Now those who have accomplished the task of building the dams, really do not want it gone, because they (those who regulate as well as own the dams) are profiting from it extensivly at the lives of animals, and climate of those who live on and off of the rivers as a way of life.

Thank you for implying that I am not so Naive. I have participated in many governmental meetings and ultimately have learned what the main agendss are througout those meetings.
Fortunately I am not a part of these meetings.

But one thing I have learned is once man/woamn has commited himself/herself to committees, S/he has already given up what ever S/he stands for.

Before the dams, was there any compromise?
No, but someone negotiated financial compensation for the use of the rivers and as a result it now looks as if the compensated results were not what was expected.

Follow the money...

Al.

I,m going to buy lake front property at a discount thanks N.C.E.C and all you eco nuts .Its about time that you get a taste of your own medicine of sue and delay .let,s just flush the dams clean .And what about the sea lions?

"Uninformed is how the dams were constructed and put in. "
"Somone was not thinking properly about the effects of the dam, when money was being flashed in the first place."
"Before the dams, was there any compromise?"

Al, you're not really addressing the issue of delay (which I assume is your main emphasis) with these statements. You can't go back in time and enforce a timeframe for damn removal, so to reference actions or inactions as the damns were being built is far-fetched and doesn't provide any credence to your stance that delaying damn removal is the root cause of fish dying. While the argument that later is better than never has it's pitfall's, and no one can accurately predict FERC's re-licensing steps that could have kept the damns in place----something had to be negotiated. What we have is a negotiated settlement, read it, absorb it, and then comment on it's merits, try not to attack it with abstract thought patterns, you lose people's interest and possibly their support.

The reporter seems biased, like he's already bought in to the Klamath deals. Every story he does on the topic focuses on the proponents first and for most of the story. This story was a little better with about a 1/3 of the words devoted to the opposition, at the end. There's so much to explore with the opposition. Why doesn't he? Isn't it his job to present both sides fairly and equally? Is he just being lazy and reporting on the junk that is spoon fed to him by PR people? Where's the skepticism?

Jdubya --

One thing I have learned is once man/woamn has commited himself/herself to committees, S/he has already given up what ever S/he stands for.

That was my main point.

Delay, delay and delay are all part of the entire scheme of keeping the dams in place.

I would truly hope that I am wrong and pray that I am wrong, but how many agreements have there been?

I am sure there has only been 1?

Does it feel good that a negotiated settlement has been reached knowing what damage has been done and what is compensated as a result of this damage?

To exclaim that one can not accurately predit the FERC's licensing steps, is almost funny.

"Money talks, crap walks"

Again, I am happy that people are working to get the dams removed. To get the eco systems back in place.

I am happy that this action and "agreement in principle" after 10+ years has taken effect, but why did it take so long?

The owner of the Dams did not care, did they?
They were making money...

Oh, its ok, to not revisit the past, but to move forward and see what can be accomplished or resolved. This tells me that because of my inaction, I am responsible and must negotiate my inactions to actions.

Pacific Corp (if Iam incorrect) owns at least 1 of the dams, and they are making money off of the dam--at least a pretty penny right?
Why would this company want to remove the dam? What would they benefit from removing it?

Oh, wait, they will have to pay to remove it, wont they? If they loose in this agreement, I am sure they are thinking of ways they can make money off of removing it.

Now lets see how long Pacific Corp. can delay the removal process. Maybe get relicensed for another 1+ years?

I am sure someone is thinking, "What harm is there in delaying for another year?" and "Maybe the ecosystems will get better, then we won't have to remove it..."

Why does everyone have to think extensively and in the box, what about thinking so simplisticly, it was simple to create a contract and dam.

What is so difficult in "tearing up that contract".

Really my second point is "follow the money".
Who has got deeper pockets and can continue to delay and delay and dealy?

I truly hope that the dams are removed for the sake of those that live in the area.
for the animals that survive off of the river, human or other. But most of all for the sake of saving face and making a company credible in their own words.

I have seen both Rivers become depleted to the size of creeks over the past 15 years affecting all life along the river.

My personal op is that the dams should have never been installed in the first place.

I could care less about me loosing peoples interest, or their support. I am not here, running for office.

I have the right to express my concerns, just like the rest of those who attend the meetings and negotiated. Do not lecture me on how I should express my concern over this issue.

My hope is that the dam removal process will not take another 10 years. Lets ensure that this "agreement in principle" is effective and responsive to the needs of the valleys, peoples, and animals that utilize it as a source for survival.

Al.

Could someone please explain to me a way that the dams could be removed any sooner than 2020 without the current deals? the opponents of the deal seem to think that we can go up there tomorrow with a cat and backhoe and start the decommision. That is not possible, without these deals it would take much longer or never happen at all.

Steve Edmonson is a veteran of FERC battles, dam removal, fish passage, and an excellent fish biologist. If you don't trust the other folks you should trust him - he knows what he's talking about and is an independent thinker. If you disagree, bring facts, not speculation.

Fact is no dam has been removed without a compromise settlement agreement under FERC or the Clean Water Act - NONE. EVER. PERIOD.

Removing these dams is a matter of life and death for the Klamath River... sign the deals and be vigilant to make sure they are properly implemented.

For a better tomorrow the answer is YES, this is the best, realistic way to remove the dams.

...and to hell with water conservation.

Spoken like a true Phoenician!