In the midst of a power and water shortage, how does government “solve” the problem? By making it worse.
“Risks in large projects can be partially mitigated by having generous budgets. However, in the case of the world’s largest proposed dam removal project, being subject to what can be easily argued as a grossly inadequate budget, we find a perfect recipe for project shortcuts leading to the potential for a huge environmental disaster, a massive budget shortfall and the resulting unexpected extreme liabilities for taxpayers. This is in addition to numerous other known and unresolved issues related property damage and devaluation, among the list.
We have already seen smaller project outcomes that spell disaster for the massively underfunded KRRC dam removal budget, which puts Oregon and California taxpayers on the hook, for what could be a massive financial liability at a time when state budgets are strained to the max from wildfire disasters and COVID economics.
History of a much smaller dam removal project cost over-runs; a red flag for the larger more complex Klamath dam removal project.”No water, no power. Bad for fish. Bad for the environment. That is the current Democrat policy? We should be screaming to stop them before they kill the economy.
News Provided By Wild
Horse Ranch Productions, 7/15/21
https://www.einpresswire.com/sources/u442873
by Richard Marshall, Siskiyou County Water Users Association
Famous engineer and dam builder J.C. Boyle documented a naturally formed 31-foot-tall lave dam that was holding back a lake in 1913 during the construction of Copco 1 dam. No migratory fish could get past this natural dam.
J.C. Boyle’s narrative and drawing that shows the naturally formed 31-foot-tall lava dam holding back a natural lake called ‘Clammittee Lake’
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), California and Oregon Legislators have been seriously misinformed by Minority Consensus Stakeholders
Salmon migration on the Klamath River was prevented beyond Ward Canyon by natural forces that have been in-play for millions of years, and right up until the time Copco 1 dam was built.”
— Richard Marshall – President, Siskiyou County Water Users Association
YREKA, CALIFORNIA, UNITED STATES, July 15, 2021 /EINPresswire.com/
— Recently uncovered obscured evidence
shows that the Klamath River Dam removal project as
presented to FERC and legislators by the non-profit
shell-company Klamath River Renewal Corporation (‘KRRC’) is
seriously flawed in several regards.
The grossly understated costs and liabilities that would be
shoved upon the weary shoulders of taxpayers, coupled with a
real potential for serious and widespread environment
damage, makes this project reckless at best.
POINT NUMBER ONE:
Klamath River Salmon Migration Theory Disproved
Facts Show Salmon never migrated past the site of
current-day Copco 1 dam (Ward Canyon).
The key reason that has been widely promoted as the logic
behind the removal of the four structurally sound Klamath
River Dams is that they are blocking the migration of
salmon. This idea has been the conjecture of the minority
consensus.
There is no hard evidence of any historic salmon migration
past Ward Canyon on the Klamath River, which is the
present-day site of Copco 1 dam.
Compelling evidence that has been obscured until now shows
that salmon never made it past Ward Canyon and the location
of the present-day Copco 1 dam. And that compelling evidence
thwarts the entire logic for the dam remove project in
itself.
In fact, the evidence is literally ‘rock-hard’, as in a
naturally-formed 31-foot-tall lava dam that existed for
millennia, and was present in 1913 and holding back water in
a lake called ‘Clammittee Lake’, at the time construction
began on the Copco 1 dam, according to a drawing and
narrative by famous engineer and dam builder, J.C. Boyle.
SEE IMAGES of dam-builder/engineer J.C. Boyle’s drawing and
narrative:
Over the course of the past millions of years, there were
natural dams formed by lava flows that, in addition to the
31-feet-tall dam, blocked the river. All of these naturally
occurring high dams were impassable by any salmon runs. One
of those naturally formed dams was a 130-feet-tall and
formed a large lake, named ‘Clammittee Lake’ which is
present day Copco Lake.
From ‘The Economist’ (July 10, 2021 edition):
“Some argue that lava flows now submerged by the dams have
stopped many salmon migrating farther upriver since time
immemorial. This is why salmon don’t appear in upriver
ancestral stories of the Shasta Nation, an indigenous group
in the area, says its chief, Roy Hall. He attributes the
dwindling salmon more to global warming, and calls the
removal of the dams “environmental madness”. Once the lakes
are drained, he fears that Shasta burial sites now
underwater will be desecrated by pottery hunters.”
The area of the Klamath River that is being targeted by the
fishery-zealots happens to be the ancestral homeland of the
indigenous Shasta Nation.
POINT NUMBER TWO:
Salmon Runs Failing Due to Ocean
Conditions and Wildfires,
Not Klamath Dams
Science proves that salmon runs are failing due to ‘ocean
conditions’ exacerbated by post-wildfire sedimentation
suffocating salmon eggs (catastrophic erosion). https://www.einnews.com/pr_news/546080267/catastrophic-wildfires-devastating-salmon-runs-not-klamath-river-dams-wild-horses-offer-partial-solution
The culprit in failing salmon runs, along with changing
ocean conditions, is the heavy post-wildfire silting-in of
the spawning gravels (aka ‘redds’) in the Klamath river and
its tributary stream beds that suffocates the deposited fish
eggs in the late fall and early winter.
Abnormally hot catastrophic wildfires destroy all of the
vegetation and riparian areas, including fire-evolved trees,
on the landscape. These abnormally hot wildfires also
pasteurize the soils, killing the microbiome in soils and
devastating the root systems that are critical in
maintaining soil stabilization. This in turn results in
catastrophic erosion when the fall and winter rains arrive.
The extreme intensity of the catastrophic erosion is
demonstrated by how parts of HWY–1 have broken off into the
Pacific Ocean as a result of the post wildfire catastrophic
erosion.
From GeoEngineer:
“Scientists believe that the ground failure is associated
with the wildfires that have devastated California in the
past years. The absence of vegetation makes the absorption
of rainwater impossible and results in extensive floods and
in debris flows like the one that triggered the current
failure. The area of the collapse lies near a region that
was impacted by the Dolan fire (August 2020) and received
more than 15.75-inches of precipitation.
POINT NUMBER THREE:
Klamath Dam Removal Budget Grossly Inadequate
Facts prove that the budget that Klamath River Renewal
Corporation (‘KRRC’) has been selling everyone is
dangerously insufficient!
The recently formed shell corporation called the Klamath
River Renewal Corporation (‘KRRC’), was created to shield
the profitable Pacific Corp (a Warren Buffet – Berkshire
Hathaway company) from what they recognized as an unlimited
liability associated with tearing down the dams on the
Klamath River.
‘Klamath River Renewal Corporation’ is an interesting name
for a non-profit whose sole mission is to protect the
profits of a wealthy company, while destroying the four dams
and the environment in the Klamath River Basin. It’s part of
the overall charade.
KRRC has pitched a $450-million budget (“guaranteed budget”)
as being adequate for the proposed project. However, this is
an ambitious project that is in fact the world’s largest
ever dam removal project to remove four dams on the wild and
scenic Klamath River Basin.
There is also no doubt that the proposed project is laden
with huge risks and obstacles that have never seen before at
every phase. That risk and massive liability is like a ‘hot
potato’ that Pacific Corp dumped right into the laps of
American taxpayers.
In a recent Decision and Order (https://www.ferc.gov/media/h-1-p-2082-062)
by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (‘FERC’), item
number 34 warns that:
“As part of the January 13, 2021 transfer application, the
States of Oregon and California have agreed to be
co-licensees with the Renewal Corporation; thus, the States
will not be shielded from liability.”
Risks in large projects can be partially mitigated by having
generous budgets. However, in the case of the world’s
largest proposed dam removal project, being subject to what
can be easily argued as a grossly inadequate budget, we find
a perfect recipe for project shortcuts leading to the
potential for a huge environmental disaster, a massive
budget shortfall and the resulting unexpected extreme
liabilities for taxpayers. This is in addition to numerous
other known and unresolved issues related property damage
and devaluation, among the list.
We have already seen smaller project outcomes that spell
disaster for the massively underfunded KRRC dam removal
budget, which puts Oregon and California taxpayers on the
hook, for what could be a massive financial liability at a
time when state budgets are strained to the max from
wildfire disasters and COVID economics.
History of a much smaller dam removal project cost
over-runs; a red flag for the larger more complex Klamath
dam removal project.
“Removal of the Elwha Dam began in September 2011 and was
finished in spring 2012, ahead of schedule. Removal of the
second dam, the Glines Canyon Dam, was completed on August
26, 2014. The dam removal process was originally projected
to last two and a half to three years. The estimated cost of
removing both dams was $40 to $60 million. The total cost of
the Elwha River restoration is approximately $351.4
million.” ~ Wiki
Another accounting of the ‘projected costs’ regarding
removal of the two Elwha dams, a smaller and simpler dam
removal project, compared to the actual costs should be a
red-flag for the costs of the much larger and far more
ambitious project and estimated budge of $450-million to
remove four Klamath River dams:
Budget for Klamath Dam removal project pitched by KRRC was
already obsolete prior to 2020 and due to the impact of
COVID economics.
The budget for the removal of the four (4) dams on the
Klamath River was calculated using economic costs and
metrics that were already many years old prior to the
beginning of COVID economics, which began in 2020.
Of course, anyone in business knows that if projected costs
are based on a ‘best case’ outcome, and a mediocre, or worse
yet, a bad outcome evolves, costs, damages and liabilities
can escalate very quickly and steeply.
There’s no doubt that dam construction, and dam destruction
requires much of the same skills, heavy equipment,
materials, labor, fuels and insurance; therefore, the
comparison is valid.
The Associated General Contractors of America has issued a
new report and graph-analyses showing the huge impacts that
COVID economics (period April 2020 thru February 2021) has
had on skyrocketing costs related to construction projects.
The Associated General Contractors of America study
exemplifies the huge cost increases and long delays that
have only recently occurred, and certainly years-after
KRRC’s budget projections for their dam removal project were
calculated.
For the purpose of cost-impact analyses, the COVID economics
study began in April 2020 thru February 2021. (https://www.agc.org/sites/default/files/AGC 2021
Inflation Alert – Ver1.1.pdf).
The Q-1 2021 Associated General Contractors of America
report stated:
“The construction industry is currently experiencing an
unprecedented mix of steeply rising materials prices,
snarled supply chains, and staffing difficulties, combined
with slumping demand that is keeping many contractors from
passing on their added costs.
This combination threatens to push some firms out of
business and add to the industry’s nearly double-digit
unemployment rate. The situation calls for immediate action
by federal trade officials to end tariffs and quotas that
are adding to price increases and supply shortages.
Officials at all levels of government need to identify and
remove or lessen any unnecessary or excessive impediments to
the importation, domestic production, transport, and
delivery of construction materials and products.
Project owners need to recognize how much conditions have
changed for projects begun or awarded in the early days of
the pandemic or before and to consider providing greater
flexibility and cost-sharing. Contractors should become even
more vigilant about changes in materials costs and expected
delivery dates and should communicate the information
promptly to current and prospective clients.
This report is intended to provide all parties with better
understanding of the current situation, the impact on
construction firms and projects, its likely course in the
next several months, and possible steps to mitigate the
damage.”
In consideration of the foregoing and other
budget-influencing factors; the half-decade-old KRRC budget
of $450-million, if properly adjusted for inflation over the
past 6-years, and adding in greatly increased costs related
to ‘COVID economics’, would conservatively represent a
budget of $900-million, if all goes perfect.
This brand-new report from the Associated General
Contractors of America report spells financial disaster for
KRRC’s project. And the burden of that disaster will surely
fall upon the weary shoulders of California and Oregon
taxpayers.
POINT NUMBER FOUR:
If consensus minority groups can work-around obtaining
Congressional approval for nullifying the effect of the
Klamath River Basin Compact Act, what Congressional act will
fall prey to such shenanigans in the future?
If the destruction of the Klamath River dams and lakes
created by the Klamath River Basic Compact Act (‘Act’) is
allowed to happen, it sets a dangerous legal precedent that
erodes the American democratic process and the power of the
U.S. Congress.
The proposed destruction of the water related resources
created under that Act, would deprive Americans of the
Congressionally enacted ‘beneficial uses’ stemming from the
45-billion gallons of fresh water stored in Copco and Iron
Gate Lakes. That reserve of water, which is precious to
human survival during the current extreme drought and
wildfire conditions, was provided under the auspices of the
Klamath River Basin Compact Act, which states:
“The provisions of said Klamath River Basin Compact are as
follows:
Article I. Purposes
The major purposes of this compact are, with respect to the
water resources of the Klamath River Basin:
A. To facilitate and promote the orderly, integrated and
comprehensive development, use, conservation and control
thereof for various purposes, including, among others: the
use of water for domestic purposes; the development of lands
by irrigation and other means; the protection and
enhancement of fish, wildlife and recreational resources;
the use of water for industrial purposes and hydroelectric
power production; and the use and control of water for
navigation and flood prevention.
B. To further intergovernmental co-operation and comity with
respect to these resources and programs for their use and
development and to remove causes of present and future
controversies by providing (1) for equitable distribution
and use of water among the two states and the Federal
Government, (2) for preferential rights to the use of water
after the effective date of this compact for the anticipated
ultimate requirements for domestic and irrigation purposes
in the Upper Klamath River Basin in Oregon and California,
and (3) for prescribed relationships between beneficial uses
of water as a practicable means of accomplishing such
distribution and use.”
If the dams are removed, the loss of the clean,
hydroelectric power from the Klamath River dams that
supplies electrical service to 70,000 homes and businesses
in Oregon and California would be gone. If these dams are
senselessly removed, those businesses and homes will end up
using electricity coming for the burning of fossil fuels,
and thereby accelerating climate change.
POINT NUMBER FIVE:
The intentional destruction of habitat critical to the
survival of numerous species of flora and fauna as well as
the ‘incidental take’ of at risk birds during the proposed
dam removal project is an ecological and environmental
travesty and is illegal.
Both Copco and Iron Gate Lakes are critical seasonal
habitats for numerous migratory birds, both game birds and
non-game birds, as well as the habitat for numerous native
species of birds. And during the growing drought and ‘water
crises’, these fresh water lakes are becoming far and few
between, forming an oasis of life.
The newly passed bill, Assembly
Bill 454, changes sections of
California statues that historically deferred to the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act now making it clear that the
incidental but avoidable killing and loss of migratory
nongame birds is still against state law. The National
Audubon Society endorsed the measure.
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and the state
Department of Fish & Wildlife, stating that incidental take
remained illegal in California regardless of federal policy.
Richard Marshall
Siskiyou County Water Users Association