Mar 27, 2012, Pie n Politics, from
Siskiyou Daily News
PNP
comment: Why does Erica Terence get so much
ink? How does Erica know coho are being
killed? There is no known data proving coho
were ever above above the Lake Shastina
area. There are very few coho in Shasta
River, maybe the 12,000 adult chinook salmon
that returned this year eat the baby coho?
There are lots of fish in the Shasta River,
coho just don’t seem to do well there. So
why should we try to make them live there.
Coho are abundant north of us, cuz they are
a colder water fish. This is an agenda, and
it isn’t about coho. — Editor Liz Bowen
(KBC EDITOR: Board members of Klamath
Riverkeeper, a dam removal advocacy group,
are also voting members of the
KBRA/Klamath
Basin Restoration Agreement. Go to
Craig Tucker Page
for more information on the ringleader.
Siskiyou
Daily News
March 27,
2012
Siskiyou
County — The battle over Dwinell Dam took a
new turn Monday with an announcement by the
Siskiyou County Pomona Grange (SCPG) that
the organization intends to file a counter
suit against Klamath Riverkeeper and the
WaterKeeper Alliance “and all members
combined and separately.”
On Mar.
12 Klamath Riverkeeper (KRK) – a nonprofit
organization that advocates for protection
and restoration of Klamath River salmon
populations – filed a 60-day Notice of
Intent to Sue the Montague Water
Conservation District (MWCD) “for ongoing
operation of Dwinnell Dam and associated
diversions in violation of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA).”
In a
letter to KRK the regional grange
organization – representing all of the
granges in Siskiyou County – called the
threatened lawsuit against the dam
“pernicious to our members, fraudulent in
its accusations and frivolous in its
nature.”
According
to KRK, the MWCD is responsible for alleged
unlawful take of ESA listed coho salmon due
to the effects of its Dwinell Dam and
reservoir (Lake Shastina).
KRK
alleges that the existence and operation of
the dam has degraded the quality and
quantity of habitat for coho by blocking
upstream migration, harming water quality
and altering the hydrology of the Shasta
River.
“The
Montague Water Conservation District has had
15 years to apply for federal ESA take
permits from the National Marine Fisheries
Service since coho salmon were listed as
threatened,” KRK Executive Director Erica
Terence said. “If the district hasn’t done
it by now, it is definitely out of
compliance.”
Both KRK
and the MWCD have been silent on the issue
recently, due to the pending litigation.
The SCPG
letter to KRK states, “Your proposed action,
if successful, will cause irreparable harm
not only to all our members, but also
Siskiyou County in its entirety.”
According
to the grange group, the allegations of
illegal take of coho “are not based on
accepted scientific facts nor are those
facts, as cited, backed up by reputable peer
review of that science.”
The SCPG
says in the letter that they “are not
opposed to helping fish habitat and a
healthy environment.” However, the letter
states, “Our granges and their members are
only interested in a balanced approach that
benefits the environment as a whole.”
Ironically, KRK also stated in a previous
statement regarding the potential lawsuit
that they are also working for a balanced
approach to solving watershed issues.
“We want
to balance water use in the Shasta so that
both farm and fish-dependent communities can
thrive. The two are not mutually exclusive,
but we have to learn how to better share the
resource,” Terence said.
In a
brief statement issued by the MWCD shortly
after KRK issued their intent to file suit,
the district said the environmental advocacy
group’s announcement was “disturbing given
the district has been very pro-active in
making every effort to meet or exceed the
ever-changing regulations governing the
distribution of its members’ water rights.”
According
to the MWCD press release, “The district has
also made substantial efforts to work with
the governing agencies to improve habitat
while preserving their members’ rights.
Unfortunately, the Notice of Intent to Sue
from the Klamath Riverkeeper contains
substantial inaccuracies. The district is
hopeful that once the true facts are known,
the notice will be withdrawn.”
