June 23, 2005
TO: Klamath Basin Crisis.ORG
Klamath Bucket Brigade
Klamath Water Users Association

This is really for the people at the "Klamath Courier" but since I can not seem to find an E-mail address for them, much less a web site (at least using Google) I’ll send it to you. If they are going to quote what I said at the Fisheries Task Force meeting in Yreka last week then they might try to be accurate, which they were not.

Not exactly, what I did say was, "That SOME of the dams on the Klamath River should come out". My position on the Klamath River dams is nothing new. I have publicly stated my position many times both as a County Commissioner and as a private citizen. Specifically that, Iron Gate, COPCO 1 & 2, J.C. Boyle, and Chiloquin should come out. Many respected people, including our own Congressman Greg Walden, have agreed to the importance of removing Chiloquin Dam.

The Link River Dam and Keno dams both SHOULD NOT come out. These dams are required for the continued operation of the Klamath Irrigation Project and I have always supported the operation of the Klamath Irrigation Project. In addition the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation had just completed construction of a fish passage system at Link River Dam so it is no longer an obstacle to fish passage. The same needs to be done at Keno Dam which would eliminate the fish passage problem there.

My position is that the loss of the Klamath River anadromous fishery is too big a price to pay for the generation of a total of only 151 MW of electricity by Iron Gate, COPCO 1 & 2, and J.C. Boyle Dams. Today there are too many other options for the generation of what is a relatively small amount of electric energy that have a far smaller impact on the landscape.

I do hope that the new owners of PacifiCorp, a company I worked 12 years for, will negotiate more openly and honestly. PacifiCorp hosted three (3) years of stakeholder meetings where the issue of anadromous fish passage was brought up time and time again. However when PacifiCorp released its draft Klamath River hydro relicensing plan there was NO MENTION OF FISH PASSAGE in the draft. That is an insult to the individuals who spent hundred of hours in those meetings.

So now the "Klamath Courier" has on staff expert hydrologists, limnologists, and biologists and speaks for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation? There have certainly been many opinions offered, including ones from scientists I respect, but I do not believe that any conclusive scientific finding has been made regarding how the Barnes Ranch Project will affect Upper Klamath Lake. Nor do I believe that the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have released any final plan for how they would manage the property, including breaching or not breaching the dikes.

I do believe that the restoration of the Barnes Ranch to some type of managed wetlands is a critical PIECE to the overall solution to water issues in the Klamath Basin. Just as I believe that the ongoing voluntary restoration of riparian zones along the Sprague River by private property owners is also an important PIECE. Oregon Senators Wyden and Smith must also think that the Barnes Ranch Project is important as they lent their bi-partisan support to funding the property acquisition in the 2006 Department of Interior Budget. Storing water naturally in the soil profile, up stream from Upper Klamath Lake, with out the need for extensive infrastructure and pumping just makes sense and cents, if you will excuse the pun.

There is no SILVER BULLET, no single solution to the problems. It will take many solutions, with people working cooperatively up and down the entire length of the Klamath River to solve the complex problems. We have lost too much valuable time and spent too much scarce money since the irrigation water shut-off of 2001 and the fish die-off in the lower Klamath River in 2002. What little time and money is left can not be squandered on squabbling among the many interest who depend on the Klamath River watershed for their existence. I would challenge the Klamath Courier to become part of the solution, rather than inflaming the problem with the reporting of misinformation.

Respectfully,

M. Steven West

West Consulting Group

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Steve West,
My apologies that my article offended you. I reread my article and it wasn't
intended to come across in a negative light.
I did hear you say that the dams should come out but I should have clarified
that that did not mean all the dams...  all but 2. The word 'most', being
omitted did change the meaning of your statement. That was definitely my
oversight, a bad error, and most or all would agree about Chiloquin Dam.

"He said he hoped the sale of PacifiCorp helps restore anadromous fish."  I
think you agreed that was accurate. I think we all hope there will be fish
passage.

On Barnes, I was repeating what I believe has been stated from Karas,
Rykbost, and Whitsett regarding Barnes acquisition effects, granted they are
not hydrologists. Ray Olson previously told me that the hope is for FWS to
breach the dikes for suckers and a FWS pamphlet described their hopes for
acquisition. All the meetings I've attended and reports I've read have
pointed to worse water quality and quantity, even Dr Lewis NRC committee,
but I did not confer with any real hydrologists. Here is a collection of
reports I have read on KBC:
http://www.klamathbasincrisis.org/storage/barnesletters061305.htm

Again, my apologies. Thank you for writing; it was a wake-up call to me to
be more careful what I write and how it comes across.  I try as does Webster
to only print accurate information...that's why I support that paper.

Your letter will clarify your position and any statements that I messed up.
I will ask Daniel Webster at the Courier to print your letter.

Regards,
Klamath Courier reporter