Herald and News articles regarding Klamath County Commissioners meeting to vote on joint letter with Siskiyou County Supervisors opposing controversial Klamath Basin Restoration Agreements

‘Quit standing in our way’ Commission letter angers citizens
 

  By SAMANTHA TIPLER, H&N 11/22/14
 

     Rather than face the Klamath County Commissioners, as the other 30-some speakers did at the meeting addressing Senate Bill 2379 Friday, Matt Walter turned around and faced the room packed with citizens.

   “These commissioners would rather stand on their ideologies than do what’s right for the citizens of Klamath County,”   he said. “These commissioners would rather worship old concrete than what’s best for this county.”

   Walter was speaking about the commissioners’ opposition to dam removal as part of the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement and the Upper Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, all a part of SB 2379, the Klamath Water Recovery and Economic Restoration Act.     Majority who testified opposed commission letter  

   On Friday, commissioners approved a letter opposing the bill which passed the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Nov. 13. The bill must be approved by the full Senate and House before it reaches the president’s desk.

   “What do those dams do for us? How many jobs do those dams supply for us? How much revenue do those dams put into this county?” Walter said. “Now compare that to irrigated agriculture in this county.”

   Dam removal

   Walter joined more than three fourths of the people who testified in favor of the Senate bill and against the commissioners’ letter. The commissioners approved the letter anyway, citing dam removal as their chief concern.  

   “These dams are going to go out anyway. Take that issue aside and look at what’s best for the Klamath Basin,” said Larry Nicholson, from Fort Klamath. “The letter you just read does not represent the majority of people in the Klamath Basin. It absolutely does not.”

   “We’re at risk. The Klamath Basin’s at risk over dams that are worthless, that create more problems than benefit our people,” said Klamath Tribes Chairman Don Gentry.

   Not quite a quarter of the speakers supported the commissioners’ position on the Senate bill and their letter, like Virginia Topham, a Sprague River rancher.

   “All three of you were elected in large part because you opposed the KBRA and dam removal,” she said. “We commend you for honoring your campaign promises and opposing this disastrous, so-called agreement.”

   The future of agriculture

   Marshall Staunton, of Staunton Farms, compared agriculture to the demise of timber mills in Southern Oregon. Without the agreements with dam removal and habitat conservation for fish, agriculture may be doomed as   well, he said.

   “The same strategy that failed the timber industry is being proposed right here as the solution,” Staunton said. “It’s so frustrating. It’s so darn frustrating.”

   Tracey Liskey, a Klamath County farmer, said the commissioners’ stance against the agreements and Senate bill will “destroy” the future for young farmers.

   “Where’s our next generation come from? This town and county is struggling as it is,” Liskey said. “Agriculture, this is the No. 2 product, it’s what puts the most jobs here, the most money. You guys are trying to kill it.”

   “If you want to keep your dams,” said Mark Smith, an agricultural mechanic from Merrill, “I’ll lose my job.”

   A direct message

   Some addressed the commissioners directly, like Gary Derry, a Klamath Project irrigator.

   “I’m here today to tell you, you need to support this agreement or you need to come up with your own solution. At least that’s what I’ve told you in the past,” he said. “Your time’s up. Support the agreement. You don’t have a solution. Quit standing in our way.”

   But Walter still addressed the people of the county present at Friday’s meeting.  

   “I ask the citizens of Klamath County to support these agreements as written,” Walter said. “As far as the commissioners writing letters, they can do all the letters they want that represents their personal views. But as far as I’m concerned, their letter does not represent the views of myself and the citizens of Klamath County.”

    stipler@heraldandnews.com  ; @TiplerHN    

  Klamath Tribes Chairman Don Gentry addresses the Klamath County commissioners. Gentry emphasized that dam removal is a key component of the Klamath Settlements.

 

 

 

 

 

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

http://pioneer.olivesoftware.com/Olive/ODE/heraldandnews/default.aspx

Commissioners approve letter opposing Klamath water bill
 

  By SAMANTHA TIPLER, Herald and News 11/22/14
 

     Even after two hours of public testimony in which more than three-fourths of the citizens were against the decision, the Klamath County Commissioners voted to sign and send their letter opposing Senate Bill 2379, the Klamath Water Recovery and Economic Restoration Act.

   Friday afternoon, people filled the commissioners hearing room, an overflow room and the hallway outside to listen to and give comment on their support for, or opposition to, the Senate bill which encompasses the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement and the Upper Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement.  

   On Nov. 13, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee passed the bill to the Senate floor. The bill must be approved by the full Senate and House before it reaches the president’s desk.

   On Nov. 14, commissioners began drafting a letter voicing their opposition to the bill. Friday they approved it.

   “I would say stay the course,” said commissioner Tom Mallams. “The philosophy of our Founding Fathers, they didn’t give up. They fought to the very end.”

   Their key issue about the agreements and the Senate bill? The removal of four PacifiCorp dams on the Klamath River.  

   “I would like to see it out of this agreement, the dam removal,” said commission chairman Jim Bellet. “And then I think you would get an awful lot of support. I think this is what everybody’s hung up on. I would like to see it taken out.”

   Approving the letter

   Just before the commissioners approved the letter, after Mallams made a motion to approve the letter and Commissioner Dennis Linthicum seconded the motion, Bellet made a suggestion.

   “We could not send it,” Bellet said. “To not send the letter would be a decision also.”

   His suggestion didn’t get traction. All three commissioners voted in favor of sending the letter.  

   Earlier in the meeting, Bellet voiced his doubts about the impact of the letter in the Capitol.

   Bellet said it means more to the local community.

   With the short time before Congress finished for the year, Bellet doubted SB 2379 would make it through the full Senate and House all the way to the president.

   “I’m afraid that this is going to die. If it doesn’t die on the Senate floor, it’s going to die in the House. And if it dies, then what?” Bellet said. “Our little letter is not going to make any difference to this living or dying in Washington, D.C. ... I guarantee this letter is not going to make the difference in their vote. But it is stating our position, a position we’ve had for a long period   of time.”

   Mallams’ arguments

   Mallams said he believes the Klamath Basin needs a settlement, but that SB 2379 isn’t it.

   “I don’t feel this meets the criteria of a long-term settlement,” he said. “It just doesn’t pass that test.”

   He listed a few alternatives, like dredging Upper Klamath Lake and offstream storage. He said the agreements have good   parts and pieces.

   “But as a whole package? No,” Mallams said. “Settlement is about give and take. I fully support compromise and settlement. But I refuse to surrender. And what this is right now, what I feel, is surrender.”

   Linthicum’s arguments

   Linthicum rallied against the federal government’s hand in local affairs.

   “I think Klamath County, Siskiyou County, Modoc County, Eastern Oregon counties ought to stand on their own two feet, generate their own productive capacity, and tell the federal government they’ve had enough,” Linthicum said. “Now that may scare you, and I may sound like a radical but by golly, at some point we’ve got to stand up for the natural   resource environment that we live in.”

   Linthicum said the commissioners’ letter gives voice to the taxpayers.

   “Who pays the bill? The taxpayer and the ratepayer,” he said. “It’s time to give those people some voice. I would like to give them a voice by approving the letter as it’s written.”

    stipler@heraldandnews.com  ; @TiplerHN  

  H&N photo by Lacey Jarrell

   Klamath County Commissioner Jim Bellet listened to comments about the Klamath Settlements from more than 30 community members Friday. Bellet and commissioners Tom Mallams and Dennis Linthicum unanimously voted to send a letter to Senate leaders opposing a key element of the settlement agreement.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMISSIONERS’ LETTER - Those tied to water pact react;  A ‘discouraging day’ for several Basin residents

by LACEY JARRELL 11/23/14 Herald and News

Disappointed, but not surprised, is the sentiment several Basin residents expressed about the county commissioners’ decision to sign and send a letter opposing the Klamath Settlements.

More than 30 residents attended a Klamath County commission work session Friday to comment on a letter protesting Klamath Water Recovery and Economic Restoration Act (SB 2379), which encompasses the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA), Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement and the Upper Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement.

On Nov. 13, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee passed the SB 2379 to the Senate floor. The bill must be approved by the full Senate and House before it reaches the president’s desk. Klamath citizens showed up en force and provided two hours of public testimony — nearly three-quarters of the testimony supported SB 2379 — asking the commissioners to reconsider their stance and withdraw the letter.

“What a discouraging day. What a blatant example of not listening to the people where you live,” off-project rancher Becky Hyde said.

“I think it was nothing short of outrageous to have so much community support for these agreements in the room, from across agriculture — both on- and off-project.”

On-project farmer Steve Kandra called the commissioners’ action “short-sighted,” and characterized it as a “political statement, not a practical statement.”

“SB 2379 is about restoration and assurance for water supply — to say it’s only about dam removal is incomplete,” Kandra said. “It was surreal how the commissioners ignored what the constituency was saying.”

The three agreements that make up SB 2379, crafted by several water users and stakeholders, attempt to establish reliable water supplies and affordable power rates for irrigators. The pact also focuses on providing an economic package for the Klamath Tribes, restoring aquatic and riparian habitat in tributaries of Upper Klamath Lake and removing four dams on the Klamath River.

Klamath Tribes Chairman Don Gentry admitted he was disappointed with the commissioners’ decision. He pointed out that the tribal membership voted for the full KBRA package — including dam removal — and said he doesn’t understand how the commissioners’ think the dam component can be removed and support will still be maintained.

“We’ve agreed to honor the agreements in the interim, and it’s really assisted agriculture, but we haven’t seen any significant movement in the dam removal and restoration component — all the items that make it work for the Klamath Tribes,” Gentry said.

“The parties worked long and hard to achieve the balance we have,” Gentry said. “Just from the Tribes’ perspective, anything different than what we agreed to would have to go back to our members.”

On-project farmer and rancher John Hall said he supports the commissioners’ decision to oppose dam removal.

“To me it’s insanity to pull these dams out,” Hall said.

Hall added that the possibility of future water calls by the Klamath Tribes are not a concern for him. He emphasized that every year is filled with uncertainty.

In his testimony before the commissioners, Gentry said without a settlement agreement, the Tribes may make full water calls in future drought years. Gentry said that is not an action the Tribes want to take, especially after the work stakeholders put in at the negotiation table.

“That the commissioners would make a decision whether the agreements work for us or not — that seems so silly to me,” Gentry said. “It’s amongst the parties who have a real stake in this. They’ve basically come to an agreement that works for us. I don’t quite understand how the commissioners feel like it has to be their call.”

ljarrell@heraldandnews.com? ; @LMJatHandN

====================================================

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml