water bill needs improvements Klamath dams Danny Hull biologist water quality 020115

Our Klamath Basin Water Crisis
Upholding rural Americans' rights to grow food,
own property, and caretake our wildlife and natural resources.

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

Water bill still needs improvement, dealings with dams, specifically, could be much better for the Basin

by DANNY HULL, Guest Commentary, Herald and News 2/1/15.

Guest Writer

My current vote with the President of the United States of America, the U.S. Congress, and Oregon and Klamath County Government personnel, is against the U.S. Senate Bill 133 Klamath Water Recovery and Economic Restoration Act, and for both retaining the Klamath River hydroelectric dams, and improving those dams with fish passageway modification(s), where such improvement is most necessary.

Here are reasons why I prefer to keep and improve fish passageways for the Klamath River hydroelectric dams:

1. The U.S. Department of the Interior should purchase the Klamath River hydroelectric dams and manage those dams for multiuse of the Klamath River, including anadromous fish migration, Klamath Basin and California agriculture irrigation, Tulelake and Lower Klamath Lake Wildlife Refuge water supply, flood control, emergency electricity generation, recreation, wildlife habitat and fire suppression. Transfer of Upper Klamath Lake/Klamath River water, per new pipelines to California’s Clear Lake Reservoir and — from Copco I and/or Iron Gate Reservoirs—Lake Shastina, could provide substantially improved water access for Oregon and California irrigators, and — per Clear Lake Reservoir Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge, and — per Lake Shastina — salmon migrations in two rivers (Shasta, Klamath).

2. The Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement is bad, and is an extortion against humanity. Both Klamath Basin and California agriculture will lose irrigation water if the Klamath River hydroelectric dams are destroyed.

3. Currently, there is no good reason to now commence destroying the Klamath River hydroelectric dams. Funds that PacifiCorp is collecting for Klamath River hydroelectric dam demolition, could rather be applied, and are virtually adequate to pay for, adequate fish passageway construction for all four Klamath River hydroelectric dams. The seasonal toxic bluegreen algae bloom in some of the dams’ reservoirs, does not excessively interfere against and/or excessively damage any current, often or nonrare occasional, wildlife and/or human essential use of Klamath River.

4. Currently, the Klamath River hydroelectric J.C. Boyle Dam is certainly salmon migration ready enough.

5. The Klamath River is a publicly owned multiuse river, and isn’t owned only by salmon fisherfolks and agriculture irrigators. For any person(s) to completely destroy any Klamath River hydroelectric dam as that dam is now, is a great public waste and wrongful error against the person(s).

6. People have advocated for destruction of the Klamath River hydroelectric dams so as to avoid fish right of way and water use civil lawsuits against Klamath River dam operations, and per greed for: Government grant funds, demolition funds, substitution of fossil fuel combustion powered electricity generation for hydroelectric power, fish habitat right of way control of Klamath River, irrigation water right of way control of Klamath River, electricity grid electricity provision, subversion and/or subordination of America’s republic democracy of the Klamath River, so as to provide a culturally racial private enterprise Klamath River hegemony on the Klamath River.

I am much dissatisfied with Oregon’s U.S. senators’ failure to defend the Klamath River hydroelectric dams.

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

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