The case against removing the dams

Letter to the Editor of Herald and News by Dr Richard Gierak, Yreka 8/30/16

2. Under the federal Endangered Species Act, protection of species can only be applied to indigenous species and it has been proven that coho salmon were never indigenous and were planted from mid-Oregon in the 1960s and '80s.

3. Violation of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act: Dam removal would release toxic material that would destroy the habitat for all species.

4. Dormant Commerce Clause — No state may impose any regulatory action against navigable rivers in the United States, of which the Klamath River is a navigable rivto retain the dams and their votes are being ignored. er.

5. Rogue Valley irrigation rights in Southern Oregon: Removal of these dams would remove approximately 40 percent of water from the Klamath River that now goes to Jackson County, Oregon, for agriculture resulting in serious loss of agriculture in Southern Oregon.

6. At the present time, these hydroelectric dams supply Northern California and most of Oregon homes and businesses with the least expensive power available. At present the average homeowner is liable for approximately $200 per month and with the proposed natural gas power supply it would increase the costs to $800 per month.

7. Siskiyou County would be in serious loss of existing water rights.

8. Cal Fire's ability to fight wildfires, without these dams, fire helicopters would have to make long, time-consuming trips to refill their buckets to fight forest fires resulting in serious delay in controlling these fires.

9. Constitution of the United States: 80 percent of Siskiyou County residents voted to retain the dams and their votes are being ignored.

Dr. Richard Gierak

Yreka