http://www.heraldandnews.com/articles/2008/04/02/featured_story/doc47f3218d15155935953526.txt
Siskiyou supervisors oppose water proposal
H&N
photo by Lee Juillerat Siskiyou County Supervisors and staff listen to comments in February during a pubic public hearing on the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement. By LEE JUILLERAT, Herald and NEws 4/2/08 |
Supervisor Jim Cook proposed the resolutions. Both passed unanimously.
“We reaffirmed we don’t believe dam removal is in the best interest of the county,” Cook said after the meeting. “In the separate resolution, we said we’re opposed to the current settlement agreement.”
The restoration agreement allocates water in the Klamath River Basin among irrigators, tribes, conservationists and fisheries. It also advocates removal of four hydroelectric dams owned by PacifiCorp, a Portland-based power company. Three of those dams are in Siskiyou County.
Siskiyou County’s opposition was not
expected to kill the agreement, but stakeholders
said Tuesday they weren’t sure how the
supervisors’ votes would impact the settlement
process.
Cook believes that provisions of the agreement
should be implemented.
“There are a number of things that are positive,
things that can be done without dam removal,” he
said, citing promises by tribes not to pursue
lawsuits, the opening of discussion between
different interest groups, proposals to improve
salmon populations and guarantees of water
supplies for Upper Basin irrigators.
Cook’s district includes the Tulelake Basin,
where Tulelake Irrigation District members
support the settlement, and other areas where
irrigation districts, whitewater boaters and
Copco Lake property owners oppose the agreement.
Two other supervisors, Bill Overman and Michael
Kobseff, prepared separate, long resolutions
listing concerns. Cook said the county counsel
was directed to prepare a findings document that
will declare what sections of the 256-page
agreement the full board agrees and disagrees
with.
Cook said the decisions restated the board’s
long-standing opposition.
“For the last 2 1/2 years we’ve said we’re
against dam removal,” he said, noting the board
wants to remain active with the restoration
process.