Thumbs Up: Up front, we endorsed the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, the complex document worked concerning Klamath Basin water rights, fisheries, dams, power rates, etc. Editorially, we came to believe that it does the greatest good.

That doesn’t mean we don’t have other feelings about what’s happening. About KBRA opponents, including our state legislators, for instance. They get criticized for being all negative and proposing no solutions. Maybe. But we sort of admire their tenacity and public relations. Opponents show up for events, write regularly, talk to a lot of people, and educate the public to their way of thinking.

Our legislators engineered and financed a general telephone poll to prove their point that the agreement leaves a lot to be desired. We don’t think much of the way the questions were posed (they remind me a lot of the question Mom used to ask: “Do you want me to get Dad’s belt?”), but we congratulate them on thinking to even take a survey.

(Mom’s asking, by the way, seemed silly in that there was never a variant to the answer: “No! Please, we’ll be good!” In that, the consequence was anything but silly. The legislators’ polling, like Mom’s question, was done to exhibit consensus along the lines sought by the questioners, pure and simple. It made their constituents more aware of their thinking, and gave them something to use in their presentations).

So give them the benefit of the doubt, because they at least communicated to the public. It shows that they care about public opinion. And we believe that’s very important. Even though the KBRA is a hybrid legal agreement that has to be settled largely by private parties, a corporation, boards, and agencies, there is a definite public interest — just ask any of the federal delegates who are voted into office by the public and who will have to be involved somewhat because of the millions of taxpayer dollars involved.

We just wish proponents would treat public opinion with as much respect.