Vote YES on 18-80

In my opinion we ought to discontinue the supporting the entanglements  encompassed within KBRA/KHSA documents.  Additionally, I recommend a slowing of the implementation process, regardless of whether 18-80 passes or fails, and regardless of whether I am elected to Klamath County Commissioner Position #2.
 

Why is this important? ― Klamath citizens will make a positive statement about private property and our free-market economy and its historically efficient allocation of economic and capital resources. Central planning has never worked ― Any political allocation of resources needs to be re-thought and demands a slow and prudent approach.
 

I added the word "compliant" as qualifier to "participation" because we want leadership with "our seat at the table."  Otherwise, our compliant participation is like a sheep being led to slaughter.

"No More Compliant Participation" is not the same as "No More Participation".

Don't be fooled; the measure was worded with this obvious slant to cause confusion.

Now, for an explanation:

The dams are private property. Period.

With that fact, try to understand why the KBRA says,
 

8.2.1 As provided in Sections 1.5.1 and 37, each Non-Federal Party shall execute this Agreement and the Hydroelectric Settlement concurrently.

How did a "private property decision" get tied to the Restoration of the Klamath Basin?  If restoration is a public goal, why is it dependent upon how some other private party deals with their private assets?

Whenever public  policy demands some private enterprise's specific action there will be coercion in the market place. In this case, it reads like this, "re-licensing with the FERC will be far costlier." Note, the FERC is exercising regulatory authority to create obstacles to the efficient allocation of private resources. This is a concerted political effort. Can policy makers make it less expensive? YES! Where do the expenses come from? Policy requirements!

Note, the KBRA/KHSA does not make rain happen. It can’t produce more water than exists. The only way to increase water supply is to increase efficiency and storage. Which is why I’m always beating this drum. Rather than promise a limited supply to a limited few farmers, our focus must be on increasing the water supply. More water for fish, or farm is the only long-term option to agriculture and habitat restoration. Why isn’t this in the KBRA/KHSA?

Naturally, let's suppose the KBRA/KHSA makes sound economic sense. How?  There is no logical reason that a downstream private property decision (Dam Removal) should be linked to the Upper Klamath Basin's Water usage. Remember, the dams are downstream.

Additionally, if the dams never held irrigation water than tearing them out should make no difference to local agriculture's water usage. Why does the Biological Opinion change? What caused the "opinion" to change? More water? This is not science! This is another form of coercion in the marketplace. Regulatory power is being used to achieve specific goals.

Plus, I'm sure you read the Herald & News - When Water is Limited - Fish come First. The radical left has no plan for your, or your family's, future in the Klamath Basin. (Commentary from 2001, here...)

By the way, how did our concern for the downstream health and vitality of the Klamath River Basin work into $21,000,000.00 for 92,000 acres of private forest for the Klamath Tribes, in Chiloquin?  And, what about the $92,500,000.00 for KWAPA, or $50,000,000.00 for the various irrigation district power subsidies? (Does dam removal lower cost of electricity? Apparently not, they'll need money from the some magic honey-pot.)

Not to mention the $200,000,000.00 of public money for the ever present "private property decision" regarding dam removal.  Besides, the money that will be wasted will be scandalous, even if you think the given goals are admirable objectives. There are too many loose ends.

Regardless of the hype don't fall for this Local Control sound-bite. Here are the agencies involved in this "local decision making process" - BIA (and several Native American Tribal interests - Hoopa, Klamath, Shasta, Karuk, Yurok), along with the BLM, CDFG, USDA, FS, FERC, NMFS, NPS, ODEQ, OWRD, ODFW, SWRCB, USGS, KWAPA,  LKNWR, TNLWR, KOPWU, KPWU, KDD, KID, TID, KDD, KBID, EID, PGIG, PDIC, VBDC, ADIC, PVID, SVID, SID, MID, PDIC, MDIC, IPTC, CP. LLC,  and the KBAC. Plus, don’t forget, your County Commissioners, here in Oregon, and any County Supervisors, in California, who also have a "seat at the table". So, as you can see, your local interests do not take priority.

These convoluted agreements (KBRA/KHSA) make tracing details difficult. In fact, most of the KBRA/KHSA details are not yet known. (By the way, would you personally sign an agreement where many of the details are not yet known?)

This is why the Hoopa Tribe also opposes these agreements (online here...). The Hoopa Tribes objections mirror my Guest Opinion piece,  KBRA lacks necessary rigor, legal precision.
 

Last week (10/7), at OIT, the initial review of the “Drought Plan” took place. Wait! I thought the KBRA/KHSA “ensured water in times of drought”? Yet, even today, the details aren’t yet known, let alone reviewed, revised, or approved. I'm sure you read the paper, the 9/30 deadline was missed. Now it will be 11/30. This emphasizes my point!

I believe the Commissioners ought to weigh these ideas heavily before disengaging the free-market in favor of the "full steam ahead" political allocation of scarce natural resources.

Frankly, I don’t care if the political allocation comes from the federal, state, or local level because in every case, I see a moral hazard facing both recipients and Office holders.

This is not in our community’s best interest.