doublespeak leo kivela Klamath dams 101411

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

http://www.siskiyoudaily.com/opinions/letters_to_the_editor/x617625573/Doublespeak

Doublespeak

by Leo W. Kivela, Siskiyou Daily News Letter to the Editor October 12, 2011

Montague, Calif. — I received a copy of the Department of the Interior’s Environmental Impact Report along with other interested parties. Considering the source, it is not too surprising it is filled with bureaucratic “doublespeak.”

Am I the only one who noticed virtually every item of any importance was prefaced with the word “could,” thus rendering the statement meaningless? And this is what the dam removal is going to be based on? A report full of maybes and what ifs? Or, is it possible these people really don’t have a clue what will happen once the dams are removed?

It begins to look more and more like a horribly expensive experiment. And we who live here will bear the brunt of the problems should it go awry, while the perpetrators simply move on to the next project. As with the “spotted owl,” you don’t even hear an “oops.”

Of all the arguments I have heard and seen opposing the dam removal, here are a couple I have yet to hear or see: Salmon runs are and have been decreasing in virtually all of the north coast rivers. One has to question how the Klamath dams can cause that. Also, the years ocean salmon fishing is restricted, the runs increase. Seems to me there is a message there. Never any mention of this.

And the other, the residents of the lakes that will cease to exist. Primarily the panfish, bluegill and perch, along with the bass. Trout are found in creeks and rivers, so the effect on them is less. However, from my own observations, panfish and bass are lake fish, so one has to wonder why the Environmental Protection Agency is OK with the destruction of the habitat of three species to save one, whose real threat is yet to be truly determined.

Also, the report addresses the fish kill in 2002, omitting the purported cause – a toxin released by the low water levels due to the 2001 drought. This makes sense, as there has been no repeat of the event. This makes this statement at best a half-truth, and leads one to the wrong conclusion. Which of course is the reason for the omission.

But then the entire report seems to be skewed toward dam removal without really addressing any of the effects of the process. Sadly, the local people are the ones most affected, and obviously no longer have any voice in the matter.