I must admit that I am disappointed with the Klamath River
Restoration agreement (the agreement). Not so much with
what it accomplished, but with where it started.
If you read the first part of the summary of the restoration agreement you see the first goal is to remove the dams. What bothers me is this looks more like an agenda to remove dams from the river than provide the best solution for all concerned.
Other goals must be considered. To name a few: flood control, ocean environmental impact (airborne pollutants to replace the hydro power) and sedimentation to lower river and the fishing grounds near the mouth of the river and increase the sources of renewable energy. I’m sure there are more things to consider.
If one of the goals is to restore salmon runs to the Klamath River, then why isn’t the Trinity River considered in the discussions. Remember the die-off at the beginning of this decade? The majority of those fish were destined for the Trinity. How does what’s proposed solve that problem?
Another point of concern is in section 8.1 which supports the hydropower agreement by removal of the dams. No wonder PacifiCorp was removed from the proceedings leading to this agreement.
Looking at the parties involved in the development of this agreement (especially those listed as non-governmental organizations) it is no wonder that one of the primary goals of this agreement is the removal of the dams.
To be honest, there is a lot of legalese in this document laying out water allotments to various entities in the basin and I think done very well. It may be that the removal of some or all of the dams is the best solution.
John Turner, Klamath Falls
If you read the first part of the summary of the restoration agreement you see the first goal is to remove the dams. What bothers me is this looks more like an agenda to remove dams from the river than provide the best solution for all concerned.
Other goals must be considered. To name a few: flood control, ocean environmental impact (airborne pollutants to replace the hydro power) and sedimentation to lower river and the fishing grounds near the mouth of the river and increase the sources of renewable energy. I’m sure there are more things to consider.
If one of the goals is to restore salmon runs to the Klamath River, then why isn’t the Trinity River considered in the discussions. Remember the die-off at the beginning of this decade? The majority of those fish were destined for the Trinity. How does what’s proposed solve that problem?
Another point of concern is in section 8.1 which supports the hydropower agreement by removal of the dams. No wonder PacifiCorp was removed from the proceedings leading to this agreement.
Looking at the parties involved in the development of this agreement (especially those listed as non-governmental organizations) it is no wonder that one of the primary goals of this agreement is the removal of the dams.
To be honest, there is a lot of legalese in this document laying out water allotments to various entities in the basin and I think done very well. It may be that the removal of some or all of the dams is the best solution.
John Turner, Klamath Falls