<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>Klamath dam removal uncertain</title>
		<description>Discuss Klamath dam removal uncertain</description>
		<link>http://www.oregonbusiness.com/articles/105-november-2011/6057-klamath-dam-removal-uncertain</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Sun, 19 May 2013 17:47:37 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.oregonbusiness.com/component/jcomments/feed/com_content/6057?device=xhtml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>Progress Over Polemic in the Klamath</title>
			<link>http://www.oregonbusiness.com/articles/105-november-2011/6057-klamath-dam-removal-uncertain#comment-1951</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Sustainable Northwest has elected to support both a process and an outcome that has been largely driven by local players – leaders in tribal and ag community in particular – but also conservation groups, commercial fishing interests, two states, two Administrations (Bush and Obama), the findings of two Public Utility Commissions, etc. As Mr. Pace points out, there are those who think other options are better – for example, returning to uncertain and expensive litigation around dam relicensing, or returning to uncertain, divisive and expensive litigation around water use. We not only believe that it is far more likely that important restoration goals will be achieved through a cooperative process, but that this process should take into account important economic issues such as an appropriate future for Upper Basin agriculture and the rural communities it supports. There is not a 100% consensus on how the Basin should move forward, but there is a reliable past record that indicates that staying in “status quo” (uncertainty over dam relicensing outcomes, uncertainty over flows for fish or farming, management decisions where conditions for endangered salmon compete with conditions for endangered suckers, complete absence of any level of local agreement, etc.) is untenable. It contributes to water shutoffs and fish kills. Until a better plan is put forward – by a broad and wide diversity of interests - that moves significantly toward comprehensive river restoration, and more certainty for natural resource economies (whether tribal, commercial fishing, or agriculture), we can’t in good conscience do anything but support the process. We remain pleased to contribute to an approach that works hard at integrating competing uses of the river. We would also encourage interested readers to address disputed issues of fact - several are raised by Mr. Pace in his comments - through several good web resources: klamathrestorat ion.gov (in-depth information regarding Federal government's evaluation of potential dam removal) klamathrestorat ion.org (website maintained by several Basin tribes; especially pertinent around views of water and restoration activity) An independent publication on the Klamath River and the Agreements, put together by the non-partisan Water Education Foundation: http://www.watereducation.org/store/itemdetail.asp?id=567]]></description>
			<dc:creator>James Honey - Sustainable Northwest</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 01 Nov 2011 17:05:03 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.oregonbusiness.com/articles/105-november-2011/6057-klamath-dam-removal-uncertain#comment-1951</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>millions down the drain</title>
			<link>http://www.oregonbusiness.com/articles/105-november-2011/6057-klamath-dam-removal-uncertain#comment-1950</link>
			<description><![CDATA[These so called "stakeholders" continue to spend millions of our tax dollars on a dead horse, called the KBRA and KHSA. They keep spending unallocated money hoping some will stay in because so much money and effort has been spent. Just because millions have been spent does not mean this mess is workable. In fact, the farther along they push this disaster in the making it is becoming more and more obvious how ill concieved it really is. In 2010, the irrigators did receive less water from Klamath Lake. What they do not want you to know is that if you add all the ground water that was pumped, they actually had near full deliveries. And many were paid to do this groundwater pumping which is not even close to being sustainable. Many were also paid for not receiving their water from Klamath Lake. The Department of Interior Report is so full of false information, it needs to be filed under FICTION in the local library. Felice Pace is indeed correct, Sustainable Northwest needs to go back home to Portland and stay out of the Klamath Basin. This group has spent somewhere near $1.5 million to destroy the dams and to permanately down size irrigated agriculture.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>kbirrigator</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 01 Nov 2011 16:51:13 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.oregonbusiness.com/articles/105-november-2011/6057-klamath-dam-removal-uncertain#comment-1950</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Sustainable NW is out of touch with conditions in the Klamath River Basin</title>
			<link>http://www.oregonbusiness.com/articles/105-november-2011/6057-klamath-dam-removal-uncertain#comment-1948</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The reason the Klamath Dam and Water Deals are in trouble is not just right wing members of Congress. Many of us who live in the Basin and who have worked for worked for decades to get the dams out and restore the Klamath River also oppose these agreements because - if endorsed by Congress and implemented - they will preclude restoration of the Klamath River and the recovery of Klamath Salmon. Furthermore, the KBRA keeps the Klamath's national wildlife refuges under the thumb of federal irrigators and last in line for water. Sustainable Northwest is either misinformed or is intentionally misrepresenting these deals. For example, SN says that pampered federal irrigators will have "decreased water in the future" under these deals. That is flat out false. Under the KBRA Water Deal the Klamath Project (the Bureau of reclamation and their pampered irrigators) will get first call on more water than they have received in most years over the last decade. The article also misstates who has endorsed and signed the agreement. Neither the federal government nor the states of California and Oregon has signed. That's because they can't sign without violating the law; they need Congress to endorse the deals before they can sign them. One thing is stated correctly: These deals are going to have a very hard time getting through Congress. More importantly, deals that favor some irrigators over other irrigators, some tribes over other tribes and some environmental interests over other environmental interests can not bring an end to conflict on the Klamath. The sooner these deals crash and burn the sooner we get back to FERC where dam removal will proceed unencumbered by a costly, controversial and divisive water deal. Sustainable Northwest - a city group living on grants and spouting platitudes - has no business in our Basin.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Felice Pace</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 01 Nov 2011 09:38:43 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.oregonbusiness.com/articles/105-november-2011/6057-klamath-dam-removal-uncertain#comment-1948</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
