#3 Reverse racism.
Once again it is easier to let the document speak for its self. Section 19.5.3. Eligibility talks about eligibility and applying for the affordable power that may be available to off-project water users.
"Klamath Tribal allottees... shall be given the option of priority participation"
That is favoritism of tribal members based only on race, also known as reverse racism.
#4 Must trade our private property rights if we want affordable power.
For off-project irrigators to be part of the affordable power, which should be noted is pretty expensive compared to a lot of the state, we have to be part of the General Conservation Plan. That sounds reasonable, so what is the General Conservation Plan? Section 22.2.2. Part C In short it gives government agencies and the people running the KBRA the ability to tell us what we can and can not do. The plan gives them the the following powers:
"Activities covered under the General Conservation Plan(s) may
include, but not be limited to, diversion and application of water,
agricultural operations, grazing, road construction and maintenance,
vegetation management, timber management, and actions associated
with restoration, management, and maintenance of the riparian
corridor. Measures for minimization and mitigation of incidental take
under the General Conservation Plan(s) will be based on NMFS and
FWS’ evaluation, in cooperation with applicants, of site-specific
conditions, and may include, but not be limited to, screening of
diversions, management of livestock access, protection and
enhancement of riparian vegetation, fish passage improvement, culvert
replacement, and reduction of erosion and sedimentation from
streambanks and roads."
If what they listed is not enough they have the "include, but may not be limited to" clause which is a blank check that allows them to do anything they want. Speaking of blank checks, "include, but may not be limited to" appears in the KBRA 6 times. A variation "including but not limited to" shows up 21 times. Combined, that is 27 blank checks that anyone who supports the agreement is agreeing with.
An off-project power user does not have to sign up for the program, but if they do not then they are not eligible for the affordable power that the agreement is promising.
Two other things to note about this.
- The on-project users do not have to be part of the 'General Conservation Plan' or give anyone a blank check about regulating what they do to apply for the affordable power.
- The "affordable" power in this agreement is more expensive than in most of Oregon.
#5 No protection from the Endangered Species Act.
Remember the water shut off for on-project irrigators? It was caused by the Enviromental Species Act(ESA). This agreement does nothing to protect any water user from the ESA. The agreement is happy to say so in many places. The first being in Section 2.2.7. No Alteration of Environmental Review.
#6 No guarantee of money.
Yes, the agreement begs Oregon and California voters for money and also begs the Federal Government for more money. This money is not guaranteed by the agreement. Section 2.2.3. Availability of Public Funds is the first of many places in the agreement to say that nothing in the agreement is a commitment of funds by Public Agencies or any government.
#7 No real protection against cost of dam removal.
Yes, there appears to be a cost cap for electricity customers with regard to the cost of removing the dams. What happens when removing of the dams goes over budget? At some point the taxpayers will get to pay for it. Since I am a taxpayer, the cap on cost to Pacific Power is of little use as I will get hit with taxes to cover it.
#8 Is not voted on by the people.
Nothing in this agreement is voted on by the people. Instead several groups have come together and appointed themselves as our represenatives to make decisions that will have a masive impact on the area. If the supporters get their way and the KBRA passes and is fully funded there will be no checks or balances against them. Once that happens there will be no way for the people to hold them acountable.
#9 What meaningful stability?
With no protection from the Endangered Species Act (see point #5) and drying up off-project water users (see point #1), I have to ask where is the stability? I guess a person could argue that if agriculture is destroyed and there is nothing left, that is pretty stable.
#10 Why certain groups who should know better signed on... No integrity.
Two of our County Commissioners, Cheryl Hukill and Al Switzer, came out to the ranch to see how we are going to be affected by the KBRA. A few nights before, I read the agreement and got ready to point out all of the problems and damage it was going to do to us. Over lunch we discussed the agreement in detail. They came to the same conclusions I did on points #1-#7 and then went on to explain to us many major things wrong with the KBRA that I have not covered in this writing.
Having little experience with politicians, I asked how they could consider signing the KBRA knowing all of these major problems that they just agreed were in it?
Their answer to me was they did not see any way to stop the KBRA so they were going to join it and try to lessen its impact.
I have lived in the sticks for my whole life and had not even considered they would think that way so I was unprepared to respond. Having had time, here is my response to them or anyone who is thinking along those lines. Where is your integrity? The people who elected you to office expect you to warn them if something like this is happening and to stand against it.
Morals aside, lets look at what happens when someone signs the agreement. The first thing they do by adding their names to the KBRA is agree to support the KBRA. Section 3.1. Obligation to Support Then the people who run the KBRA go to the government and voters and say hey look at this list of who supports this agreement, give us money to do it.
Once a person signs they can no longer object, and if the KBRA is funded, what can they do to lesson its impact? In the case of the Commissioners, after hearing thier position, I read the relevant parts of the KBRA to see what they can do. Klamath County is the only major party not part of the "Technical Advisory Team and Interim Technical Team" (See Appendix D.11). This is the sub-group in the KBRA that will be doing a lot of the decision making that will be bad for the County. On all of the other teams or boards(gangs is a better word for these groups) anyone who wants to limit the KBRA, will be out voted by no less than three Federal Agencies, two States, four Tribes, and Commercial Fishing. Depending on which "gang" there are various numbers of Conservation/Restoration Groups who will also have a vote.
Against that many votes in the few "gangs" that Klamath County Commissioners can be part of, I do not see how they can make much of a difference, while at the same time they are helping the KBRA with public support.
My solution for people with this stance is to elect new people who not only see the problem, they stand up against it. We can start with electing Dennis Linthicum as a Klamath County Commissioner. I was in 4-H with his kids and he was a 4-H leader in our 4-H club. I found him to be a man of his word and someone who takes time to understand an issue before acting on it. I believe his integrity along with his experiance running a local business where he has interacted with residents from all areas of Klamath should make him a good County Commissioner and vastly better than what we have now.
Can the KBRA be Fixed?
I have pointed out the problems so what needs to happen before a person of integrity can sign the KBRA and still sleep at night?
The list includes but is not limited to:
- The adjudication needs to be completed or the Klamath tribes need to lower their claims on off-project water.
- The agreement needs to be fair for all, no racism, reverse racism or favoritism of on-project vs off-project.
- The KBRA needs to be passed in a vote, by the people of Klamath county.
- The leaders of the KBRA should not be appointed, they need to be elected, by the people effected by the KBRA. Not appointed or voted on by people from out of the area.
- There needs to be some basic protection from the ESA.
- The affordable power needs to be affordable and off-project users should not be expected to give up their property rights to be eligible for the power.
- Other species of wildlife both protected and non-protected need to be considered more than they are.
- There needs to be a clear plan of what happens in a drought.
- There should not be a single "includes but not limited to" blank check in the agreement.
If you want to help change the KBRA so that it is fair for all, people and animals, speak up. Let people know that you do not believe the KBRA is good for the region as writen now. When given a chance to tell our leaders what you think this May election help us start by voting the ones who supported it out and relecting the ones who have stood for fairness and the rule of law.
If you have any questions feel free to contact me.
Brandan Topham
cattle@flyingtsalers.com
Main Page
Our Experience
History of Salers
Past news letters
Pictures
Beef for sale
Contacting Us