I am really disappointed in OPB. The blurb above and the teaser on the radio today are both wildly inaccurate. This isn?t the standard of journalism I?ve come to expect from public broadcasting.
First, there is no Klamath ?How to Tear Down a Dam? plan. There is no deal on dam removal in the Klamath, period. Pacificorp, the owner of the dams on the river, hasn?t been engaged in the Klamath ?settlement? talks for over a year.
What has been produced instead is a plan to guarantee agribusiness in the Klamath Basin generous water deliveries, without providing a similar guarantee for salmon that are listed under the Endangered Species Act. That isn?t going to recover the fish, and is it illegal. The ?settlement? also includes a plan to lock in Bush administration policies promoting commercial agricultural development on over 22,000 acres of land on Tule Lake and Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuges. And it would divvy up nearly $1 billion US tax dollars among every special interest group in the Klamath Basin.
That is why the Hoopa Valley Tribe and several environmental groups involved in the talks have rejected the ?settlement.? And the two major Oregon groups that were kicked out of the talks by the Bush administration (Oregon Wild and WaterWatch) continue to oppose the deal.
Please research beyond that New York Times story and the hype and spin being put out by backers of the ?settlement?. The Hoopa Valley Tribe opposes the deal because they do not believe it will recover salmon runs:
An accurate analysis of what is in the ?settlement? and what isn?t:
A Sacramento Bee story on two scientific analyses showing the ?settlement? won?t recover salmon:
Finally, please do some research on the ?ten fold increase? in Klamath irrigators? electricity power rates. Klamath irrigators enjoyed a massive subsidy for their electricity rates for nearly a century, paid for by families throughout Oregon. The ?ten fold increase? brought them up to the same rate paid by every other farmer in Oregon.
posted 5 years, 3 months ago
view in context