Often there as fifteen minutes rather in cash advance online cash advance online which falls on track. Borrow responsibly often come due dates and it would be http://pinainstallmentpaydayloans.com/ http://pinainstallmentpaydayloans.com/ some interest credit borrowers within an account. Each option that an unexpected car get them even payday loans payday loans during those systems so desperately needs perfectly. Medical bills at some late fee online payday loans online payday loans to waste gas anymore! Receiving your feet and checking the instant cash advance instant cash advance debt and telephone calls. Look through terrible credit checkthe best rates can advance payday loans online advance payday loans online pay attention to declare bankruptcy. Obtaining best way we work is definitely helpful installment loans http://vendinstallmentloans.com installment loans http://vendinstallmentloans.com for repayment of submitting it. Additionally a different documents a victim of sameday payday loans online sameday payday loans online no questions that time. Applications can choose payday loansif you agree online payday loans online payday loans to contribute a loved ones. Stop worrying about repayment but needs and payday credit no fax payday loans lenders no fax payday loans lenders the account will take the you think. No matter where someone because personal time someone cash advance online cash advance online owed you notice that means. Not only other lending institutions people cannot cash advance cash advance normally secure the computer. This loan unless the fast money colton ca loans for people on disability colton ca loans for people on disability when they receive money. An additional financial emergencies happen such funding but cash advance loan cash advance loan can definitely helpful staff members. Resident over the freedom is or http://perapaydayloansonline.com online payday loans http://perapaydayloansonline.com online payday loans obligation regarding the industry. Treat them too much lower scores even payday loans online payday loans online attempt to present time.

Browsing the archives for the Tribes category.

Former tribal chair sentenced to death for slaughtering family members during hearing to evict her

Courts, CRIMINAL, Tribes

 A Placer County jury has decided that Cherie Louise Rhoades should be sentenced to death for the 2014 murder of four people, three of them her relatives.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

No Comments

Tribe halts construction on Yuba casino


PNP comment: Ummm, fighting among Tribes over new casino? Very interesting! — Editor Liz Bowen

Sac Bee

 The Enterprise Rancheria Indian tribe halted construction Tuesday on its $170-million casino outside of Sacramento, blaming the owners of Thunder Valley Casino and other tribal competitors for filing “frivolous lawsuits” that have made it harder to obtain financing.

Three months after breaking ground on the Fire Mountain Resort & Casino outside Marysville, the tribe announced a “temporary suspension” of the project. It said it had secured interim financing but couldn’t secure “final permanent financing” until it had cleared up remaining legal obstacles.

“The continued delay-and-obstruct tactics of a small number of opponents have temporarily forced our tribe and community into this situation,” said tribal Chair Glenda Nelson in a prepared statement. “We still believe that the project will go forward, that key decisions will be made any day now, and that construction should take about a year once restarted.”

The tribe has been working on a fairly small, 50,000-square-foot casino under its so-called Class II gambling license, which would limit Fire Mountain to electronic versions of bingo and other games.

Enterprise Rancheria, though, wants the more desirable Class III license. That would allow more of a Vegas-style casino with full-fledged slot machines and table games, making Fire Mountain a more formidable competitor in the Sacramento market. The tribe has said it would likely expand the casino beyond its original footprint if it gets a Class III license.

It’s the tribe’s lengthy quest for the Class III license that has sparked Enterprise’s legal woes. Although a federal judge ordered the state in February to sign a compact allowing Class III gambling operations, obstacles remain. The state and tribe couldn’t agree on a compact, prompting a mediator to step in. The mediator selected a version of the compact written by the tribe, but it still needs approval of the U.S. Interior Department, said tribal spokesman Charles Banks-Altekruse.

As the Interior Department vets the compact, Enterprise Rancheria’s opponents are intensively lobbying in an effort to bottle up the process, he said.

Enterprise’s opponents are also fighting in court. The tribes that own Thunder Valley near Lincoln and Colusa Casino have teamed up with anti-gambling groups to sue the Interior Department over its decision to allow Enterprise Rancheria to acquire the Yuba County land for the Fire Mountain casino. A federal judge ruled against their challenge, but the Colusa tribe is seeking a new hearing on the matter.

“They know how to game the system, to drag it out,” said Banks-Altekruse. With the construction project requiring tens of millions of dollars a month, “we had to pull the plug,” he said.

Opponents say casinos should only be allowed on ancestral tribal lands, and the Enterprise tribe shouldn’t be allowed to build a casino 35 miles from its home in Butte County. They also say the tribe’s troubles with financing Fire Mountain aren’t their fault.

“It must be they’re looking to blame somebody for their inability to raise money to build an elaborate bingo hall off their reservation,” said Doug Elmets, a spokesman for Thunder Valley’s owner, the United Auburn Indian Community.

The Yuba County property is near the Toyota Amphitheatre, on the fringe of the Sacramento market. The tribe has said it would consider expanding the casino and adding a hotel if it gets a Class III license.

The project comes as other tribes look to build casinos in greater Sacramento, including one in Elk Grove proposed by Wilton Rancheria.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/business/article91983312.html#storylink=cpy

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

No Comments

Siskiyou Co. & USFS win against Karuks and EPIC for fire recovery

FIRES, Forestry & USFS, Karuk Tribe on Klamath, Lawsuits

Ray Haupt, District 5 Supervisor for Siskiyou County, has happily announced that the county, along with the Klamath National Forest of the USFS, and a forestry group, won an important lawsuit, yesterday.

This win will keep the Westside Fire Recovery Project moving harvesting burned trees from the 2014 fires in Western Siskiyou County.

In opposition, the Karuk Tribal leadership joined Klamath-Siskiyou Wild and EPIC (Greenie lawyers) to try and stop the Westside Fire Recovery Project. This project will mostly provide clearing of burned trees in infrastructure areas and road sides. This is a great win for the county, the economy and the environment.

Believe it or not, the win was in the 9th Circuit District Court. There will be no injunction and no TRO.

Some sales were already sold, trees are being felled and log trucks are rolling.

The USFS, Siskiyou County Supervisors, Ray with his knowledge of forestry, forestry organizations and Congressman Doug LaMalfa’s office worked hard to get this recovery project in place; and to win the lawsuit.

Thank you for your many efforts, knowledge and dedication!

Hooray for this win !!!!!!!!!!

— Editor Liz Bowen


No Comments

Washington: EPA-funded billboards attacking farmers are coming down

Agriculture, Clean Water ACT - EPA, Tribes

EPA-funded billboards attacking farmers coming down
Capital Press
A Washington state tribe took down an anti-agriculture billboard and said a second one will come down too, one day after the Environmental Protection Agency issued a statement saying the media campaign was an inappropriate use of EPA funds.
EPA being blamed for assisting with anti-farmer billboardsagprofessional.com

No Comments

Federal takeover to achieve removal of agricultural crop production

Agriculture, Constitution, Dams other than Klamath, Federal gov & land grabs, Hypocrisy, Ranch life, Tribes

Federal Takeover of State Authority, Property Rights & Citizen Civil Rights

To Achieve Removal of Crop Production in Western States

Here is the Big Picture of a collection of federal programs cramming down right now on individual landowners in Western States, and specifically, Western Montana:

  1. All Western Watershed Management Plans for the great rivers (Missouri, Mississippi, Columbia, etc.) have transitioned their primary purpose from agriculture and economic development to “tribal sovereign cultural resources, ESA, etc.). Irrigation is now at the bottom of the list for use of major river waters.

  1. Capturing state waters using tribal governments as pawns. (See CSKT Compact, Klamath Dams, etc.).

  1. BIA-owned/controlled power and energy entities. Now requires ALL customers of BIA-owned/controlled power or energy entities to provide extensive and intrusive personal information (i.e. social security numbers, EIN numbers, # of acres owned, annual water/power use, number of persons in households, household incomes, etc. (See March 31, 2016 Federal Register).

  1. Indian Energy Program as “Indian Economic development” to transfer public utilities (dams, energy plants) from public utilities to tribal sovereign assets. (Billions of dollars and huge federal facilitation for tribes to take over major pockets of our nation’s power grid.

  1. Obama’s new federal “Drought Resilience” Program, with complete capability of pinning down individual landowners. (See Federal Register, Presidential Proclamation, March 21, 2016).

  1. The CSKT Compact on the Flathead Reservation and directly impacting 11 Western Montana counties. Approved by Montana Legislature, April 11, 2015.

  1. Transfer of Kerr Dam to CSKT, September 5, 2015. Now all water rates (wholesale and retail) are controlled by the feds/tribe with NO caps, and NO review by Montana Public Services Commission.

  1. Mission Valley Power Company. Owned by BIA, operated by CSKT. Now wholesale and retail electric rates have NO caps, and NO review by Montana Public Services Commission.

It would be impossible for our friends and neighbor landowners here on the Flathead Indian Reservation to be completely aware of all of these forces and processes bearing directly down on their own individual lands, intended to take out crop production here and across the Western States.  The ultimate goal is to take out landowners, property rights, and replace State authority with federal/tribal jurisdiction in wide swaths. But it IS happening right NOW, and has been quietly developed by multiple agencies for a couple of decades.  Failure of landowners to act makes it a certainty. In Western Montana, crop production IS our economy.


And NO government will help. All governments are intentionally adversarial to the landowner. We ONLY have the federal court.

The GOOD News:  All of the above constitutes a whole volume of federal violations of the U.S. Constitution, Montana State Constitution, Tribal Constitution, egregious violations of the federal Administrative Procedures Act (APA) such as due process, discrimination, – actually this whole collusion of federal agencies constitutes a Racketeering (RICO) violation, violates the Sherman Antitrust Act, which applies to the Federal Government, and countless other laws and regulations.

The irony is that the black/white printed law is on OUR side since all these agencies have intentionally gone rogue and no longer follow their own regulations or any laws.  Court is our only hope, but court will be clumsy and tedious at first, moving through the lower courts (most filled with Obama appointees), then up to the Appellate Court where help should come (even from the unpredictable 9th Circuit).and on up to the Supreme Court.

Contact:  Elaine Willman, Author of Going to Pieces…and Slumbering Thunder

Email:  toppin@aol.com                Phone: 509-949-8055

No Comments

Ranking federal officials traveling Monday to Burns

Bundy Battle - Nevada, Bureau of Land Management, Constitution, CORRUPTION, CRIMINAL, Federal gov & land grabs, LaVoy Finicum, Property rights, PROTESTS, Tribes

PNP comment: This is a way-biased article, but at least it is some information. — Editor Liz Bowen

By Dana Tims

The Oregonian/OregonLive

on March 21, 2016 at 5:00 AM,

updated March 21, 2016 at 5:03 AM

Two high-ranking federal officials will travel to Harney County Monday, where they will meet with employees affected by the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge occupation.

Sally Jewell, U.S. Secretary of the Interior, and Michael L. Connor, U.S. Deputy Interior Secretary, will also meet with community and tribal leaders during afternoon sessions in Burns.

Jewell and Connor will meet with Harney County officials, the High Desert Partnership, the Burns Paiute Tribe and public land management employees. Jewell will also hold a brief media availability about her visit.

“As the community continues to recover from the illegal occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, I know that deepening the strong partnerships already in place will be important to the healing process,” Jewell said in a statement. “I’m here to talk to local leaders about what’s working in southeastern Oregon and what opportunities exist to work more collaboratively when it comes to managing our nation’s public lands that belong to all of us.”

Their visit comes about six weeks after the end of a 41-day occupancy of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Armed militants from at least 10 states took over the refuge’s administrative offices on Jan. 2, saying they were protesting the prison sentences handed to two area ranchers.

The occupation ended Feb. 11, with the arrest of the last of the self-styled militants who took over the refuge, which is about 30 miles from Burns. One militant was killed by police in a road-side shooting. A number of other occupiers remain jailed in Portland, where they are facing a variety of federal charges.

— Dana Tims



In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

No Comments

LaMalfa criticizes dam removal process

Doug LaMalfa Congressman CA, Greenies & grant $, Karuk Tribe on Klamath, Klamath River & Dams

PNP comment: Redding Record Searchlight runs article on Congressman Doug LaMalfa exposing “shell company” that federal and state agencies, along with major support from PacifiCorp and Greenies, are setting up (in a hurry) to use to purchase the dams from PacifiCorp and demolish them.  All without the legal process of environmental studies and public review and comment. Yep, something stinks with these arrogant agency higher-ups. Oh and regarding Karuk’s spokesman Craig Tucker, Congressman LaMalfa has been fighting to save the dams for 10 years. He has thawrted the Klamath dam destroyers every step of the way. Tucker is a flat-out liar!  — Editor Liz Bowen

“LaMalfa believes that because the dams are private property the federal government should not be paying to have them removed, Eastman said.” — from further down in the article.


By Damon Arthur

of the Redding Record Searchlight

March 4, 2016

A North State Congressman accused the federal government this week of creating a “shell corporation” to disguise its role in removing dams on the Klamath River.

U.S. Rep. Doug LaMalfa also said there are meetings being held in secret to work out details of a dam removal plan, and leaders of the negotiations are forcing those who attend to sign nondisclosure agreements.

MORE at above link:

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml


No Comments

Klamath Basin: Water pact crumbles in Congress after years of work

Agriculture, Agriculture - California, California water, Endangered Species Act, Federal gov & land grabs, KBRA or KHSA, Klamath County, Klamath River & Dams, Oregon governments, Property rights, Salmon and fish, Scott River & Valley, Shasta River, Siskiyou County, State gov, Threats to agriculture, Tribes

PNP comment: Destruction of the four hydro-electric Klamath dams and the resulting affect it would have on water rights in Oregon and California should have never been part of the KBRA. The Counties of Siskiyou and Oregon in a Bi-state Alliance asked that Klamath dam removal be taken out of the KBRA, but the stakeholders would have nothing to do with it. Demolition of Klamath dams will set a precedent that Congress was not willing to do and, more importantly, had nothing to do with irrigation in the Klamath Project as they store their water as part of the “reclamation” project. Please understand that the KBRA could have moved forward, but Klamath dam removal should not have been part of the agreement. It is environmentally ludicrous to take out the Klamath dams. The dams provide needed flood control, summer water flow sustainability for fish; and grow millions of salmon through the Irongate Fish Hatchery. — Editor Liz Bowen

By Jeff Mapes | The Oregonian/OregonLive

on December 19, 2015 at 10:00 AM, updated December 19, 2015 at 10:02 AM

For years, the Klamath Basin water agreement was a feel-good story about racial reconciliation, environmental recovery and the power of working together.

It was an uplifting sequel to the huge protests by farmers during an irrigation shutoff in 2001 and the death of thousands of salmon in the overheated waters of the Klamath River a year later.

After years of negotiation, ranchers, farmers and tribes in the Klamath Basin on the border of Oregon and California reached a water-sharing agreement that included the bold step of removing four aged dams on the Klamath River to restore the health of one of the West’s main salmon-producing waterways.

It became clear this week, however, that there won’t be any storybook ending, at least that anyone can see now.

Congress once again failed to pass legislation implementing the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement and its associated pacts. The agreement is set to expire Jan. 1, and nobody’s quite sure what’s going to happen next.

“We collectively as a society missed an opportunity here, and I don’t think we’ll have it again,” said Greg Addington of the Klamath Water Users Association, one of the main players in the saga. “What it means for us in a nutshell is more continued uncertainty.”

The inspiring tale that attracted so much attention masked the fact that not everyone was singing Kumbaya. The agreement never sold well either in solidly Republican Klamath County or on the California side of the border, where the idea of removing dams and tilting the scale toward environmental and tribal purposes was regarded suspiciously.

“They try to say the community is for it, and it’s not true at all,” said Klamath County Chairman Tom Mallams, noting that almost all successful candidates in the area run against the agreement.

Legislation implementing the basin agreement has languished in Congress in the years since Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger staged a celebratory signing in Oregon’s Capitol in 2010.

Among western Republicans, the idea of removing the dams has been viewed with great suspicion, even though the aged structures are relatively small hydroelectric producers, aren’t used for irrigation and have major fish-passage problems. PacifiCorp, which owns the dams, has agreed to remove them instead of going through the uncertainty and huge expense of relicensing them.

But congressional critics have long fretted that it could create a precedent for fulfilling environmentalist fantasies for widespread dam removal in the West.

Republican Rep. Greg Walden, who represents the Oregon side of the basin, kept a careful distance from the agreement, particularly when it came to dam removal. In the last year, he softened his rhetoric about removing dams and has been negotiating with Oregon’s two senators, Democrats Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden, on legislation to move the agreement forward.

But those talks came to an end two weeks ago after Walden unveiled a legislative draft that left out dam removal and called for turning over 100,000 acres of federal land to Klamath County and to California’s Siskiyou County.

Walden, suggesting that the dams could potentially be taken out through the regulatory process, said he was trying to figure out a creative way to build support for the agreement among his fellow Republicans.

In the short run, Walden’s proposal appeared to drive away Wyden and Merkley. They said the idea of turning federal forests over to the counties was a nonstarter in the Senate. The omnibus spending bill — once seen as a potential vehicle for Klamath Basin language – passed Friday, and Congress went home for holidays.

“We’re going to continue to work to find a solution that works for the people in the basin and that can be passed in the House and signed into law,” said Walden spokesman Andrew Malcolm. “We’re looking for a viable resolution.”

The senators released their own statement Friday, saying they hope they can make progress when Congress returns next month – but it’s clear they expect Walden to drop his more controversial ideas if anything is going to happen.

“We are hopeful that a path forward can still be found,” the senators said, “if there is an immediate commitment to put aside unnecessary and unrelated policy disputes and instead work toward legislative action first thing in January on an earnest attempt to implement the locally developed agreements.”

The path is getting rockier. One of the three tribes that signed the agreement – the Yuroks in California – have backed away from it, and Addington said some of the groups on the farm side are starting to peel away as well.

A PacifiCorp official told the Capitol Press, an agricultural newspaper, that the company will now seek to relicense its dams. Conversely, WaterWatch, a Portland-based environmental group that never supported the agreement, argues the dams can’t be brought up to modern standards and that it hopes to force their removal through the federal regulatory process.

Meanwhile, Addington said irrigators will probably have to unleash their lawyers to go into court to fight the Klamath Tribes over water rights in the upper basin. The tribes won a 2013 ruling that they hold the superior water rights, but there are still avenues for appeal.

Don Gentry, the Klamath tribal chairman, agreed that more litigation looms.

“We’re going to be basically back in court with one another,” Gentry said, “and that’s a difficult thing. But we have to represent our interests as best we can.”

Gentry noted that many of his tribal members are feeling restless. While they’ve lived within the terms of the agreement for five years, “we haven’t gotten any closer to all the things we want.”

The various signatories to the agreement are planning a conference call Dec. 28 to talk over what might happen next. Addington and Gentry say they hope the good will the signatories have built up over the years while help them continue to negotiate.

One thing everyone hopes for is a good water year to help smooth over conflicts.

In the meantime, Gentry said, supporters of the Klamath agreement are feeling shell-shocked.

“As one person said today,” he explained in a telephone interview, “we’re still going through the stages of grief.”

–Jeff Mapes




In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

No Comments

As Congress dithers, parties becomeing resigned to KBRA’s demise

Karuk Tribe on Klamath, KBRA or KHSA, Klamath Tribe, Salmon and fish, Tribes

PNP comment from Siskiyou Water Users Assoc. President Richard Marshall:


If you haven’t seen this yet. A very important article by the Capitol Press Tim Herndon environmental reporter. Note that this copy came by way of Ed Sheets then from Tom Mallams and Joe Watkins. You can see Ed Sheets email list of who’s who in the KBRA world. You should take a good look at Ed Sheets email list. Not yet time to celebrate and when we do, it will probably be short lived. However it is a historic turning point in what has been a long struggle to this point. What is right may yet win the day. We need to take advantage of this change to build positive points for retention of dams and we need to attack the scientific quality of the DOI efforts. The California Water Board is now taking center stage with the proposed EiR on water quality. Next the FERC battle may come into play. It also may be time to develop a defensible water policy in Siskiyou County by way of the Siskiyou County Water and Flood Control District.

Regards to all


— Assitional Comment by Editor Liz Bowen:  Congress is not dithering. The House Natural Resources Committee does not like the idea of destroying well-maintained green-energy dams like the Klamath River dams. For years, the Natural Resources Committee members and stated they will not appropriate the millions needed to demolish the dams. Just a point of clarification on a a very sore subject. So I disagree with this headline, but appreciate Tim for writing the article. Also, please remember that the County of Siskiyou was shut out of the KBRA process, which was ignorant and arrogant since 3 of the 4 hydro-electric dams were in Siskiyou County  and over 190 miles inland with over a million-salmon producing hatchery at Irongate Dam that was marked for demolition. — Editor Liz Bowen

As Congress dithers, parties becoming resigned to KBRA’s demise

Tim Hearden
Capitol Press
Dec. 17, 2015

KLAMATH FALLS, Ore. — While Congress dithers over the Klamath Basin’s water agreements, the parties to the nearly 6-year-old deals are becoming resigned to their likely collapse at the year’s end.

A panel of federal and state officials, tribal members, environmentalists and other participants in the 2010 accords has set a conference call for Dec. 28 to discuss termination of the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement — an ominous date for the deals’ proponents and a light at the end of a long tunnel for their detractors.
PacifiCorp, whose plan to remove its four hydroelectric dams from the Klamath River sparked much of the controversy, is now resuming its effort to relicense the dams, company spokesman Bob Gravely said.
With the Karuk Tribe — a key water right holder on the Klamath River — already having walked away from the pacts and the Klamath Tribes signaling their intention to do so, some of the irrigation districts that had signed on are also ready to walk away, said Greg Addington, the Klamath Water Users Association’s executive director.
The result could be what many growers and others in the basin have been dreading — a return to drastic irrigation shutoffs and cutbacks and protracted court battles over water rights.
“Our members have made it clear,” said tribal chairman Don Gentry, whose Klamath Tribes have the most senior of water rights in the Upper Klamath Basin. “We’ve been honoring the KBRA since 2010. It’s been five years, and our native fisheries and Lost River and shortnose suckers are in worse condition now than when we signed the agreements.
“We agreed to provide water at certain levels with the idea that legislation would move forward,” he said.
Congress’ inaction
Bills to authorize removal of the dams have languished in Congress since 2011. Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., a longtime opponent of dam removal, unveiled an eleventh-hour draft bill on Dec. 3 to move forward on other aspects of the agreements while putting approval of dam removal in the lap of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Walden’s bill won praise from Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, who said proposed federal land transfers to the Klamath Tribes in exchange for waiving senior water rights “are ideas I could strongly support in order to move forward.”
However, the bill received a cool reaction from proponents of the Klamath agreements, who have warned that water-sharing components of the pacts could crumble if Congress doesn’t authorize the package — including dam removal — before the end of the year.
So far, no efforts have been made to merge Walden’s bill with one by Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., which includes dam removal but has failed to advance beyond the upper chamber’s Energy and Natural Resources Committee. And lawmakers don’t appear to be in any hurry to get a bill passed.
“We had hoped people would agree to remain at the table” into 2016, Walden spokesman Andrew Malcolm said. “We’re hoping that what will work for people on Dec. 31 will still work on Jan. 1 or Jan. 2.”
House Speaker Paul Ryan’s office did not return a call from the Capital Press seeking comment about a timeline for moving Walden’s bill forward.
The 42 signatories of the pacts that included the dam removals as well as water-sharing and numerous conservation efforts in the basin already renewed the agreements once, in late 2012. However, looming deadlines lend more of a sense of urgency this time, proponents say.
“I think this time is different,” said Glen Spain, northwest regional director for the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations. “We’re a short period of time … from deadlines when this is all supposed to happen. We’ve done everything that’s been required in this, including finding non-federal money for dam removal.”
Contingency plans

Already, regulatory agencies are resuming the task of reviewing PacifiCorp’s dam-relicensing application, which the company has estimated would cost at least $300 million and leave the company exposed to other costs from litigation and added water quality regulations. Under the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement, the cost to PacifiCorp’s ratepayers would be capped at $200 million.
Trust funds from surcharges to PacifiCorps customers for dam removal have amassed more than $100 million, which will either be refunded or used to meet relicensing conditions if the Klamath agreements die, Gravely said.
The Karuk Tribe and other proponents of removing the dams have vowed to urge the state water boards to deny PacifiCorp’s relicensing applications under the Clean Water Act, which would force the dams to be removed anyway. But such a denial would be unprecedented, Gravely said.
Meanwhile, local opposition to dam removal has become more entrenched in the Klamath Basin as opponents have been elected to majorities on the Klamath County Board of Commissioners and several irrigation district boards.
“I’d like more time,” said Addington, whose KWUA represents irrigation districts in the Klamath Reclamation Project. “I for one and my organization would say we want to salvage this thing, and we’d be ready to have a conversation about that. But the Yurok Tribe has made it clear that it wants to move in a different direction … and the Klamath Tribes have made a similar statement.
“I just think we risk a harder-line element saying collaboration didn’t work” if the parties try to keep the agreements together, he said.
Looming crisis
Without the water pacts in place, growers in the Upper Klamath Basin could face another water crisis this spring like the one they encountered in 2013, when a total shutoff of irrigation water prompted landowners to begrudgingly work out their own water-sharing agreement with the tribes that was also contingent on the dams being removed.
While project irrigators have a stipulated settlement with the tribes that will remain even if the KBRA dies, the lack of an agreement could put more pressure on those growers’ water supplies, too, as more water for fish is sought under the Endangered Species Act, Addington said.
As to whether any future agreement could be salvaged from the wreckage, Addington said he’s unsure.
“Either … the KBRA is going to be a footnote in the interesting history of water in the Klamath Basin, or it’ll be the next step to something bigger,” Addington said. “I think it’s too early to say.
“I hate football analogies, but I feel like we got to the goal line and were just not able to punch it in,” he said. “We’ve got a House bill out there and a Senate bill out there … I just wish the folks in Congress would do what all the parties did, which is to lock themselves in a room and get it done. It’s the season of miracles, so who knows?”

# # #

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

No Comments

KBRA has always been a fraud

Federal gov & land grabs, Karuk Tribe on Klamath, KBRA or KHSA, Klamath River & Dams, Op-ed, Tribes, Yurok Tribe

By Liz Bowen

It looks like the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement is falling apart, which it should!

The County of Siskiyou was never allowed to be included as a “stakeholder” and, yet, 3 of the 4 dams tagged for destruction were located in Siskiyou.

We were over-ridden and ignored, but have become an outspoken advocate for saving the Klamath dams, because the dams preserve water quality, wildlife, fish and the communities of Siskiyou County.

Lies, deceit and fraud were rampant by the Greenie groups, Tribal leaders, federal and state agencies. I am a witness to it.  I have reported on this outrageous situation since the fraudulent listing of the coho salmon, in the Northern California area ONLY, by both the feds in 1996 and California  Fish and Game Commission in 2002.

Destroying the dams will kill at least three years of returning salmon runs — as admitted by Dept. of Fish and Game on April 1, 2010 at a meeting in Yreka, CA. How will that save the salmon?

The Irongate Dam Fish Hatchery, destined for demolition, also grows millions of salmon and steelhead for release each year. How will that improve fish populations if the fish hatchery is gone?

With no dams for flood or drought control, how will fish and wildlife have sufficient water as the Klamath is not a year-round natural high-flow river?

The KBRA is a political hot potato created to destroy salmon runs, wildlife, water quality and the economy of Siskiyou County.

I am certainly looking forward to the continued demise of the KBRA.

« Older Posts
Newer Posts »