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 Karuk Tribe on Klamath category.

Tribes call for agreement termination

Karuk Tribe on Klamath, KBRA or KHSA, Klamath River & Dams

Herald and News.com

May 18, 2017

After mediation failed to find a solution to sustain the Upper Klamath Basin Comprehensive Agreement (UKBCA), Klamath Tribes and Upper Basin irrigators differ on the future of the agreement.

In an April 26 letter, Klamath Tribes Chairman Don Gentry asked U.S. Department of the Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke for the UKBCA’s termination through issuing a “Negative Notice,” citing unmet stipulations in the agreement and termination of the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA).

Gentry recently visited with U.S. Sens. Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley, both Oregon Democrats, as well as U.S. Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) in Washington, D.C. and Department of Interior staff regarding the UKBCA.

“We provided a status of the Upper Basin agreement, and our intentions to continue the Negative Notice,” Gentry said.

“It was centered on trying to resolve litigation over water,” Gentry said of the UKBCA. “It was never intended to be a stand-alone agreement. In fact, it really couldn’t survive without the KBRA.”

Agreement request

Upper Klamath Basin irrigators submitted an April 28 letter asking Zinke to keep the agreement in place, via attorney Dominic M. Carollo on behalf of Fort Klamath Critical Habitat Landowners, Sprague River Resource Foundation and the Modoc Point Irrigation District. Upper Basin irrigators continue seek a solution to keep the agreement intact.

“Terminating the UKBCA at this time, just as the irrigation season commences, would have devastating consequences for livestock producers in the Upper Klamath Basin by subjecting them to calls for fulfillment of Tribal in-stream water rights at their full levels as opposed to the reduced levels negotiated under the UKBCA,” Carollo said in the letter.

The Klamath Tribes met with Oregon representatives, land owner entities and Interior officials Oct. 3, 2016 to find a way forward following termination of the KBRA. Attempts for a solution failed.

“The Klamath Tribes determined that the parties could not cure the losses incurred by the termination of the KBRA or address the issues listed in our Notice, as these programs were inextricably tied to KBRA funding sources,” Gentry wrote in the letter to Zinke.

Mediation efforts

Following that determination by Gentry in October 2016, he and other Tribal members continued to seek a solution through mediation. On Feb. 23, Gentry met with a select group of landowners, officials from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior’s Office of the Solicitor and the Department of Justice, as is required by the Upper Basin agreement.

Mediator Susan Driver, who led the mediation, concluded parties were unable to reach a solution, according to the letter to the Interior.

“The expiration of the KBRA is too big to overcome to successfully implement the UKBCA,” Gentry wrote in the letter to the Interior. “…The overall benefits the KBRA was designed to provide to the Klamath Tribes cannot be accomplished through the UKBCA alone.

“When the Klamath Tribes and the other parties negotiated the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, it was envisioned that they were going to try to bring as many parties that were battling over water together to reach a solution that would work for all,” Gentry added.

The KBRA terminated Jan. 31, 2015.

MORE

http://www.heraldandnews.com/news/local_news/tribes-call-for-agreement-termination/article_0bb1443d-82fe-5e95-b295-dbf076b335cf.html

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

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.

http://www.redding.com/news/local/lamalfa-criticized-dam-removal-process-2cf81491-89a6-2e3c-e053-0100007f8293-370868711.html?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=Newsletter&utm_content=&utm_campaign=TopHeadlines_Newsletter

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

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:

Folks,

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

Richard

— 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.

2 Comments

Tribes eye leaving Klamath Basin deals

Karuk Tribe on Klamath, KBRA or KHSA, Klamath River & Dams, Tribes, Yurok Tribe

http://www.times-standard.com/environment-and-nature/20150915/tribes-eye-leaving-klamath-basin-deals

 

By Will Houston, Eureka Times-Standard
Posted: 09/15/15, 10:58 PM PDT | Updated: 39 secs ago
0 Comments
Five years of negotiations that went into the Klamath Basin agreements between tribes, irrigators, farmers and governments are starting to unravel as the three bills that encapsulate the accord remain stalled in Congress.
The Yurok Tribe announced its notice to withdraw from the agreement on Tuesday, with the Karuk Tribe set to withdraw at the end of the year if Congress does not act, according to Karuk Tribe Klamath Coordinator Craig Tucker.
“We are continuing to have conversations with congressional offices,” he said, stating that he had traveled to Washington, D.C., last week to address these issues. “I do think it’s possible that we could pull this thing off in the end. But time is growing very short.”
In its notice, the Yurok Tribe states that since the first draft of the agreement was approved in 2010, many of the agreed upon conditions have been altered and had, in some instances, caused the tribe to consider withdrawing from the agreements.
“Unfortunately, Congress has failed to pass legislation authorizing the agreements, and over time the bargained for benefits of the agreements have become unachievable,” the notice states. “The tribe is left with no choice other than to withdraw from the Klamath Agreements.”
Tucker said that the Klamath Tribes of Oregon — the tribal government made up of the Klamath and Modoc tribes and Yahooskin Band of Snake Indians — also plan to withdraw from the agreements if no action is taken. Calls to the Klamath Tribes of Oregon for comment were not immediately returned Tuesday afternoon.
The status of the Klamath, Modoc and Yahooskin Band of Snake Indians had been terminated by Congress in 1954, and their 1,400 square mile reservation sold off, becoming ranches, rural subdivisions, private timberlands, and parts of two national forests. Since tribal status was restored in 1986, the tribes have been working to regain some of the reservation as an economic base.
The Klamath Basin agreements contain three major compromises that were made as recently as April 2014. Under the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement and Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA), four hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River would be removed to help salmon, promote water quality restoration and to provide farmers more concrete assurances on irrigation expectations. Both agreements require approval by Congress, but were stalled by opposition among House Republicans.
Last year, a third agreement known as the Upper Klamath Basin Agreement was made between Klamath Basin irrigators and the tribes. Under that agreement, ranchers and farmers on the upper basin would reduce water withdrawals to increase flows into Upper Klamath Lake by 30,000 acre feet, benefiting both endangered sucker fish, salmon and downstream tribes.
The agreement was signed on April 18, after 30 years of a process known as adjudication, to settle water rights in the Sycan, Wood and Williamson rivers, which flow through the former reservation lands of the Klamath Tribes into Upper Klamath Lake. The process ended with the tribes gaining senior water rights. But this third agreement has also been stalled in a House committee and is meeting the same opposition among House Republicans as the other two agreements, Tucker said.
“We hope to solve this problem through this negotiated agreement,” he said. “It’s like Congress would prefer to see us fight with one another instead of solve a problem. For me it’s been really depressing. I felt like we did the right thing.”
Should Congress fail to act on the three bills, Tucker said, many farmers on the basin would be left “high and dry” as the Klamath Tribes of Oregon would be prone to exercise their senior water rights, putting many farmers with junior rights out of business.
In California, Tucker said that the long-standing battles between tribes, governments, irrigators and farmers over water rights would likely resume with the Klamath River fish paying the price. The Karuk Tribe would also have to attempt to convince the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to not renew the dam licenses for the four Klamath River dams that would have been removed if the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement was approved.
“FERC has never ordered a dam removal successfully,” Tucker said. “Settlement agreements are how dam removals happen. If this agreement flops, we’re letting a huge opportunity slip through our fingers.”
Will Houston can be reached at 707-441-0504. The Associated Press contributed to this article.

No Comments

Water settlement comes into question

Karuk Tribe on Klamath, KBRA or KHSA, Klamath River & Dams, Klamath Tribe, Tribes

PNP comment: The forested lands the Klamath Tribes thought they would receive through the bargain in the KBRA is now gone. Hum, apparently games are going on in the background, but luckily that Tribes now see little use for the KBRA since their promised bribes are gone. — Editor Liz Bowen

Herald and News, Klamath Falls, Oregon

Posted: Thursday, March 5, 2015 12:00 am

Tribes remain hopeful that Congress will approve legislation

Three Basin tribes have begun a mediation process that could end in termination of the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA).

“Our concern is that legislation has not passed. We are unable to obtain our bargained-for benefits,” said Karuk Tribes Spokesman Craig Tucker. “We remain steadfastly in support of the agreements, but we can’t wait forever for Congress to do its thing.”

The Klamath Tribes, the Karuk Tribe, and the Yurok Tribe have each filed dispute initiation notices, which is the first step in the resolution process outlined in the KBRA. The Yurok Tribe could not be reached for comment.

At a Feb. 28 general council meeting, Klamath Tribes members voted unanimously to file a dispute initiation notice. According to the KBRA, if a party to the settlement believes the bargained-for benefits are no longer achievable, the party can submit a dispute initiation notice within 60 days of Dec. 31, 2014.

Klamath Tribes Chairman Don Gentry said the Tribes do not want to terminate the agreement; however, if they decided at a later date to do so, it would have been too late to file a dispute resolution notice.

“The Klamath Tribes are committed to the agreements if fully implemented and we remain hopeful that our concerns will be addressed,” Gentry said in a statement.

“However, the sale of the Mazama Forest land is of grave concern to our membership, and we felt we had to officially register this concern by initiating the dispute resolution processes before the deadline.”

The Klamath Tribes filed the notice after learning the 90,000-acre Mazama Forest, which encompasses a mass of former reservation land, was sold in mid-February. Acquiring the forest is a key component of the KBRA, and the Tribes hoped Congress would appropriate funds to purchase it as part of Senate Bill 133, a three-part bill aimed at relieving Basin-wide water woes.

Gentry said the Tribes reached out to the new landowners about acquiring the property. He said the new owners are not interested in selling the parcel.

According to a news release, the KBRA states if funding for the forest is “not timely provided, the Klamath Tribes shall have a right to withdraw from this agreement.”

“We have consistently said that land recovery is an essential component of these agreements for the Klamath Tribes,” Gentry said. “We would all like to see Congress pass the necessary legislation to complete the terms of the agreements so that we can move forward as a community. Unfortunately, at this moment our tribal members feel that we have traveled the path of broken promises too many times, and must be proactive in finding a solution to ensure all parties achieve their bargained for benefits.”

SB 133 was referred to Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on Jan. 8. The committee will consider the bill before possibly sending it to the House or Senate. The bill must be passed by the House and Senate in identical form and signed by the president before it can become law.

No Comments

Siskiyou Board of Supervisors will discuss illegal Karuk Casino today 11-18-14

Karuk Tribe on Klamath, Siskiyou County

 

9. 10:25 A.M. – DEPARTMENTAL REQUESTS

A. GENERAL SERVICES
Discussion, direction and possible action re amendment to contract with Siskiyou Design Group, Inc., for the Siskiyou County Transit/Administration Center design project, increasing the contract fee from $172,125 to an amount not to exceed $232,013.

B. ASSESSOR-RECORDER
Discussion, direction and possible action re addendum #1 to the AtPac/CRiis license agreement amendment C, for verification of proper Social Security Number truncation on digitized County Records, in an amount not to exceed $4,610.

C. ASSESSOR-RECORDER
Discussion, direction and possible action re AtPac/CRiis license agreement amendment E, for off-site backup of official County Records, in an amount not to exceed $2,400 for FY14/15, not to exceed $2,472 for FY15/16, and including one-time set-up costs, in an amount not to exceed $400.

D. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Discussion, direction and possible action re Resolution accepting a grant deed for real property, approving the intent to dispose of real property and authorizing the County’s Community Development Director to enter into the necessary agreements to sell said property, located at 16122 First Street Hornbrook, CA APN: 040-420-070.

E. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Discussion, direction and possible action re request to create an Environmental Health Specialist II position, 1.0 FTE, effective November 23, 2014.
F. TRANSFER OF FUNDS – Community Development-Environmental Health – $65,493. Requires 4/5 Vote.

G. COUNTY COUNSEL
Discussion, direction and possible action re first amendment to master agreement for information technology services with Xerox State and Local Solutions, Inc., amending language to Section 2.1 of the Master Agreement; Service Agreements and Section 4.01 of the General Service Agreement.

H. COUNTY COUNSEL
Discussion and possible direction re staff report regarding arbitration with the Karuk Tribe over mitigation requirements for the proposed casino in Yreka.

10. 11:30 A.M. – BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

A. SUPERVISOR MICHAEL N. KOBSEFF
Discussion, direction and possible action re update on the status of the Tourism Business Improvement District (T-BID) project, including request for confirmation that the County will serve as the lead agency.

B. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Presentation of Resolution recognizing Supervisor Marcia H. Armstrong upon the occasion of her retirement from the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors.

No Comments

$35 million Yreka casino could start next spring

Karuk Tribe on Klamath, State gov

PNP comment: This is over-the-top biased in favor of the Karuk Casino, which is illegal under National Indian Gaming Commission rules. — Editor Liz Bowen

Siskiyou County opposes idea

• By Damian Mann
Mail Tribune
Posted Nov. 7, 2014 @ 6:43 pm

A $35 million casino in Yreka, Calif., has cleared all major hurdles and construction could begin early next year, officials from the Karuk Tribe said Friday.
“By next spring, we should start digging,” said Jaclyn Goodwin, self governance coordinator for the tribe.
The Karuks, who hope to attract 30 percent of their business from the Medford area, say the casino would bring 350 jobs to Siskiyou County, where unemployment hovers around 11 percent. It would start at 36,000 square feet with 500 gaming machines, eight table games, a 100-seat restaurant and a large parking area. The cost estimate for the first phase is up to $35 million.
The second phase would add 20,000 square feet to accommodate 300 more gaming machines, eight more table games and an 80-room hotel and more parking. No cost estimates were available for the second phase.
The tribe’s plans have been approved by the California State Legislature, and it has agreements with the city of Yreka and the California Department of Transportation.
One stumbling block has been an agreement with Siskiyou County that will soon head into binding arbitration. The county has asked the tribe to pay $416,000 a year to cover impacts to the law enforcement system, including the county-run jail.
The tribe has offered to pay $100,000, but Goodwin said the tribe developed a separate agreement with the city of Yreka because the casino is located inside its boundaries.
“The majority of the project impacts the city of Yreka,” Goodwin said.
She said the tribe and the county will both submit proposals, and one will be picked as part of the binding arbitration agreement.
Voters in Siskiyou County overwhelmingly opposed the establishment of the Karuk casino in the Nov. 4 election. However, the measure was just for advisory purposes and will do nothing to stop the casino.
Siskiyou County Supervisor Marcia Armstrong said the county is asking for money to offset increased demand for the jail and social services that it anticipates from the casino.
“We have to protect the citizens of Siskiyou County so they are not shouldering the financial burden,” she said.
Armstrong said the county has had very little clout in being able to stop the casino, even though she and many other county residents oppose the idea.
“I don’t think it will be beneficial for the county,” Armstrong said.
An analysis of the impacts of the casino conducted by Siskiyou County estimated 136 casino-related arrests per year, which would cost $228,480.
The Karuks number 3,686, with 418 members in the Yreka area. They have tribal lands in both Siskiyou County and Humboldt County. The main population centers are in Orleans, Happy Camp and Yreka.
The Karuks’ proposed casino appears to be drawing no opposition from its competitors: the Coquille Indian Tribe, which hopes to build the Cedars in Medford, and the Cow Creek Band of the Umpqua Indians, which could potentially lose Seven Feathers customers to Yreka.
Yreka is less than 60 miles from Medford, Canyonville about 70.
Reach reporter Damian Mann at 541-776-4476 or dmann@mailtribune.com. Follow on Twitter at @reporterdm.

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

Karuk leadership file another lawsuit against miners

CA & OR, CORRUPTION, CRIMINAL, Dept. Fish & Game, GOLD, Karuk Tribe on Klamath, Lawsuits, Mark Baird, Mining, Water, Resources & Quality

PNP comment from Mark Baird: 

The historic designation for the Crook Tribe is the Krok. They are a part of the Yrok tribe. Yrok meaning lower river and Krok meaning upper river. The Krok or Crook tribe as Siskiyou county people call them, are anything but idiots.

They are well funded not only by the agencies who are supposed to serve the people of America but also by all of the radical environmental progressive groups. Interesting that a people who are complaining about being originally subjugated by The United States of America, so enjoys being chained to their masters table waiting for the next table scrap of grant money.

The House that the Felon Hillman and the Green corp lackey, Tucker have built is a burned out alcoholic, drug ridden crap hole, while their leadership rakes in the taxpayers dollars for “saving the environment”.

Attack them on the standing!

They all claim to be sovereign nations. Good, because two can play that game.

Indians who are not taxed have no standing in the mineral assets of the Citizens of the United States and no jurisdiction to bring suit over the disposition of those assets. Their goal is to clear all white people off of the Klamath River and they are doing it with your own money. Wake up people, this is just another environmental scam and has nothing to do with water or fish. Vote out the bums who are giving away your property!!!!!

The Time Has Come For 51

 

These guys never give up!

By Dave Mack

The Karuks and their allies just filed a motion with the Third Appellate Court, suggesting that Brandon never had a mining claim in the first place, because the State owns the bottom of waterways!
Here it is:

http://www.goldgold.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Ltr-rinehart-10-17-14.pdf

Never mind that the State withdrew from this argument during Brandon’s initial trial, and continues to charge Brandon property taxes on his mining claim! Here is our answer:

http://www.goldgold.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Ltr-re-Amicus-mod-10-21-14.pdf

Reminder that this is all costing us a lot of money; that the Legal Fund is giving 3 ounces of my gold nuggets away in about a week; and I am starting to worry that there is not much participation.
Check out this gold!

http://www.goldgold.com/klamath-river-gold.html

Thanks for whatever you guys can do!

Dave Mack

The New 49er’s, 27 Davis Road, Happy Camp, California 96039, USA

No Comments
« Older Posts