Ridin’ Point

By Marcia H. Armstrong, Siskiyou County Supervisor – District 5

http://users.sisqtel.net/armstrng/

“Klamath Whistleblower” Part 1 of 2:

Recently, Paul Houser, Ph.D. met with the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors (BoS) to discuss the science of the Klamath dam removal studies. Houser has a degree in hydrology and is an expert in hydrometeorology. He is currently a Professor at George Mason University.  He was the Bureau of Reclamation’s (BoR) Science Advisor and his duties included advice on peer review and scientific integrity.

In September of 2011, Dr. Houser was asked to review a press release and summary of the dam removal science. In his review, he felt that the documents were biased and the science was being spun or manipulated to support dam removal. Houser commented that science informs decisions and decision-makers should get a realistic summary of the risks.

When he transmitted his concerns, he was advised not to create a document that would be discoverable by Congress or a Freedom of Information Request (FOIA.) It was also indicated that his disclosure was not welcome because the Secretary of Interior wanted the dams removed. It became clear to Dr. Houser that the decision to remove the dams had already been made and the science was being manipulated to support a predetermined outcome.

Despite making his concerns known in writing, they were never addressed. The press release was changed slightly, but not the summary of the science. The BoR recategorized his position as probationary and eliminated his travel, training and mentoring. In February 2012, his Supervisor gave him the option of resigning or being terminated. He chose the later and has filed a complaint raising issues of biased science and scientific integrity with the Inspector General for Whistleblower Protection. The following Monday, the Secretary of Interior delayed the anticipated announcement on his decision whether or not to remove the Klamath dams, stating that Congress had not yet passed legislation giving him the authority to do so.

Citing examples of manipulated science to the BoS, Houser pointed out that the dam removal EIS/EIR (Environmental Impact Statement/Report) claims an expected 81.4% increase in Chinook population. The expert scientific panel actually indicated an expected possible increase of as much as 10% in chinook spawners due to 10 different factors, including water quality and significant restoration work in the tributaries. The 81.4% figure came from an un-peer reviewed report by a contractor, which had a huge range of uncertainty.

When asked by the BoS about his opinion concerning dam removal, Houser pointed out core water quality and temperature issues in the Upper Klamath that were limiting factors to salmon. He also expressed concern about the impacts of the sediment flush. He said that he believed that removing the dams was at best – risky, and at worst – tragic. One of the real issues is that the BoR failed to consider logical alternatives to dam removal, such as truck and haul or the fish bypass. Also, his Supervisor had been a long time lobbyist for Trout Unlimited, which posed an ethical conflict of interest.

Houser talked about how paid science can reflect the purchaser’s agenda. The wording of a hypothesis given to a scientist by an agency drives the science and can result in bias if it fails to consider all the options.  The government’s failure to do social and economic impact analysis also leads to imbalanced decisions and the failure to recognize trade-offs.

He talked about his concerns over how the dams would be breached and the remaining slow release of eroded fine sediment that would affect the river for years afterward. According to Houser, the habitat in the Upper Basin is not even good habitat for salmon and steelhead. He agreed with Supervisor Kobseff that a trial test of released hatchery salmon in the Upper Basin would be a prudent experiment before removing the dams. Houser also agreed that truck and haul was not a radical alternative and that it was being used in other rivers.

State Responsibility Area (SRA) Fire Prevention Benefit Fee: There will be a hearing by the CA Board of Forestry on the proposed draft permanent State Responsibility Area (SRA) fee on May 23 at the Shasta County Board of Supervisors Chambers, 1450 Court Street, from 1-4 p.m.  As it currently stands, fee bills of $150.00 per per habitable structure are set to be sent to property owners on August 7. Property owners within the SRA and also within the boundaries of a local agency that provides fire protection services shall receive a reduction $35.00 per habitable structure. Written comments on the permanent regulations can be submitted anytime to the Board of Forestry at board.public.comments@fire.ca.gov or  Mr. George Gentry, Executive Officer , Board of Forestry and Fire Protection, P.O. Box 944246, Sacramento, CA 94244-2460

Ridin’ Point

By Marcia H. Armstrong, Siskiyou County Supervisor – District 5

http://users.sisqtel.net/armstrng/

“Klamath Whistleblower” Part 2 of 2: 

Recently, Paul Houser, Ph.D. met with the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors (BoS) to discuss the science of Klamath dam removal. Houser was the Bureau of Reclamation’s (BoR) Science Advisor and his duties included advice on peer review and scientific integrity.

According to Dr. Houser, politics has no place in science and if you are trusting science from the BoR, it comes with a political agenda. The expert panel reports were rather good in expressing the uncertainty and the risk of the impacts of dam removal. It was decision-makers higher up that were trying to change the science to match their political agenda. Houser also expressed some concern about the peer reviewers selected to review the science. In one case, a dam removal engineer was selected as a reviewer – bringing a possible predetermined bias and conflict of interest.

Supervisor Grace Bennett expressed concern that removal of the dams would eliminate their function as “settling ponds” in cleaning the river. Houser indicated that the water quality in the Upper Basin was impaired by phosphorus from volcanic soils. Studies have shown how the dams have cleaned up water quality. Without them, the poor water quality at Keno will be the water quality for the entire river. He also indicated that in the Upside down nature of the Klamath River, the Trinity River’s contribution to cold, clean water is extremely important. It appears to be treated as a separate river, instead of a vital part of the Klamath River system.

Houser had concerns for the toxicity of the sediment behind the dams. He said that it contained chemicals that had been used in the past that don’t break down easily. Once the dams are removed, a layer of from one to six feet of sediment would be deposited on the streambed downstream of the dams. The dam removal EIS/EIS (Environmental Impact Statement/Report) assumes that most of the sediment will stay in place. As has been shown with old mill dams in the Shenandoah, erosion over the years can caused a legacy of water quality problems into the future.

Surprisingly, there has been very little push back from his allegations from supporters of dam removal. When he was challenged to a debate by an environmentalist, he answered that he was going to argue in favor or scientific integrity and asked if the challenger was going to argue in favor of scientific misconduct.

In the delta smelt lawsuit, each side had its own scientists. The irrigator’s scientists tried to convince the judge that the fish’s needs allowed for flows to farmers. The agency’s scientists tried to convince the judge that every drop of water was needed for the fish. It was obvious what the biases were and the judge had to decide between them. He blasted the federal scientists. He told them that they were being paid by the tax payer and were obligated to look at all sides, good or bad, and provide unbiased and balanced information upon which to base a decision.

In the case of the Klamath, Houser indicated that the local scientists he had spoken with are disgusted with what has happened with science on the Klamath. Houser would like to do an independent peer review and take a look at what we do know and what we still need to know.

Supervisor Bennett indicated that the local fish passage idea had been turned down out of hand by the CA Dept of Fish and Game and BoR. Houser stated that the fish passage idea looked like a good creative idea if it would deliver fish to suitable habitat. Engineering makes sense in other areas with high tech elevators, etc., why not on the Klamath?

Natural Resource Specialist Ric Costales asked whether or not working in a hotbed of political pressures was just par for the course for scientists. Houser indicated that the Klamath was particularly egregious because the Secretary had made the decision to remove the dams years before in 2009 and had implemented a process masquerading as a scientific process to justify it.

County Counsel Tom Guarino stated that the BoS had long been concerned about the quality of Klamath science and had insisted that reference to the President’s March 9, 2009, Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies on “scientific integrity” be included in the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement. Dr. Houser indicated that, as BoR advisor for scientific integrity, he was required to follow these Presidential orders.

In regard to his formal complaint to the Inspector General for Whistleblower Protection on the scientific bias and lack of integrity, Houser stated that he had also included Siskiyou County’s concerns raised in its comments on the dam removal EIS/EIR

PNP comment: Thank you to Nancy Monchamp of Lassen County for sending this info.  QUESTION: How can the gray wolf be endangered, if their numbers are increasing so much that their packs are growing and migrating?  Doesn’t fit the criteria for an animal that should be listed to the Endangered Species Act to me! — Editor Liz Bowen

These are the NON-PROFIT groups filing petitions for listing the gray wolf to the ESA (Endangered Species Act) for protection.

I’m forwarding some Ref. links for  Petition filed by the

Center of Biological Diversity,

Big Wildlife,

Environmental Protection Inf. Center,

Klamath Siskiyou Wildland Center

to list Gray Wolf with California ESA.

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2012/wolves-02-27-2012.html   ( Ref.  Article to have Gray Wolf placed on California Endangered Species List)

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/wolves_on_the_west_coast/pdfs/CESA_Wolf_Petition.pdf      ( Center of Bio. Diversity Petition  ~ please note referenced  ideal Habitat as Modoc Plauteu &  Sierra Nevada Range with re-introduction numbers threshold)  submitted by  ~ Center of Biological Diversity, Big Wildlife, Envir. Protection Info Center, Klamath Sisqiyou Wildlands Center , Author Brett Hartl, Noah Greenwald)

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/gray_wolves/index.html   ( Ref.  Center of Bio. Diversity Intent ~ Article regarding Gray Wolf)

http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc3978.%20lupus%205-YR%20review%20PDF.pdf  ( Fed Fish & Wildlife Evaluation and 5-year Plan – Gray Wolf  issued  Feb. 29, 2012) 

PNP comment: These are quotes by Sam Aanestad, who is running for Congress, but has never been a friend to Siskiyou County. Read these for yourself to find the real Aanestad. Please do not be decieved. When he was State Senator, Aanestad rarely bothered with Siskiyou. I do not see him coming to our rescue on SAVING the DAMS. — Editor Liz Bowen

Comments made by Sam Aanestad:

“Aanestad added that a water bond should include money to remove PacifiCorp’s dams on the Klamath River, which would open long-blocked salmon habitat and hopefully restore endangered runs, as well as financing for fuel treatments that would cut fire risk and improve watershed health. If he got his way, there would be real benefit for the north state. And, to be sure, a healthy delta is key to healthy Sacramento River fisheries, even a couple hundred miles upstream.”- Redding Record Searchlight 9/6/2009

http://www.redding.com/news/2009/sep/06/north-state-has-much-to-lose-in-water-debate/?print=1

North state has much to lose in water debate

Staff Reports

Sunday, September 6, 2009

California’s water problems are many and serious. The drought has forced rationing in cities and the idling of farm fields. The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is in ecological free fall. Dams and diversions have drastically squeezed our fisheries.

But from a north state perspective, things could get worse. The Legislature could fix these problems at our expense.

Despite this spring’s drought scare, the Sacramento Valley remains relatively water-rich in a thirsty state. While other parts of California badly need more reliable water or environmental repair, the north state might be best off if we were just left alone.

That’s not likely to happen.

A bipartisan conference committee representing both the state Senate and the Assembly is meeting in a late push to pass a major package of water bills before the Legislature’s session ends this week. What, if anything, they’ll come up with is anyone’s guess, but it’s some reassurance that at least the north state’s delegates to Sacramento – Sen. Sam Aanestad and Assemblyman Jim Nielsen – are both on the committee and both looking for the region’s interests, as they see them.

Aanestad says 80 percent of the water that flows through the delta falls as rain or snow on his 4th Senate District. Protecting our long-established first dibs on that water is his top priority, he said.

“What we want,” Aanestad said, “is to put in stone this area-of-origin language that makes it impossible for future legislatures to cut back on those water rights for the north state.”

Nielsen pointed to a Delta Stewardship Council and “watermaster” proposed by Democratic lawmakers. These new officials would have the power to impose new fees and to regulate in-stream flows in the rivers that feed the delta, which is all the waterways between Bakersfield and Mt. Shasta. The power to cut water use by cities and farms, pretty much on the watermaster’s say-so, would create “virtual dictators up and downstream, east and west,” the assemblyman said.

Even granting for hyperbole, the threat to water rights is obvious. Combined with the revived talk of building a peripheral canal around the delta to more reliably ship Sacramento Valley water south, it’s hard not to see a plan to spread our water wealth around.

To both lawmakers, part of the answer also lies in new water storage, in particular the Sites Reservoir in Colusa County. An off-stream reservoir on the Sacramento Valley’s west flank, Sites would store excess winter runoff for a dry day, reducing the pressure to rob northern users of their water. Because it wouldn’t block the river, it would be relatively fish-friendly. As new water storage goes, it’s long been Northern California’s best bet, but any new reservoirs are a near-religious taboo for environmentalists and the Democratic politicians they support in the Legislature.

Aanestad added that a water bond should include money to remove PacifiCorp’s dams on the Klamath River, which would open long-blocked salmon habitat and hopefully restore endangered runs, as well as financing for fuel treatments that would cut fire risk and improve watershed health. If he got his way, there would be real benefit for the north state. And, to be sure, a healthy delta is key to healthy Sacramento River fisheries, even a couple hundred miles upstream.

Still, our region has a lot more to lose. California’s water problems need solving. But simply taking from the north state without accommodating our needs isn’t a repair, it’s a robbery.

Aanestad responds to Klamath dam questions 

By David Smith

Siskiyou Daily News

December 10, 2009

Yreka, Calif. – Tuesday’s public forum with Senator Sam Aanestad turned from the budget reform process to talk of the four dams along the Klamath River that are slated for possible removal, pending a decision by the Secretary of the Interior in 2012.

The discussion began with talk of a resolution put forth by the Siskiyou County Republican Central Committee opposing dam removal and Aanestad’ s refusal earlier in the year to back the resolution.

Responding to a question from the audience regarding the resolution, Aanestad stated that he felt it was “a bad resolution” for its lack of specificity in defining the dams the group was opposed to removing. He stated that he first heard the resolution over the phone on his way to the convention where it was being presented and he understood it to say that the group was opposed to all dam removal projects in the entire state.

“Can you say that there are no dams that should come out?” Aanestad asked, with some in the crowd saying they did not want any dams removed.

Aanestad continued by stating that he believes there are currently 100 dams in the state that should be removed, although he told the crowd that he is not in favor of removing the four dams on the Klamath. He went on to state that he would have listened to a resolution specific to the four dams, but said that he felt the original resolution was a “blanketed, uneducated resolution.”

Aanestad did say that he supported an amendment to the resolution made at the meeting in question regarding support for inclusion of hydroelectric generation in the state’s green energy policy.

The topic of the resolution appeared throughout the rest of the meeting, with disagreement over whether or not Aanestad should have seen the resolution beforehand and what his official position was on the issue.

Another issue brought up at the meeting was the upcoming vote on the “Water Bond” for the state, which has been presented as a solution to water problems facing the southern portion of California.

Aanestad told the crowd “there had to be a water deal,” but that he does not feel the current water bond is sufficient. While he repeated often that he was not telling the crowd whether or not to support the bond, he did say that he was going to vote no for a number of reasons, including the potential loss of water rights for north state landowners and what he feels is an inadequate amount to be allocated for creation of new water storage reservoirs.

According to Aanestad, however, if the bond passes, Siskiyou County will receive $20 million regardless of whether or not the Klamath dams are to be removed.

As the meeting moved forward, many in the audience spoke about things with which they disagree in both the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement and the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement. Aanestad eventually stated that he does back PacifiCorp’s decision to agree to put the dams up for removal, providing background and his rationale for doing so.

Aanestad said that beginning under former President George Bush and continuing under President Barack Obama, the cost for complying with Federal Energy Regulatory Commission guidelines for relicensing the dams would have potentially reached $300 million, without any assurance that the dams would be relicensed.

Ultimately, Aanestad said, he supports a private business’ decision to do what it will with its property, saying, “A private property owner has a duty to do what is right for shareholders.” He also stated that he believes that the two agreements are already a “done deal,” stating that the groups involved “are not required to get input from you.”

Other issues, which have been brought up in past forums on the issue of the dams, were brought up as well. Of those, Dr. Richard Gierak presented the idea that individuals may be able to bring an inverse condemnation suit against those seeking dam removal as a possible avenue for stopping the process. He also provided Aanestad with a number of informational packets he had prepared, each detailing a different aspect of his argument against dam removal, as well as the process by which the agreements were reached.

Aanestad closed the meeting by stating that he believes he has not communicated with Siskiyou County very well, stating that he has had various agribusiness groups in his office supporting dam removal, not knowing until the meeting that there were agribusiness interests opposed to removal.

Ultimately, according to Aanestad, he learned that there has been miscommunication on the issue between himself and his constituents, giving those left in attendance his personal phone number so that individuals can voice their concerns.

Source:  http://www.siskiyoudaily.com/news/x1154125489/Aanestad-responds-to-Klamath-dam-questions

Water supply

Westlands uses ‘voodoo math’ to seek more water

Letter
From Sacramento Bee – Saturday, May 12, 2012
Westlands Water District General Manager Thomas W. Birmingham claims his 600 irrigators “are being allocated only 40 percent of their water supply.” This is misleading.

Coalition response…Lloyd Carter continues the use of those mythical words—senior and junior—that do not exist in the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation contracts with water users of the Central Valley Project. Each water contractor has an individual contract with the federal agency that is not dependent on the water supply of any other contractor. The US holds the water rights granted by the state of California for the construction and operation of the CVP. It is these very old rights that provide the basis for all of the contracts for the delivery of project water. The rights are uniform among all contractors regardless of location or date of initial delivery.

Read the Reclamation press release announcing the current 40% delivery at  http://www.usbr.gov/newsroom/newsrelease/detail.cfm?RecordID=39804. Those mythical words are not a part of the press release because they do not exist in the contracts, only in the minds of Carter and others who oppose the production of a reliable and healthy supply of food from the farmers of Westlands Water District.

Westlands’ farm practices harm Delta

Viewpoint
By Deirdre Des Jardins/Jane Wagner-Tyack
From Sacramento Bee – Saturday, May 12, 2012
That column, written by Thomas W. Birmingham of the Westlands Water District, stated that “Farmers on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley do not want to steal anyone’s water. They merely want to regain access to the water in a full Shasta Reservoir that they are paying for.”

Coalition response…If the land in Westlands Water District is so poor as these authors claim, then why are the crop yields so high? A combination of factors—weather, climate, water, management practices and soil—have resulted in crop yields that lead the nation year after year. The drop in cotton acreage during the past decade has been the result of dropping prices in the market, not soil conditions as the authors suggest. A recent rebound in market prices has seen cotton acreage creep upward.

Family farmers and partnerships represent the vast majority of farms in the district. People keep citing “absentee farmers” as they try to hide the fact of how many family farmers are on the land. Families and partnerships make the decisions on 91% of the 81,000 farms in California. Westlands is no different.

WATER SUPPLY

Filling to a safe level

Story
From Visalia Times-Delta – Sunday, May 13, 2012

Over the past few years, Lake Success near Porterville hasn’t been the lake it used to be. That’s because in 2004, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers set restrictions on the maximum amount of water the lake could hold, lowering the water level 30 feet.

Congress plots local projects despite ban on earmarks

Story
From Sacramento Bee – Sunday, May 13, 2012
The loaded word “Natomas” appears nowhere in the latest flood-control bill authored by Sacramento Democratic Rep. Doris Matsui. So, too, with Sites Reservoir. The proposed Sacramento Valley project’s name cannot be found in an energy and water package pushed by Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

In water wars, don’t forget consumers and workers

Letter
From Sacramento Bee – Saturday, May 12, 2012
In the arcane water wars revolving around the Delta, water agencies, litigants and federal legislation, let’s remember the bystanders: California consumers, who need access to safe, quality, reasonably priced food from local growers.

Modesto Irrigation District water sale should start small

Editorial
From Modesto Bee – Saturday, May 12, 2012
We’ve had a crash course in Water 101 over the past seven months, ever since Modesto Irrigation District leaders revealed that they were considering something that was unthinkable just five years ago: selling water outside the district.

Osias, DuMars both to present to Imperial Irrigation District board

Story
From Imperial Valley Press – Saturday, May 12, 2012
It’s set to be lawyer vs. lawyer, one side vs. the other at the Imperial Irrigation District, as both the consulting and contracted lawyers discuss the controversial transfer of water from the Imperial Valley to coastal urban areas.

The fight for water: Here’s why the West’s oldest battle could hit you at the tap

Story
From Deseret News – Saturday, May 12, 2012
The West is running out of water. Its lifeblood, the Colorado River, is being hemorrhaged by cities, by farms and ranches, by power plants and by the more than 30 million people who depend on its water in the United States and another 6 million people in Mexico.

The fight for water: Can the mighty Mississippi save the West?

Story
From Deseret News – Sunday, May 13, 2012
Towing icebergs to California, diverting Mississippi River water to the Colorado Front Range or building massive plants to desalinize water from the Sea of Cortez are among the options to counter future water shortages in the two basins of the Colorado River.

DELTA

Water contractors need to get real

Editorial
From Sacramento Bee – Sunday, May 13, 2012
Managing the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta means managing expectations. So far, Gov. Jerry Brown and his water team are struggling spectacularly in that task.

It’s time to compromise on Delta water projects

Viewpoint
By M. David Sterling
From Sacramento Bee – Sunday, May 13, 2012
Driving home along the Sacramento River one recent afternoon, I was vividly reminded why the Delta is among Northern California’s most scenic resources. As the levee road twisted and turned along the river, the golden glow of the setting sun cast the river, levees and agricultural fields as a living scene from an early California painting.

What’s more fragile – the Delta or the BDCP process?

Blog
By John Bass
From Delta National Park – Sunday, May 13, 2012

An editorial in the May 13th Sacramento Bee titled “Water contractors need to get real” raises a question about what the real is. My sense is that the Bee’s and the SJV water contractors’ versions are not the same.

FISHERIES

Rep. Herger critical of Englebright Dam removal report

Story

From Marysville Appeal-Democrat – Saturday, May 12, 2012

U.S. Rep. Wally Herger is taking a dive into the discussion about the fate of Englebright Dam with a letter sent last week to a federal agency criticizing the agency’s approach in determining the dam should be removed.

Non-life-threatening injuries hospitalize walker; bruin unseen since incident.

By MICHELLE THERIAULT BOOTS
Anchorage Daily News

Alaska

Published: May 14th, 2012 08:52 AM
Last Modified: May 14th, 2012 08:53 AM

Police say a brown bear mauled an Eagle River man walking on a hiking trail near his home Saturday evening, leaving him with scalp injuries and claw marks on his back.

The man, identified by police as 57-year-old Howard Meyer, was on a trail described by police as about one mile from Eagle River Road.

At 6 p.m. Saturday a bear knocked him down from behind, said Anchorage Police Department spokesman Lt. Dave Parker.

It’s unclear exactly where that trail is or in which direction Meyer was hiking. Meyer lives on nearby Mariah Drive, a mountainside subdivision below Ram Valley, Parker said.

Mariah Drive is about 3.5 miles from the Eagle River Nature Center.

Meyer told Parker that the bear was “stomping and huffing” at him.

“All of a sudden he’s knocked over and rolling around with this very large creature,” Parker said.

The bear clawed and bit him but didn’t continue the attack for long, Parker said.

When it ran away Meyer was able to call 911 from his cellphone.

When police arrived, they carried rifles in search of the bear.

“There were children playing not too far from there,” he said.

But the bear hasn’t been seen since, Parker said. Based on its behavior, officers think it may have attacked because it was surprised.

Read more here:

http://www.adn.com/2012/05/13/2463577/brown-bear-attacks-eagle-river.html#storylink=cpy

PNP comment: The West’s water is NOT shrinking. I take offense at the Deseret using this term. There is enough water, it just needs to be better utilized — with less, much less, government intervention. Why? Cuz the government can not properly administer anything to excess. Too much bureaucracy and bureaucrats create waste and non-productivity. Also, I can’t imagine that REMOVING dams will improve ground water recharge. This article is forwarding myths and lies. — Editor Liz Bowen

Meeting for

Tuesday, May 15, 2012  

6:30 PM

Decision Life Church

Corner of Main and Oberlin..1301 South Main St. Yreka

Program: 

This is will be only debate in Siskiyou County for the State Assembly with all 5 Candidates participating!  

The candidates participating are: 

Rick Bosetti (Republican),

Brian Dahle (Republican),

Robert Meacher (Democrat),

Charley Hooper (Libertarian)

and David Edwards (Green Party).

The candidates will ask each other questions in the debate followed by questions from the audience. 

You are encouraged to attend to learn more about the person you will be selecting to send to Sacramento to represent you.  

Please plan to attend, become informed and get involved. 

 Public welcome to attend:  Call Louise for more information 842-5443

Vote for those against the KBRA, H&N letter to the editor by Shirley Kerns, Klamath Falls, posted to KBC 5/13/12.

Gail Whitsett is qualified for seat, H&N letter, posted to KBC 5/13/12

Brandon Criss for Siskiyou County Supervisor website, posted 5/13/12.

Update on Siskiyou Co. Farm Bureau trial vs CA. DFG, PieNPolitics 5/13/12

Hanky-Panky harms Klamath River Watershed, Dr. John Menke, posted to KBC 5/13/12

What is Mallams’ true motive in opposing KBRA? H&N letter to editor by Matt Walter, posted to KBC 5/13/12. Response by Mallams

www.klamathbasincrisis.org

Important items on the May 14, 2012 AGENDA -

Siskiyou County Courthouser on 4th Street in Yreka, CA.

10:00 – Item 6C : Request for Congressional hearing on scientific integrity – Dams.

10:10 – Item 8C:  Legal Assistance to the Water Master Dist.

10:55 – Item 10L: KBRA/KHSA – never know if there’s any new info or not.

1:30 – Item 11A:  Irma Lagomarsino & staff from NMFS – update on current status of the Coho Recovery Plan.

1:30 – Item 11B:  Deer herds:  present study on limiting factors.

1:30 – Item 11C:  Deadline to comment is July 6th for the latest proposal to designate critical habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl.

1:30 – Item 11D – Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl.

Late afternoon:  Appoint new member to the Scott Valley Groundwater Ad. Comm.