PNP comment: Below is a written response by Rex Cozzalio, whose multi-generational family has owned a ranch on the Klamath River below the Iron Gate Dam. Thank you, Rex, for bringing us up-to-speed on this controversial subject. The link to the article that Rex is responding to is at the bottom. — Editor Liz Bowen
In reading Mr. Greenson’s condescending opinion piece reply to ‘That Dam Breitbart Story’, I am heartened that Breitbart readers ‘may be excused’ by Mr. Greenson for daring to agree with something other than Mr. Greenson’s paid-for-print activism. My question is, who will forgive Mr. Greenson?
It sadly seems that unaccountable self-assured ‘intellectual’ arrogance and assumptive ignorance all too often walk hand in hand.
We are 4 generations on and in the Klamath River at the ‘focal point’ of dams’ impact rhetoric, before and after Iron Gate, though apparently not encompassing the profound knowledge of Mr. Greenson writing 180 miles downstream. Of course, we must also apparently defer the resident majority regionally affected experience, documentation, and current studies to the paid-for-agenda predefined position for which Mr. Tucker was imported to promote.
Iron Gate releases average approximately 12% of the volume at the estuary, and the flood conditions destructive to the upper river that Mr. Greenson so easily dismisses often occur with levels comprising less than 3-10% of those typical to same time estuary non-destructive winter flows. We experienced the almost yearly inundation, riparian erosion, sedimentation, environmental degradation, and regional losses that occurred prior to the needed added capacity which Upper Klamath Lake and Copco alone were unable to quell. Those pundits regurgitating agenda constructed bullet points for the uninformed, such as ‘no flood protection’, should consider reading the engineering completed years ago supporting regional reality by describing a debris capturing minimum 9 hour attenuation period provided by those reservoirs during high flow events.
Though he may be ‘forgiven’ for stating Upper Klamath Lake averaging less than 8 feet in depth as a ‘deep’ reservoir, Mr. Greenson’s ‘solution’ of increased Upper Klamath Lake capacity to compensate for loss fails to consider the lack of ‘Agreement’ assured funding or even a practical ability to do so, or the often far greater flood contributions added to the canyon between Link and Iron Gate. None of the profound regularly experienced damages to our region have occurred in the years since Iron Gate, a large part of why it WAS and is still supported by locals.
Virtually EVERY original profiting special interest assured bullet point fabricated in the creation of secret and exclusionary dams’ removal imposition ‘Agreements’ has been subsequently shown by experiment and currently monitored data to be completely unsupported and defective in premise. However, NONE of that public rhetoric or orchestrating biological ‘opinions’ are being allowed alteration until AFTER the hydroelectric/water storage/hatchery facilities are slated for destruction to secure a ‘rewilding’ agenda. Nearly 80% of those most affected and knowledgeable concerning the facilities now proven environmental benefits have officially voted to keep the dams, but of course Mr. Greenson is infinitely wiser.
Current data is now revealing facilities’ profound and irreplaceable benefits regarding unameliorable natural Upper Basin conditions including biological nutrient sequestration, mircrocystin, and temperatures, and yet none of that is currently allowed in the frenzied maneuvering to forcing environmental/public/private loss and uncompensated confiscation upon the majority most affected before the uninformed become aware or care. ‘Impairments’ have now been proven benefits, and ‘volitional passage for millions of salmon to hundreds of miles of previous habitat’ has been refuted not only by ignored pre-Project historical documentation and majority multi-generational experience, but now by ‘proponents’ own paid studies trying to prove the opposite.
‘Freedom’ of PacifiCorp choice was NOT the mantra uttered prior to continued threat of ‘seated members’ proponent lawsuits and specifically altered 401 ‘permits’ to effectively force ‘Agreement’ acquiescence, nor does it address the impacts to the unrepresented public/private affected interests in a quasi-public entity facility. A myriad of documented examples exposed by diverse whistleblowers proving the extent of corruption to achieve pre-defined policy directives is available to any who wish to research. Multiple PROVEN alternatives to removals of dams certified in EXCELLENT condition have been repeatedly presented for a FRACTION of removal costs, damage, and risks, but NONE are ‘considered‘ in the face of this one outcome special interest agenda refusing to amend now proven defective FERC EIR mandates.
None has said Governor Brown STARTED the removals, but his Water Crisis Management Plan policy directed order that ALL his appointed agencies, including DWR, DFG, and CPUC, WILL do whatever is required to facilitate Klamath Dams removals (which they have) is hardly exculpatory. But then, Mr. Greenson obviously knows all this. Even stranger, had he examined equally available statistics of salmon returns to the ‘dams’ region over the last hundred years, he might find it not only suggests no pre-Project statistical decline, and in fact productive consistency, but a significant INCREASE of returns with the addition of Iron Gate ‘artificially’ further enhanced downstream conditions.
Hopefully, Mr. Greenson, I will be another one that the readers might forgive. However, in your accusation to the prior author, whom I don’t personally know, questioning his ‘possible motive’, I find it interesting throughout this debacle, I have yet to hear of ANYONE from the most knowledgeable and affected majority speaking in opposition to the environmentally and regionally destructive removals who is paid or reimbursed for their moral obligation to do so. On the other hand, in their attempt to divide and conquer a previously trusting regional community, I have also yet to hear a SINGLE locally knowledgeable PROPONENT for removals who ISN’T personally profiting from their position, and absolutely NONE who are willing to be held liable for the damages caused. Are you the exception, Mr. Greenson? I thought not.
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