As to the accusation by you and Bruce Ross that I have written “baseless conspiracy mongering,” I would refer you to the book The River Stops Here by Ted Simon (University of California Press, 1994).

From page 12: “In the offices of the big construction companies and consulting firms were maps showing how all the rivers would be tamed. Where an atlas would show the Eel, the Klamath and the Trinity as a tracery of thin black lines meandering from the mountains to the ocean, the engineers’ maps showed them gorged and swollen like varicose veins by a multitude of dams and reservoirs, backed up to each other like steps in a staircase. The whole scheme, statewide, was to cost something like $12 billion.”

The proposal to have the Klamath-Trinity Rivers flow to the California Delta is also mentioned in the book Cadillac Desert (citied in my article).

For further clarification, former Governor Reagan signed the “Wild Rivers Bill” in 1972, proposed by former Marin County Supervisor Peter Behr, for a “wild and scenic rivers act” to protect the Eel, Trinity and Klamath Rivers for at least 12 years. Another parallel bill proposed by former state senator Randolph Collier called the “Protected Waterways Act” supported by water agencies was concurrently forwarded to Gov. Reagan for signing, but Reagan did not sign it.

This is not conspiracy mongering but history.

Not to argue with you but to dialog, if the proposal to rid the Klamath of dams was a mitigation project it would show up in an EIR somewhere as such. I haven’t been able to find evidence this is a mitigation project.

If it were an electricity related project to eliminate hydropower now that California is shifting to green power under Cal Assembly Bill 32, then the proponent for funding the dam removals would be an electric provider or the California Energy Commission not funded as part of a water bill supported by MWD, DWR.

If it isn’t mitigation and it isn’t energy related it must be a water project?? Do you have any further thoughts?

My understanding is the water bond includes $250 million — not $1 billion — to pay California’s share of the dam-removal costs. And Iron Gate and the Copcos are in Siskiyou County, which is in California geographically — if not always in spirit.

Sure, Reclamation sketched a plan. Reclamation also sketched a plan to turn the Trinity River into a series of lakes and pump the water back up them. Heck, Reclamation sketched a plan to dam the Grand Canyon.

But Floyd Dominy is dead, and the dam-building heyday of the mid-20th century preceded all manner of laws — the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, NEPA, etc. — that make big dams and diversions all but impossible to build. There’s a reason we California hasn’t built a major new reservoir in a generation, and there’s a reason why even relatively modest, relatively environmentally benign projects like adding a few feet to Shasta Dam or building Sites Reservoir up in the Coast Range take decades to complete (if indeed they ever come to fruition).

I’m a skeptic of removing the Klamath dams. I like hydropower. I don’t think “re-wilding” California’s far north (the tacit goal of some enviro groups) is feasible or desirable. And state and federal officials should treat local needs and concerns more seriously.

But nobody will be diverting the Klamath’s water to Los Angeles. Not in this century.

The only other explanation I can come up with is that California wants to phase out cheap hydropower from Oregon so that California’s Green Power has no competition. The proverb that water runs uphill toward money would apply in this case.

There are many better and cheaper solutions for fish than removing dams along the Klamath River. Bruce Ross’s accusation that those in Siskiyou County that question whether fish are really the reason for dam removals are some kind of conspiracy nuts insults those who read his newspaper. With all due respects to Mr. Ross, his argument “smelts” when it comes to this issue.

Mr. Ross: Most respectfully, the Klamath Diversion Project is not a conspiracy but was a project once planned by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. My source is Wikipedia – link here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klamath_Diversion

Paranoia is an unrealistic fear. But there is no paranoia about the Klamath Dam Removal Project evolving into the formerly planned Klamath Diversion Project because there is a realistic basis to it. That Siskiyou County residents fear that there may be a threat to their water and property rights is also based in potential reality. If more water will flow through the Klamath then this may affect adjoining properties along the river (e.g., flooding, high and low flows, colder waters affecting fish, etc.).

Additionally, a portion of the proposed California Water Bond would partly fund the Klamath Dam Removal in the state of Oregon. Surely, this must realistically raise concerns as to why California would want to fund dam removals in Oregon.

Thank you for your comments and criticism but I believe my statements are well supported and that Klamath County residents are not “conspiracy nuts” to suspect water is at issue here.

But the notion that the KBRA is some kind of scheme to ship the Klamath’s water to Los Angeles, as envisioned by 1950s Reclamation engineers, is preposterous nonsense. Such a project would cost billions, violate more federal environmental laws than I can count, and run counter the very clearly expressed goals of the KBRA.

I’m surprised this otherwise reputable website would publish such baseless conspiracy-mongering.