Month: May 2017

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) invites the public to comment on the proposed section 401 water quality certification for the removal of the J.C. Boyle Dam, reservoir, powerhouse and all other infrastructure related to the existing Lower Klamath Project.

ODEQ will hold two public hearings on Tuesday, June 12 at 2 p.m. and 6 p.m. at Oregon Tech’s College Union Auditorium.  View the full public notice for details on the public comment period at: http://www.oregon.gov/deq/get-involved/documents/070618Klamathpn.pdf.

After reading the above announcement, several people asked the same question: Didn’t Congress refuse to fund the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA) and isn’t that story over?

The simple answer is yes! It should be over; but, it is not.

After KBRA/KHSA was rejected by Congress the “stakeholders” decided they didn’t need to abide by Constitutional requirements set in Article I, Clause 3 which holds that two states entering into an agreement need Congressional approval. Instead, dam removal and tribal interests convinced Gov. Brown (D–CA) and Gov. Brown (D–OR) that their two states could do it, alone. Typically state governments like to use federal funding sources because the Feds continually run enormous deficits, and besides, they can just print money.

Although, these two left-coast executives want to blow the dams, several legal and regulatory issues remain unsolved. In Oregon and California multiple levels of public comment are required depending on the project’s size. The Klamath River Dam Removal is the largest US dam removal effort ever contemplated and public comments are required.

The 401 Water Quality Certification program is designed to review and evaluate the water quality impacts of projects which require federal permits for activities that may result in a waterway discharge. Specific areas of interest will be water quality, turbidity and damage to spawning habitat from sediment held behind the structures, demolition debris, or bank erosion during the dam removal process.

Scientists report that the water in the upper reaches of the Klamath Basin is “severely impaired” therefore, it follows, that poor-quality water would subsequently flow downstream and become a part of the subject matter for review. This “severely impaired” water will spill into the Klamath River system more than 200 miles from the salty Pacific. Add to this, the volume of demolition debris and the toxic sedimentary loads stored behind the current dams and you have real problems.

There is estimated to be in excess of 20 million cubic yards of accumulated sediment behind these structures. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement did not investigate the seriousness of this potential problem, address any possible mitigation efforts or the costs associated with fixing these issues.

On Tuesday, June 12th, ODEQ needs to hear our voices. They need to be made aware of a realistic assessment of the potential problems and our concerns for costly overruns, damages, clean-up and/or mitigation efforts that are currently omitted from the feel-good narrative coming from dam removal promoters.

This water quality issue is not easily side-stepped because estimates suggest 20 million cubic yards of toxic sediment exist. That in itself is the equivalent of 1 million twenty-yard dump truck loads of silt, sediment and sludge which needs to be removed. Is ODEQ willing to dump that into the river system? Where else would this sludge get dumped? I can’t wait to hear the “NIMBY/NOMR” (Not-In-My-Back-Yard/Not-On-My-Reservation) crowds erupting with those realities.

As an aside, if your company owned 100 twenty-yard dump trucks it would take 10,000 round-trip excursions to remove and discharge that much debris somewhere on our pristine landscape. What is the cost for maintaining or repairing road damage after 10,000 round-trip dump runs? Who will pay for it? The tax-payers, that’s who.

Additionally, that much sediment would require a 20 ton or larger excavator spending 10,000 hours or more of excavator time on the fill-side, with who knows what on the dispersal side. Who is going to pay for that? The tax-payers, that’s who.

The easy answer seems to be, “Let it wash out to the Pacific Ocean,” then, only the downstream salmon fisheries will bear the burden from this harmful sludge. Sure, let that much sediment and debris clog the river, no problem. Look at where the mouth of this river systems meets the Pacific, how much debris would it take to fill this in? Who will pay for the dredging of the river after this happens. The tax-payers, that’s who.

Removal of the dams is a bad idea because grid capacity will be lost; reservoirs will be destroyed; boating, fishing and recreational opportunities will be diminished; land-values will be devastated; and flow regulating mechanisms will be demolished, aside from the resulting debris and sediment that will be washed down-stream. Without the dams and their respective reservoirs water won’t be available for flushing-flows or regulating the volume of dilution flows. The result will be degraded river conditions (low dissolved oxygen, increased primary productivity, elevated pH, unionized ammonia issues, destruction of spawning habitat, increased turbidity, etc., etc.

ODEQ partially recognizes these issues and has established a time compliance schedule of 24 months. This means the Klamath River Renewal Corporation (KRRC) gets to spend two years doing things that none of us could ever do. After all, they are paying a fee and getting their permit to pollute. The real question is what happens when this estimate goes awry? What corrective actions will be required? Who will pay for these efforts several years into the future? The tax-payers, that’s who.

The problem is that both governors have their hands clasped to the money-end of the environmental train that will needlessly waste and misallocate our respective state’s scarce financial resources. The story is composed of equal parts fairy tale and naiveté with a generous portion of political agenda lathered with public funds taken from future taxpayers.

I refer to future costs because today’s accumulated funding only amounts to $450 million. Part of the money, $200 million comes from PacifiCorp’s already collected customer surcharge and the other $250 million comes from California Proposition 1 Bonding. Yet, the original dam removal estimates were $1.4 billion, i.e., $1,400 million. How did the bureaucrats down in Dam Removal Central magically find $1 billion in cost savings?

They didn’t. They are just leaving those items out of the project’s current scope. Those extra costs will remain off the books and temporarily hidden. Think of it like a construction project change-order. The narrative will be, “We need this thing done…  we’re already well underway… it will only cost $xxx… and the world will be a better place for the children.”

Environmental-political activists know that legislative power is the key to successful political plunder. They gloss over the inconsistencies between their storyline and the science, forcing public policy on populations who disagree (deniers).  Apparently, this poses no problem because there is plenty of money to be made through legislated benefits and senseless government mandates. The needless destruction of useful technologies for capturing nature’s cleanest energy source – hydropower – is of no real concern because their agenda is being realized.

In closing, I strongly encourage you to join me and show up on June 12th. ODEQ needs to hear our voices, after all, we will get stuck with the bill.

Remember, if we don’t stand for rural-Oregon values and common sense – No one will.

Best Regards,

Dennis Linthicum
Oregon State Senate 28

Oregon State Legislature sent this bulletin Thursday, May 17, 2018 by devadmin

Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) held several meetings in the Klamath Basin last week explaining why they shut-off 140 irrigation wells in the Upper Klamath Basin. I was not able to attend the several meetings that took place in Sprague River, Chiloquin and Klamath Falls because of speaking engagements with Young Americans for Liberty in Northern California.

Although I wasn’t there, believe me, I received a lot of on-the-ground reporting from farmers, ranchers, and community members who were in attendance.

For some background, water law and theory have long linked ground water to surface water as described in, Arizona Law Where Ground and Surface Water Meet, (1988),

“When water is pumped from an aquifer by means of a well, it creates what is known as a ‘cone of depression.’ This is caused by the groundwater in the aquifer moving toward the well. If the material in the aquifer has a high transmissivity value, the cone of depression will be wide and shallow. If, on the other hand, the aquifer does not easily transmit water, the cone of depression will be steep and narrow.

“If water is pumped continuously from the well, the cone of depression will become larger. If the water table is close enough to the earth’s surface to allow this cone to cut into a surface stream, water from the stream would directly infiltrate into the ground, following the slope of the cone of depression until it reached the well. … This would cause less water to be available in the stream bed.”

In Arizona law, the doctrine of prior appropriation applies to surface waters and extends to another water category known as “subflow.” Historically this is, “those waters which slowly find their way through the sand and gravel constituting the bed of the stream, or the lands under or immediately adjacent to the stream and are themselves a part of the surface stream.”

Now, this may be true in the sand and gravel of the Arizona outback, it may even be true in the geological formations found within the Upper Klamath Basin, but is it?

After all some wells are drilled through solid rock for hundreds of feet while other wells are not. In other circumstances, a well, even in close proximity to another, might travel through several different aquifer layers before arriving at a separate hydrological zone that will meet specific irrigation requirements.

However, the facts on the ground, or in this case underground, don’t seem to matter to OWRD. OWRD ought to answer one simple question, what impact does an individual well have on a senior water right holder?

OWRD, understands the full implications of this policy because they know people realize that every well might be different. Their policy pretends to require individual well testing, as in OAR 690-009-0050. Their policy states each well must be, “reviewed on a case-by-case basis to determine PSI [potential for substantial interference] in accordance with the methods indicated in OAR 690-009- 0040.”

However, this case-by-case requirement gets completely passed-over within the same OWRD policy because the model’s requirements are stranded upon a blind-faith assertion.

The policy states, “the Department’s working conceptual model asserts that aquifers in the Upper Klamath Basin Area are hydraulically connected to surface water sources.”

Boom! There you have it. Game-over.

The assertion holds true because of …? Because of a “conceptual model”?

Look at OWRD’s own Technical Memorandum on Groundwater Regulation in the Upper Klamath Basin Area under OAR 690-009. Notice how many times these rules rely on the “model” and how little respect is shown for scientific data assessments. What techniques does OWRD use to review, verify and validate their model so that the department can accept, reject or qualify collected data in an objective and consistent manner. In other words, how is OWRD’s model confirmed or validated? And, what would happen if their model was flawed?

In this current regulatory policy, OWRD is making the case that across the entire Upper Klamath Basin watershed, all wells, at all times, and in all circumstances, are hydrologically connected to surface water sources.

My question is, who benefits from avoiding the use of scientific rigor and precision when analyzing whether an existing groundwater appropriation is hydrologically connected to surface water? Is this policy in effect because of budgetary constraints? Is it in place due to other limited resources, i.e., man-power limitations?

Science must be restored to its rightful place when weighing the pros and cons of our state’s public policy when prioritizing the use of our precious and scarce natural resources. First, OWRD ought to know with certainty that an individual well is harming a senior water right-holder, before shutting-off a specific water resource.

Second, OWRD needs to establish standards for measuring distances between wells and surface water sources for the purpose of determining the probability, or existence of surface water right impairment.

Third, OWRD also ought to provide negatively impacted right-holders with written notice of planned actions so that families have time to consider their available options.

Fourth, the models used, the facts gained, any legal theories or existing rulings being used to support the planned action also need to be made public.

If our government process is designed around public participation and transparency, then publishing planned actions and detailed evidentiary findings produced by a qualified hydrologist describing specific well site geology and hydrology should not be a problem for our state government’s executive agencies.

I am currently working on legislation that would require OWRD to follow and adhere to these four suggestions. We must hold our unelected bureaucracies to the highest bar possible when their rulings affect the very lives and livelihoods of hardworking Oregonians.

Remember, if we don’t stand for rural-Oregon values and common-sense – No one will!

Best Regards,

Dennis Linthicum
Oregon State Senate 28

Oregon State Legislature sent this bulletin Wednesday, May 10, 2017 by devadmin

Oregon’s economy is more than capable of producing enough prosperity to restore our challenged communities. Our natural resources and expansive agricultural abilities can revive our rural communities, satisfy every need and provide material comfort for Oregon’s population.

Doesn’t that give you hope for small rural towns and population centers alike? Don’t we all want an Oregon that is healthy, economically vibrant and reliably regulated for years to come?

Apparently the state of Oregon and the Water Resources Department (WRD) administrators do not agree with this hopeful view of our future. While I hear from concerned family farmers, ranchers, business owners and families every day, these administrators appear to only have ears for well-funded special interest groups, and as such have introduced a great imbalance in water appropriations for Oregon’s agricultural communities.

For example, the WRD recently verified a Tribal call on priority water and is now regulating and limiting water usage in the flooding river zones of the Wood, Williamson and Sprague River Systems.

WRD also set the rules for regulating these flood flows (Riparian High Flows) and the triggering events which led to this water call.  This water call is based solely on administrative actions and is highly subjective. It seems clear that this is the work of special interests and not those interested in prosperity for our communities.

In a 1999, Ninth Circuit appeals case, Klamath Water Users Protective Association v. Northcoast Environmental Center, The Wilderness Society,  Waterwatch of Oregon, et. al., the court found that, “a comprehensive water rights adjudication… and questions of relative amounts and priorities, at least within the State of Oregon, will be decided there.”

WRD created an artificial water restraint based on, “Riparian Habitat High (Flood) Flows are triggered by the 1.5-year recurrence interval flow and capped by the 3.4-year recurrence interval flow. If stream flows are at or above the Trigger Flow, stream flows must be maintained up to the Cap Flow.”

I, like the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, believe these judicial review processes and determinations belong to Oregon. Yet, the state has not resolved these issues, instead putting family farms and ranches on the sacrificial altar to the voracious interests of big money players.

This is nothing but unwarranted coercion. Our state’s administrators have become the new ruling class. Only they can exercise the power of the state to secure certain rights and privileges for the chosen few. Oregon appears to be focused on controlling the life of our communities by placing vital economic functions in the hands of a few administrators.

At the beginning of this commentary, I laid out a hopeful view for our beautiful state but we cannot have that kind of hope without a reliable, fair administration of government. The prosperity of our state and the future of our rural communities rely on us to do better. We need to undo capricious and arbitrary rules, so that all water users can seek judicial review and due process for water flow quantities and priorities.

Our state needs the courage to step up and fix failed policies while adopting new strategies to repair this broken system. Although the administrative judgements and rules were developed following the best suggestions and with best of intentions the resulting quagmire is a disaster for Oregon-based local agriculture, rural communities and our overall prosperity.

Remember, if we don’t stand for rural Oregon values and common-sense – 

No one will…

Best regards,

Dennis Linthicum
Oregon State Senate 28

Oregon State Legislature sent this bulletin Wednesday, May 3, 2017 by devadmin

Hello Friends,

Water is a commodity just like gold, silver, oil and gas. Historically, water has allowed our farmers, ranchers and fisherman to literally feed the world. I know how valuable water is to the health of any community. Control the life-giving water and you have complete control over any community’s future.

Therefore, I was frustrated and disappointed when I received notice from the Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) of the Klamath Tribe’s priority call on water.

Our water, the gift which allows our hard-working farmers and ranchers to create jobs, feed the world and carry on legacies of family-run agriculture, has become an invaluable tool in an ideological war. This war pits the Tribes, environmental groups and government agencies against small farms and ranching families, and is, in my view, an attempt to acquire complete control of water and land usage.

On April 13, the Klamath Tribes, who have senior instream rights, notified OWRD of a call on the Wood, Sprague, and Williamson Rivers and tributaries, including Upper Klamath Marsh. According to the Amended Order of 2007, the Tribes are within their rights to call for water for hunting, fishing, trapping and gathering on the former reservation land to the Klamath Tribes. However, this is, both, a legal and good-faith agreement regarding water as a shared resource. While the Tribes have an adjudicated right to it, Klamath Basin landowners also have rights and vested interests in the water, and its ecological impacts.

Riparian areas are thriving and current flows are off the charts, making any talk of drought or shortage simply ridiculous. There is more than enough water to go around this year and accomplish the important goals of each stake-holder.

One of the causes of this “water argument” is that the language used for describing water purposes is vague and subjective.

Recall that on February 12, 2007, an Administrative Law Judge, issued an Amended Order on Motions for Rulings on Legal Issues and confirmed, that the Tribes possessed treaty rights to hunt, fish, trap and gather on former reservation lands. Accordingly, as a matter of law, the Tribes possessed federally reserved water rights to, “whatever water is necessary to fulfill the purpose of the reservation.”

This “whatever” phrase allows for a constant rejigging and continual re-engineering for control over water resources, which is dangerous territory for the future of agriculture in the Klamath Basin. If the tribes call water during one of the highest water years on record, one can safely wonder if their goal is fishing, hunting or other heritage practices?

The local paper carried this report concerning the water call:

“There are two types of base flows, geologic and biologic,” said Diana Enright, an OWRD spokesperson. “In this case, these are biologic base flows, which are estimated as a lower protective threshold that provide biologically necessary habitat for fish and other aquatic organisms.”

Feel free to re-read those sentences, again. The phrases like, “biological base flows,” “estimated as a lower protective threshold,” and “biologically necessary” ought to illustrate the scientific hocus-pocus of it all. This is nothing-less than a fallacious appeal to a false authority. It is an attempt to justify a worldview by decree. These claims are not objectively true, and are appeals to the authority of data which has been interpreted.

The government, the press, the grant-funded researchers and their bureaucracies have a monopoly on the data, information, money and most of all, the organizational bandwidth to propagate their perspective. However, what is not obvious is this data has been organized in a specific way, with a specific ideology in mind.

Science is the work of questioning, not forgone conclusions. We must ask good questions when it comes to water priorities, flow, quality, needs and conditions.

The information being disseminated to the public regarding the water flows in the Klamath Basin has been influenced by the prevailing environmental/political world-views of the data collectors and presenters.

Interest groups realize that government authority can be used to cajole the public into believing the “experts know best.” Look at how the war against CO2 is progressing, complete with threats of legislation for dairy cow flatulence. These semi-scientific springboards are the perfect means for capturing adherents through fear-mongering. Corralling the experts, funding their efforts, organizing their evidence and setting the agenda is the easiest pathway to monopolistic control.

These “calls” on water, in such an abundant water-year, appear to be a concerted effort to force an artificial political/administrative constraint on the Klamath Basin.

These rules can be mitigated, changed or modified by parties who sincerely desire to live and work together, in community with each other.

It’s time to get back to the table and really talk to one another. I think that most of us sincerely want to see human flourishing with a healthy environment for our children and grandchildren. We want to know where our food comes from, share our water and celebrate our heritage, together, as a complete community.

If we don’t stand for rural Oregon values and common-sense – No one will.

Best Regards,

Dennis Linthicum
Oregon State Senate 28