Home  »  Ag Sectors

Readers' views on Oct. 8, 2010


Why to vote 'no' on dam removal


Vote no on removing the Klamath River dams.


A "no" vote assures cheap electrical power to over 70,000 homes and eliminates the cost of replacing the green power of hydroelectric with fossil fuel power that we, the rate payers, will have to pay for. Hydroelectric power costs 1.48 cents per kilowatt versus fossil fuel of 7.15 cents per kilowatt.


A "no" vote assures flood protection downriver and protects infrastructure such as roads, bridges, private property and other structures. The dam serves for both power and flood control, thus lessening flood danger in the Klamath area.


A "no" vote will sustain salmon fisheries. In 1950 the total salmon catch was 149,000 metric tons and in 2007 it was 403,000 metric tons. The warming of the Pacific Ocean has driven salmon north into Alaska. Dam and hatchery removal will seriously affect future salmon runs.


A "no" vote will save Yreka's water supply and multiple communities and wells of private property owners along the river.


A "no" vote will sustain lake fisheries, recreation, wildlife habitat and protect an ecosystem above the dams that will be decimated by the introduction of bacteria, viruses and parasites that salmon carry.


A "no" vote will save jobs and businesses throughout the county and along the river. It will also save the county tax base -- $1 million in lost tax revenue.


A "no" vote will impact the Indian burial grounds of the Shasta nation's burial grounds.


A "no" vote will protect the Scott and Shasta rivers' water for the valley irrigators that is scheduled to sustain Klamath river flows.


A "no" vote will protect our wildlife downriver of the dams as the release of toxic sludge from behind the dams will decimate flora and fauna.


Remember the spotted owl? Now it's the salmon impacting all of us.


Richard Gierak


Yerka, Calif.



User Comments