Subscribe Today! Please read: Readers of local content on the Herald and News website – – will require a subscription beginning today. For the first few months, non-subscribers will still be able to view 10 articles for free. If you are not already a subscriber, now is a great time to join for as little as $10/month!

Special interests orchestrating ‘agreed’ Klamath dams destruction believe by repeating rhetoric enough, the most affected knowledgeable super-majority in opposition will believe it.

There are two primary sides, the handful of rewilding agenda ‘amended’ KHSA special interests who secretly ‘agreed’ to take from those unrepresented, and the ‘affected’ intended to suffer all ‘agreement’ costs, loss, and consequence.

The ‘agreed’ directly benefit regardless of outcome and accept zero liability beyond money they are taking from the ‘affected’. The ‘affected’ with site specific knowledge and vested concern for their environment and communities oppose regional destruction at personal cost and sacrifice. Who do you believe?

Historical documentation, site specific continuity, and current ‘interim’ studies support; salmon were never known in numbers above Keno for many reasons; salmon returns to Copco indicate no related decrease for half a century, and a major increase after Iron Gate, inferring other reasons for downstream reductions 30 years later;

Iron Gate hatchery is extremely successful due to unnaturally cold lake water acknowledged by agencies and residents for decade after construction far exceeding marginal and inconsistent upstream pre-dams habitat; the deep lake reservoirs improve overall incoming water quality, with new research suggesting they’re reducing downstream toxicity; the lakes have minimal impact on downstream temperatures and a low cost Iron Gate curtain wall beneficially reduced natural temperatures at salmon critical times; vectors for salmon disease are now known worse above the dams, which ‘introduced’ will compound disease throughout the entire river.

The rewilding ‘agreed’ don’t care, insisting decisions only consider their own previous ‘modeled’ assumptions.

Dismissing loss of regional renewable power, security, sustainability, holistic environmental benefit, private property use, valuation, human safety, water storage, irreplaceable recreation, fire protection, flood attenuation and more is easy when the ‘agreed’ accept no accountability for damages.

Let representatives and FERC know your opposition before a decision is made. Comment FERC at , Project P-2028-062.

Rex Cozzalio

Hornbrook, Calif.

Gerry OBrien, Editor