"Dam removal is needed to save the salmon on the Klamath River and restore California's salmon fishing industry; however, the newly renewed Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, referenced by The Chronicle in its Feb. 5 editorial, is a water-sharing agreement, not a dam-removal agreement. The agreement, a companion pact to a deal to remove four Klamath River dams, favors farmers over salmon for water and provides subsidies for dam owners and water users without funding or mandating dam removal. It is unnecessary, and is stalling dam removal.

This agreement is needed to terminate protection of tribal water rights and release dam owners from their toxic legacy to clear the path for congressional funding. Dam removal only requires a simple agreement involving dam owners surrendering dams through public processes. This dangerous proposed congressional legislation lowers flows for salmon in most years, and sometimes allows flows to fall as low as they were in the 2002 Klamath River fish kill.

The Chronicle states that the proposed Klamath legislation would cost almost $1 billion. Of this, not one dollar goes toward dam removal; most of the money goes to federal subsidies for farmers and corporations already using public lands and water."

Get the Story:
Leonard Masten: Remove Klamath dams for salmon, tribes (The San Francisco Chronicle 2/12)

Related Stories:
Leonard Masten: Tribal rights sacrificed in Klamath River fight (2/7)