Save the Klamath Dams Save the Salmon

Campaign Created by: Siskiyou County Water Users Association Inc

The funds from this campaign will be received by Siskiyou County Water Users Association, inc..

Goal: USD $50,000
Raised: USD $ 15,507
Give 209

In Northern California the removal of four hydroelectric facilities on the Klamath River is being pushed by Governor Newsom, this is the largest dam removal project in the World. During a time of drought and increasing difficulty in keeping up with electricity requirements, does this make any sense?? Especially as the local population of several counties in California and including some in Oregon are against this removal at 80% of the voting public. Removal of these clean carbon emission blue water facilities producing electricity 24/7 results not only in reducing low cost available electricity, but removes recreational resources, lakeside settings for parks, important firefighting water availability, fish and aquatic lifeforms, numerous endangered species, AND court mandated flushing of the Klamath River to improve naturally occurring algae issues for anadromous Salmon habitat. The area above the hydro reservoirs does not provide Salmon habitat.

Mr. Intiso has filed a Taxpayer Lawsuit in Pro Per to fight the government overreach by Newsom and his associates. The funding mechanism for destroying these facilities was secretly included in a Bond Issue in California where the truth was kept from the voting public. The Bond Issue, which never mentions the secret project to remove the hydro facilities, was concealed from the public by being included in a Bond issue cast as a Clean Water and Storage facility effort. In fact, the bureaucrats intended on spending $250 million dollars of taxpayer money and another $200 million dollars to remove these productive clean electrical generating facilities which have been in place some for over a hundred years. In addition the California Governor, in order to facilitate a project which is not supported by Congress nor by the local area, agreed to become a guarantor and co licensee to the project in order to obtain approval of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) which was not going to approve the project unless California stepped in and put the State’s Treasury on the line – that’s you, the taxpayer.

This Bond Issue specifically stated that no funding was to be spent from the Bond Issue if it adversely impacted a “Wild and Scenic River”. The environmental statements filed by the FERC clearly state, in numerous places, that the removal of the hydro facilities will adversely impact the “Wild and Scenic River” and the only solution provided is that “time will take care of the problems”. The only estimate we have as to time is a statement by the former Secretary of the Department of Interior, Mr. Salazar, who stated in a presentation to the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco, that it might be 2060 before we would know if the “project” was successful.

Mr. Instiso believes that this is an outrageous and illegal use of taxpayer dollars to support the removal of these valuable facilities providing low cost power to the Northern California region and its industries. A lawsuit is an expensive process and this funding effort, which we are asking you to support, is geared to prevent such a travesty from taking place.

PLEASE JOIN US BY SUPPORING THIS GRASS ROOTS EFFORT AND DONATE TO THIS WORTH CAUSE.


UPDATES

Decision Taxpayer Lawsuit
May 30, 2023 facebook twitter

We have had a little time to consider the Siskiyou County Superior Court Judge dismissing the Taxpayer Lawsuit by Tony Intiso. It was a surrealistic hiatus to a terrific effort to protect the Taxpayers of the State of California against unreasonable and deliberate attempt by politicians to conceal the facts in a 2014 Proposition entitled Water Storage and Clean Water Act, a 14 million dollar taking from the wallets of California citizens to carry out special interest projects some having nothing to do with water storage or even with water. The issue in this case was several folds, the first being the purposefully misleading Bond issue re water storage. The four Klamath Dams were never mentioned in the Bond Issue and in fact were concealed by using misleading language which referenced a then nonexistent agreement, the 2013 KHSA KBRA agreement.
The Judge seemingly conducted the case on behalf of the State of California Attorney General’s office allowing the State’s attorney only a few minutes of airtime. Instead, the Judge spent her time arguing the States (Defendant) case against Mr. Intiso and his attorney. Fully 90% of the time was an arcane argument over the meaning of several statutes concerning whether competitive bidding was required for removal of the dams. The KRRC never bid on the dam removal as it was baked in the 2016 Amended KHSA agreement between the States of Oregon and California. This was done to avoid going to Congress for approval. Remember KRRC was formed in New York City at a law office connected with the Klamath Riverkeepers, a division of the Boston Riverkeepers organization.
The second major item which is extremely important was centered around the fact that the Klamath River is a Federally designated Wild and Scenic River. We would point out that the Judge had received an Affidavit from the former Head of the Klamath National Forest that without the dams regulating the water flow the river would not have qualified as a Wild and Scenic River. The language in the Bond issue was specific in its intent, in black and white, that none of the Bond funds would be spent on a project that adversely impacted a Wild and Scenic River. The FERC EIR/ EIS clearly states in numerous places that the Klamath River and the protected Salmon and other aquatic organisms including protected species would be adversely impacted by removal of the Dams. As previously indicated, the Bond Issue clearly stated that the Bond money wouldn’t be spent on such a project. This was part of the Intiso argument that the funds the taxpayers had voted for were being misused.
Strangely, the Judge supported the State Attorney General’s argument that once the Bond issue was passed the State had discretion on how it would spend the money. Mr. Intiso arguedthat if that were true then why do voters vote on Bond Issues if the State can just do what it wants with the funds regardless of what the voters believed was true or not. Why have Bond issues at all if it doesn’t matter how the State spends the money.
In short, we feel that the Judge’s decision was not based on the merits of the case presented but represented an orchestrated decision to support the State’s contention that it could do what it wants with the funding from the Bond issue. The Judge continuously chose not to recognize that the 2013 Agreement referenced in the Bond issue didn’t exist anymore, as it was replaced after the 2014 Bond Issue by the 2016 Amended KHSA agreement which was not approved by Congress and was substantially different from the 2013 document.
Mr. Intiso is currently evaluating a potential next step in this matter.

NOTICE CHANGE IN COURT DATE
May 4, 2023 facebook twitter

THE SISKIYOU COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT HAS ONCE AGAIN CHANGED THE COURT APPEARANCE DATE FOR HEARING ON THE TAXPAYER LAWSUIT AGAINST THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. UNBELIEVEABLE AS IT SEEMS THE COURT MADE THIS CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE TO THE PARTIES OR INDICATED ANY REASON FOR THE CHANGE. THIS IS EXTREMELY DISAPPOINTING TO THOUSANDS OF CITIZENS SEEKING JUSTICE ON THE ISSUE BEING BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT. WE BELIEVE THE STATE OF CALIFRONIA PURPOSEFULLY MISSTATED THE LANGUAGE IN PROP ONE, PASSED IN 2014 TO AVOID EXPOSURE ON THE ISSUE OF USING FUNDS FOR THE CLEAN WATER ACT TO DESROY FOUR IMPORTANT HYDRO ELECTRIC FACILITIES. MEANWIHILE THE BULLDOZERS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ARE TEARING UP THE LANDSCAPE, DAMAGING STREETS AND HIGHWAYS, AND POLLUTING THE KLAMATH RIVER AS THEY PREPARE TO DESTROY THE COPCO 2 HYDRO FACILITY IN EARLY JUNE. ADDING INSULT TO INJURY THE KRRC, CONTRACTOR FOR THE STATE, HAVE CREATED A LIMITED MITIGATION FUND WHICH DENIES “JUST COMPENSATION TO AFFECTED PARTIES” AS PROVIDED FOR IN THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION IN ARTICLE I SEC 19 ( a) AND AS PROVIDED FOR IFN THE FIFTH AMENDMENT OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. THIS FUND IS ESSENTIALLY A THIRD-PARTY INSURANCE CLAIM PROCESS ERECTED TO PROVIDE “PLAUSIBLE DENIABILIT8Y’ TO KRRC AND ITS PARENT STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

Court Hearing Update
April 10, 2023 facebook twitter

updateImage The original Court date was for March 30.  That was pushed to April 6.  The Court hearing for April 6 has been rescheduled to May 4.  This being the second time the Court has pushed the date out, everyone please pray that we are able to have our voices heard!  In the meantime, the dam removal entity is already in the deconstruction mode.  We are grateful for everyone who has contributed to date and thank you all for your added prayers.  

PRAYER REQUESTS

Click the Pray button to let the campaign owner know you are praying for them.