Upper Klamath Lake Capacity verses Annual Farmer Demands

Since most people look at the photographs first, I’m sure you noticed this one. It’s a beautiful picture of Upper Klamath Lake with a caption below it that reads:

"Upper Klamath Lake can hold 523,700 acre-feet of water. Greg Addington, director of the Klamath Water Users Association, says a full delivery of surface water in a dry year exceeds 400,00 acre-feet."

Looking at these numbers at first glance it appears as though farming demands over 80% of the water in Klamath Lake. How horrible. How greedy. How unfriendly to the fish and the downstream tribes.

Say it with me, "That's not fair."

But after thinking for a moment and looking at the numbers again, I see two things:

First, the number quoted for how much water the lake can hold is a snap-shot of the full lake. It is NOT how much water is available during the year or even farming season. Think of a bath tub. It's full,.... and you remove 20% of the water. Now you can refill it with another 20% right? That's what happens all the time, throughout the year... there is a constant inflow of new water as lake water goes down stream or down the project canals.

So this statement is purposely misleading the public to think there is only 523,700 acre-feet of water available all season long — IF the lake is full. Maximum capacity of the lake at any one time does NOT equal maximum capacity of water available year-round.

Second, the number quoted for the demand is also misleading because it has a qualifier "in a dry year". What about the rest of the time. Is the demand 350,000 acre-feet, 250,000 acre-feet, 5 acre-feet? We aren't given those facts. Instead we're given the worst case scenario.

So the paper reports a deflated denominator (capacity) and an inflated numerator (demand) to draw this obvious conclusion: farming in the basin is unsustainable at in its current state AND famers are getting way more of their fair-share of the water right now.

Note, to round out the discussion, this year — a dry year — on-project irrigators received 150,000 acre-feet, with an additional 35,000 in a second allocation.Well, so much for farmer’s exceeding 400,000 acre-feet during a typical dry year.

Plus don’t forget the H&N view article that says:

“The advisory measure would tell commissioners whether or not voters want them to remain involved in working for or working with stakeholders on the KBRA and dam removal agreements.
“The vote would not be binding and, while it's possible the vote could affect thinking on implementation of the agreement, it would have no direct bearing - the next steps in implementation are beyond local control.”

Gee... by this it seems the slogan, “Keep Local Control”, is noting but a dry, dusty and empty bucket.

Original article here...

KBRA - Stability and Predictability

Klamath residents are continually assured that the KBRA/KHSA settlements will restore fish habitat, ensure Tribal interests,  provide water supply certainty, and create untold levels of prosperity in agriculture and supporting industries. Additionally, the agreements promise all of this while emphasizing “strategies and actions to restore and maintain properly functioning lake and river processes and conditions.” The agreements also strive “to maintain or enhance economic stability of adjacent landowners, and affected counties.”

In other words, there is money and prosperity for all. These agrrements are presented as the "ObamaCare" solution to Klamath County's economic, water & power, fish & wildlife, and agricultural woes.

While all of this may dazzle the imagination, we must ask, “Can this all be True?”

Look at the snippet below, from the ‘‘Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000’’:

During Klamath County’s next budget cycle, funding for this Act is terminated.   Well, so much for the “stability and predictability” of annual payments.

Currently, timber counties throughout the Pacific Northwest are urgently pursuing the re-authorization of this funding. Yet, What if our nation's current annual $1,365,000,000,000.00 Budget Deficit for 2010 prevents this funding from being re-authorized? (You can see the national Debt Clock ticking along here: www.usdebtclock.org/ )

And, do you realize, that any legislature can undo any promises made during any other session of legislative activity?

“Fool me once - shame on you!   Fool me twice - shame on me!"

Recent Article on KBRA promotion - What’s Missing?

A recent Herald & News article highlights the new campaign strategy for KBRA supporters. The article spends time identifying the coordinated outreach and education aspects of the promotion which is entitled “KBRA = Jobs.” Yet, there are no facts, figures, estimates, or description of where these jobs will be and who will benefit from these jobs.

The one paragraph that has real facts says:

The KBRA, signed in February, aims to establish sustainable water supplies and affordable power rates for irrigators, fund habitat restoration and economic development in the Klamath Project area, and help the Klamath Tribes acquire a 92,000-acre parcel of private timberland. It would cost about $1.5 billion to implement all aspects of the agreement.

Let’s see... at $1,500,000,000.00 - just how many jobs will be created?

I would suggest that what it “aims to do” and what gets done are not guaranteed to be one and the same.

I have pointed out in previous articles the lack of precision in the KBRA and KHSA agreements. The vagaries in these documents creates enormous potential for abuse, or, misrepresentation, by any number of Federal agencies.

If the KBRA creates jobs, wealth and prosperity, what new creative energy is being harnessed? Where are the financial resources that are being tapped for the $1,500,000,000.00? 

Answer: The US Taxpayer, in general, and the local rate-payer, specifically, are the only identiifed sources of funding.

Townhall Recap #2 - Eco-hype or Reality?

Another question from the "Townhall" concerned alternate energy sources.

I have a fair bit of in-depth experience with at least one popular alternative - solar energy. Diane and I have been using solar energy for the past 14 years - as our primary source of electricity! It was simply cost prohibitive to bring power back to our home-site, so we installed our own little solar power-plant.

My Democratic opponent loves the idea of solar and thinks Klamath should become a haven for solar supplied county service buildings.

I love solar too - it's actually how I make a cup of coffee and burn a piece of toast. The technology is super-cool. But it is expensive!

Here's a table that explains cost per kilowatt for traditional and non-traditional sources of electrical energy. This web-site also includes great commentary on current conditions and future projections.

One other item worthy to note, is the optimistic future projections for solar. I think people have confused this projection with reality. To use these projections as fact is falling prey to the media's eco-hype.

Another of the most telling items on the above web-page is the price attractiveness of hydroelectricity. This is why I do not recommend destroying the dams on the Klamath River via the KBRA. These dams represent a valuable, effective, and low-comparative cost source for electrical power.

Today, solar is not a cost effective solution. Today.

For example, the recent solar installation at Klamath City's Police Department could not have been achieved without outside monies. In other words, it wasn't cost effective for Klamath City to accomplish - alone.

My suggestion would be to not start any massively subsidized programs. Rather we should let technology develop and supply improve and then the tax-dollar cost effectiveness for Klamath County citizens will also improve.

In the same way, it wasn't cost effective for my family to own one of the first cell-phones. Yet, today, they are cost effective and powerful.

When the solar market eventually erupts, prices will fall and supply will flourish. Then Klamath County can can take advantage while reaping the rewards for their fiscal prudence with a a stable and feasible economic future.

More tomorrow... Meanwhile, I'll see you at the Klamath fair today!

Townhall Recap #1 - Going to the Skate-Park Anyone?

Last night I was at a "Townhall" meeting with several other candidates who are running in November's General Election. The meeting was fairly well attended (70 or so) and everyone was fully engaged. If you get a chance to attend another meeting, please do, it will be worth your effort.

In the meanwhile, I thought I would write down some thoughts on the evening, some of my better ideas, and some things you may appreciate or have an issue with. (Even the Herald and News has video snippets that you can watch online.)

One of the questions came from an individual who wanted to know, "How, as a commissioner, will each of you improve the public transit system, including intra-city services?"

My Democratic opponent, agreed with the premise that the public transit system needed to be improved and stated it should be subsidized to provide inexpensive, or free, transportation throughout the county. The "cherry on top" would be to help Klamath youth get to the Skate-Park. My opponent said, "Essentially, I [Kirk Oakes] envision that having a skateboard under your arm would be your free bus-pass to the Skate-Park."

I took a different tack.

First, of all, Why is it the County's responsibility to provide transportation across the wide expanses of County land?

Public transit usually gets organized in metropolitan areas to help alleviate auto and pedestrian traffic jambs. The theory is that high volumes of cars, or people going to the same location could be easier managed by a single transportation provider. Klamath County doesn't register high on the statistical charts in either of these two categories. Additionally, the large distances between one city centers to the next, places an enormous cost burden on the public sector for a very small, and extremely limited benefit.

Besides, in my opinion, public transport is not about fun times after school. If public funds are to be expended, it might be okay for KCC or OIT, but really, the skatepark?

Over the next day, or two, I'll try to re-cap other ideas covered... In the meantime, I'll see you at the Klamath County Fair!

Crescent Lake/Gilchrist Meeting

Diane and I drove to Hoodoo's Crescent Lake Lodge/Resort last Friday Morning.

We met with several individuals who were concerned, receptive and willing to voice their thoughts on the Commissioner's race.

The one item that came to the surface over and over, was regarding the need for Klamath County government to share more information. The Herald and News does not deliver the paper and therefore the news coming into the Crescent /Gilchrist area is spotty. (The best solution for access to the Herald and News, for residents in the outlying areas, is to subscribe to the Online version of the paper; although, this option might be difficult for some.)

Yet, when discussing things like communication, we can’t lose sight of one of the basic characteristics of information. Information is a commodity. It can be bought, sold, or hoarded like any other commodity. If your not sure about that statement, think about the insider trading allegations that haunt Wall Street. Better information simply allows for better decision-making (legal, or otherwise).

Second, because it is a commodity, there will be costs involved in gathering and disseminating the information. In this regard, the Herald and News, as a private enterprise, has every right to deliver, or not deliver the daily newspaper in a profitable manner.

Yet, from the perspective of the County Commissioner’s office, because better information allows for better decision-making, the public good necessarily involves the accurate and timely dissemination of information.

Thirdly, this information flow must be a two-way street. This means that the Commissioner’s must have an “Open Door” policy. The Commissioner’s must be willing to invest time in gathering information from their constituents. Additionally, this “Open Door” mentality can’t just apply to the physical Government Center, in Klamath Falls, but must entail an operational perspective for the cross-communication of ideas at a countywide level.

All in all, we had a wonderful morning at the Crescent Lake Lodge and I look forward to developing open lines of communication throughout Klamath County.

Arrange a peaceful retreat here...

Tea Party Movement has a Successful Day!

Today, there was a great Tea Party Meeting at the Government Center. It was a fantastic crowd of nearly 400 well-mannered patriots. The Key-Note speaker, Jeff Kropf, was from American's for Prosperity (AFP).

The AFP Foundation is committed to educating citizens about economic policy and a return of the federal government to its Constitutional limits. AFP Foundation's educational programs and analyses help policymakers, the media and individual citizens understand why policies that promote the American enterprise system are the best method to ensuring prosperity for all Americans. To that end, AFP and AFP Foundation supports:

1. Cutting taxes and government spending in order to halt the encroachment of government in the economic lives of citizens by fighting proposed tax increases and pointing out evidence of waste, fraud, and abuse.
2. Tax and Expenditure Limitations to promote fiscal responsibility.
3. Removing unnecessary barriers to entrepreneurship and opportunity by sparking citizen involvement in the regulatory process early on in order to reduce red tape.
4. Restoring fairness to our judicial system.

Are Berkshire Hathaway's Dam Removal Estimates biased?

As I show up to speak at various locations, often the discussion turns to questions regarding the best place, on the Web, for information about the Klamath Dam Removal Project. Over and Over again, I hear, "Go to Berkshire Hathaway.com for a great fact sheet."

So, let's think about Berkshire Hathaway's involvment.

Does their fact sheet really represent an unbiased opinion?

I won't state my thoughts because I would like you to consider the arguments presented by Hathaway's shareholders. The shareholders have authored a letter to Mr. Buffet:

Dear Mr. Buffett,

Berkshire Hathaway's shareholders request that as a good businessman and known philanthropist, you take action on PacifiCorp's Klamath dams. PacifiCorp, a subsidiary of Mid-American Energy and Berkshire Hathaway, is risking shareholder investments by ignoring the economics of dam removal on the Klamath River.

Studies performed by the California Energy Commission, a panel of expert economists appointed by the Governor, indicate that shareholders will end up absorbing $415 million in costs to re-license these aging dams...

Now, just for clarification... In the above quote, who is afraid of bearing the burden? Would it be in the shareholder's best interest to get some other party to carry the burden?

Enough said... Read source here.

I'm Going to Start Blogging

I've decided to Blog some of my thoughts... Yes, right here on the Web. As I get the opportunity, I will share my ideas and I will give voice to the concerns that come to my attention as I roam throughout Klamath County.

Over the next several weeks I hope to touch on many items that will start conversations in your homes and around your dinner tables. My hope is that this Blog creates meaningful discussions about ideas that should concern all who live, work, and play in our county. Also, whenever possible, I hope to be able to share links that will provide you with insight into the man is asking for your support in this upcoming May 18th Primary.

Enjoy your reading! Tell your friends! And..., come back often!