<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Deal reached to remove Klamath River dams for salmon; obstacles remain]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by Wolverine http://www.grist.org/article/KlamathPlan/ Wed, 16 Jan 2008 06:54:55 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/KlamathPlan/1 Wahoo!

This is a major victory for the Earth if it goes through.  Many of us have been fighting for the removal of these dam(n)s and water for the rivers themselves for years.

]]> Wahoo!

This is a major victory for the Earth if it goes through.  Many of us have been fighting for the removal of these dam(n)s and water for the rivers themselves for years.

]]> Comment #2 by Wolverine http://www.grist.org/article/KlamathPlan/ Wed, 16 Jan 2008 07:09:00 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/KlamathPlan/2 Spoke Too Soon

Oops.  While this deal might be better than the current situation, it apparently still has some major problems, like giving agribusiness priority to divert water over the needs of fish.  The Hoopa Valley Tribe of northern California has rejected the agreement and seems to be taking the strongest environmental position.  See this article for details:  http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/01/15/18472768.php

Does this remind anyone else of Democrats v. Greens?

]]> Spoke Too Soon

Oops.  While this deal might be better than the current situation, it apparently still has some major problems, like giving agribusiness priority to divert water over the needs of fish.  The Hoopa Valley Tribe of northern California has rejected the agreement and seems to be taking the strongest environmental position.  See this article for details:  http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/01/15/18472768.php

Does this remind anyone else of Democrats v. Greens?

]]> Comment #3 by tonybogar http://www.grist.org/article/KlamathPlan/ Thu, 17 Jan 2008 00:05:20 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/KlamathPlan/3 Klamath River: Deal or No Deal?

Friends of the River has been heavily involved in these negotiations for years, and we think this is good but ...

The preliminary agreement announced yesterday is certainly a step in the right direction. But we still have a lot of work left to do. The agreement resolves significant water issues in the Klamath basin and sets up a restoration program to bring salmon back. Despite news reports, though, it doesn't include the removal of PacifiCorp's four outdated, destructive dams on the Klamath River. That will come in a settlement with PacifiCorp.

So Friends of the River, PacifiCorp, California, and everyone else involved in negotiations still has to work hard to save the Klamath.

]]> Klamath River: Deal or No Deal?

Friends of the River has been heavily involved in these negotiations for years, and we think this is good but ...

The preliminary agreement announced yesterday is certainly a step in the right direction. But we still have a lot of work left to do. The agreement resolves significant water issues in the Klamath basin and sets up a restoration program to bring salmon back. Despite news reports, though, it doesn't include the removal of PacifiCorp's four outdated, destructive dams on the Klamath River. That will come in a settlement with PacifiCorp.

So Friends of the River, PacifiCorp, California, and everyone else involved in negotiations still has to work hard to save the Klamath.

]]> Comment #4 by Wolverine http://www.grist.org/article/KlamathPlan/ Mon, 21 Jan 2008 07:17:02 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/KlamathPlan/4 Another Rejection

Here's another commenter who rejects this deal.

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/01/21/18473846.php

Overall, I oppose it, despite the fact that it might be slightly better than the current situation.  Another problem identified by this commentary is that certain agribusiness interests will be given a waiver from "endangered species laws."  Any agreement with a provision like that or like one that would give agriculture priority over fish for use of water should be summarily rejected, and shame on Friends of The River for supporting this agreement.

]]> Another Rejection

Here's another commenter who rejects this deal.

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/01/21/18473846.php

Overall, I oppose it, despite the fact that it might be slightly better than the current situation.  Another problem identified by this commentary is that certain agribusiness interests will be given a waiver from "endangered species laws."  Any agreement with a provision like that or like one that would give agriculture priority over fish for use of water should be summarily rejected, and shame on Friends of The River for supporting this agreement.

]]>