Now that the Northcoast Environmental Center has rejected the Klamath River Restoration Agreement (ie: dam removal) it seems a bit ummm, hypocritical to go forward with this event - or maybe 'revealing' is a better word - It seems that even though they had a seat at the negotiating table and were part of crafting the agreement, they are now reneging in order to preserve their cash cow, the right to predatory litigation. (worth millions - they don't need your $15 donation).
Speaking out of both sides of their mouth, they say Help support the movement to bring down the Klamath River dams by attending this Klamath Benefit Dinner at the Bayside Grange in Arcata on March 14, 7 p.m. The fundraiser is a Klamath Riverkeeper event, co-sponsored by the Northcoast Environmental Center, Karuk Tribe Department of Natural Resources and Humboldt Baykeeper. and on the other hand spit on the agreement they helped craft.
Isn't it nice? All the predatory litigants in one nice little package.
Lesson for any future negotiators - there is no point in inviting these guys (the environmental orgs) to the table, no point in soliciting their input, and no reason to trust them whatsoever. The Headwaters Deal tells you that. This latest action tells you that.
Does this mean that I shouldn't listen to Heraldo and vote for Mark Lovelace for the BOS? Heraldo wouldn't lie and he is very objective, isn't he?
ReplyDeleteI don't get it. The Restoration Agreement isn't dam removal, right? That part of the agreement was going to come later, if at all.
ReplyDeletethe dams' owner, pacificorp, was not even a party to the "restoration agreement" talks, so it should surprise no one that removing the dams is not part of that agreement. as is so often the case, rose shoots from the hip and misses by a mile.
ReplyDeletenec members, and many others, have worked tirelessly for removal of the dams, and will continue to do so, notwithstanding rose's wild-haired spin.
p.s. rose: now the karuk tribe is a "predatory litigant" also? wow i'm sure tribal members will be amazed by your analysis of their organization. i sure was.
Right, Hank, and everyone's approval was/is conditional on the finalization of those talks. King knows that. So why is he setting about to sabotage it? It's really incredible to watch what is happening here.
ReplyDeleteAs to 5:39 - Hank may know, but you may not - Pacificorps was there in the beginning. It was Pacificorp who invited these people to the table - and when the talks reached a certain stage, the participants asked Pacificorp to step away from the table to allow for frank discussion and to allow the group to work on the details, the what comes next, what happens after the dams come out. The ins and outs of structuring the dam removal is part of a separate but related process that is ongoing, right, Hank?
Yeah, but you can still oppose the Settlement Agreement and the dams. That's not inconsistent.
ReplyDeletein fact opposing both the lame agreement and the harmful dams is completely consistent, despite rose's weird spin.
ReplyDeleterose, you seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that these talks were a form of binding arbitration where the participants agree in advance to support the outcome of the talks, and that ec then "reneged" on their commitment to the process.
that was simply not the case here...every participant had the right to participate in trying to craft an agreement that they could find acceptable, and then, failing that, to reject the agreement that the group came up with.
sorry the facts don't fit your pre-existing belief about greedy, litigious enviros, but that's the way the cookie crumbles. better luck next time...
Hank
ReplyDeleteIt does smack of a check and raise.
We'll likely get the damn dams out. But now let's up the ante. Rose is a zealot. But she is also an informed zealot. And I hope you get it Hank, that there is a larger issue here.
It has little to do with the environment, it has much to do with the opportunity to collect fees, costs and settlements. Oh and to appease the base.
Rose is mostly right on this one.
No, I hear you, Dog. Politics is politics.
ReplyDeleteI can't speak to the specifics here, because I don't really know what the NEC is up to. They could be perfectly sincere.
I'm just pointing out that this -- the benefit and the opposition -- isn't a case of doing one thing and saying another.
Hank
ReplyDeleteI hope you're right.
Maybe you're the reporter that will finally ask and answer the question as to where the money comes from and from what compass point the motivation lies?
(spelling error is intended)
I get it...not sure if I buy it.
dog
all the blather about "predatory litigants" ignores a basic point: such a strategy, if one existed, would require that the litigants had the law on their side the great majority of the time.
ReplyDeleteotherwise, if all of these lawsuits were really so frivolous, they'd be getting dinged for the opposing attorney's fees all the time, and would soon be out of business.
the real story behind so many environmental lawsuits is the fact of so much corporate and governmental lawbreaking. now we can expect that corporations will sometimes try to skirt the law to increase their profits, but the real shame is how often the government can't seem to follow it's own rules. witness how many times the federal government has to be sued just to get the EPA to follow its own rules on the endangered species act, for example.
as long as we have renegade corporations like maxxam, and corrupt administrations like g w bush's crowd, we'll continue to see a lot of litigation.
This is a deal to guarantee agribusiness more water than the Klamath can afford to give. Nothing more.
ReplyDelete'dog...' said: "It has little to do with the environment, it has much to do with the opportunity to collect fees, costs and settlements. Oh and to appease the base."
ReplyDeletewow, what a classic piece of watchpaul bullcrap: an evil, shadowy conspiracy is alleged, opponent's motives and character is attacked, and absolutely zero evidence is offered to back up the wild-haired claims.
11:49 the truth shutters you to the core. If King,Evans,Nichols,Greeson and their merry little band of special litigation experts are working for free then all may be as you say. However if they are making it the way Rose sees it you all just might be enviro phonies. Sorry Hank but epic/nec and their motives are far from being pure as the driven snow. I don't trust anyone willing to accept collateral damage to benefit their own cause,
ReplyDeleteYet that is EXACTLY what this agreement does, 1:06. The collateral damage of a river without enough water in exchange for dam removal..MAYBE. Rose is blasting NEC for REFUSAL to accept the collateral damage to the river for the possibility of dam removal.
ReplyDeleteFrom the Sacramento Bee:
ReplyDelete"The NEC announcement will put pressure on the 26 groups involved in the talks to amend key principles that have taken more than two years to draft. Talks resume Wednesday.
Glen Spain, who represents commercial fishermen in the talks, said his group agrees that fish-friendly changes will have to be made.
"Clearly there are uncertainties about what the fish in the lower Klamath River get out of this in the long term," he said.
Those on the other side of the bargaining table, however, expressed little interest in reexamining the down-river concerns.
Greg Addington, executive director of the Klamath Water Users Association that relies on the federal irrigation water, said his bigger concern now is trying to shore up support among irrigators.
"I can't spend more time on that," Addington said of the NEC's concerns. "I've got to spend time in my own backyard at this point."
It seems that commercial fisherman think this deals stinks too. hmmm
What you are seeing play out here is part of a bigger pattern of behavior - and all you have to do it look at what happened with the Headwaters Deal to see how it plays out.
ReplyDeleteNo doubt you will see a great deal of press generated over this - no surprise there.
The NEC trying to say that Pacificorp is not part of the process is disingenuous at best, and given their involvement, and the ongoing discussions regarding a dam removal agreement, you have to wonder why the NEC wants to promote dissension.
Money doesn't flow in when things are going smoothly, does it?
I guess we''ll just see - like I said to King on heraldo - PROVE ME WRONG.
What about the commercial fishermen, Rose? Are they opposed to this deal so they can sue? Maybe the enviros are on the right side this time? You would never admit that.
ReplyDeletecrickets
ReplyDeleteYou should have heard these scum bags on coastal currents today(KHUM). It's all about the money. It's all about keeping their buisness in the money. Oh the river too yes must mention the river but never forget to get us the money. Something about the river? Yes,river equals money. SCUM BAGS!
ReplyDelete