Conservative News & Commentary

Aug 31, 2016 — by: G.W. Washington
Categories: Government

On August 16th, the Klamath County Commissioners voted 2-1 in favor of placing an advisory measure on November’s ballot.

Commissioner Kelly Minty Morris, the dissenting vote, claimed the issue was too complicated to be resolved with a simple question. “This is not a simple issue. This vote simplifies something that is not appropriate. I truly believe in asking for voter input where something could be acted on, such a funding the jail. This is just furthering a political agenda. The topic of dam removal hijacks the conversation when we need to be talking about health care and other issues.”

In a written statement Commission-elect Donnie Boyd added “I find this vote a waste of time, funds and will have no impact. It is a cruel game being played on our community.”

You can’t handle the truth!

When leftists know they will be exposed, they often turn to rules and attorneys to save the day. This time was no different as four dam removal advocates hired a Portland law firm to stop this simple proposed advisory ballot measure. Their claim: this is a complicated issue and therefore the question on the ballot should be more complicated. They insist on an alternative advisory ballot measure to be an up or down vote on the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (K.H.S.A.). We believe the real goal of the lawsuit is to run out the clock so that the Commissioners’ advisory ballot measure does not meet the ballot deadline and therefore not find its way onto November ballots. If they fail in keeping it from the ballot, their next aim is to make the issue confusing to voters so they are discouraged from wading in with their opinion. In summary progressives, who want to destroy all dams along the Klamath river, are doing everything in their power to keep from being exposed as the extreme minority view in Klamath County.

The fact is the result of a successful K.H.S.A. means dam removal, as destroying all hydropower on the Klamath river is the key component of the “agreement”. But by changing the ballot to an up and down vote on KHSA instead of “Dam Removal” it allows the liberals to cause confusion and uncertainty in the voting public, as several unsuspecting voters will not understand K.H.S.A. = Dam Removal.

The Commissioners are perfectly within their power to ask for an advisory vote on anything — whether Klamath citizens prefer cloudy days to sunny ones, what the public’s favorite flavor of ice cream is, or whether the County logo should be changed to a big pelican head. That the Commissioners were interested in understanding the voting public’s view about dam removal is a use of an advisor vote that ought to be in the public knowledge.

We thank Commissioners Mallams and Bellet for doing the right thing. Once again, Commissioner Minty-Morris finds herself on the wrong side of an issue and stands in the way of finding out what people want rather than telling us what she thinks we should want.

7 Comments

  1. Terry L Clemens ~ Aug. 31, 2016 @ 3:56 pm

    We've got the "three stooges" in there now, it ought to be a wild ride.....hang on!! #
  2. Finnious T Fogbottom ~ Aug. 31, 2016 @ 6:48 pm

    Congressional approval of the madcap faux scientific Climate Change panic driven Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement etc. became way more than improbable as soon as they discovered that they had been lobbyist etc. lied to. It was quite a surprise to some to learn that in Siskiyou County over 70% of “voters” were against darned dam removal. Yes, advisory votes are very powerful, as long as one doesn’t want to step all over their constituency. That’s why those who don’t seem to care much for government for the people and by the people are trying to tinker with input of the local citizenry in the matter. If the vote busters got honest all of a sudden there would most likely be a second advisory vote. One that would put forth the question to determine if they would like Soviet council style governance to replace the republic and constitution in the Klamath. Even if they agreed to such someone would probably have Whoregon officials willingly rework it into something like; “vote yes if you are tired of the way government has been acting as of late.” This is all so so Saul Alinsky. If you take exception to their position it is because you are stupid or suffer from some order of metal disorder. Or maybe it’s just to complex for your small brain to comprehend. Oh well. Finnious #
  3. Lisa J. ~ Sep. 1, 2016 @ 6:57 am

    I applaud Mallams and Bellet for doing the right thing for this county - again!! As already stated "Minty-Morris finds herself on the wrong side" as usual. No surprise there. The simple fact is the money "we" are being assessed for dam removal should go to the fish ladders. I'm fine with paying for that. But we are being railroaded by the loud few pushing for the removal of those power plants for absolutely no good reason. Also I'm truly not anxious to see this new batch of commissioners take office. I think "wild ride" will be an understatement. #
  4. Ryan L. Miller ~ Sep. 1, 2016 @ 9:13 am

    I have a profoundly difficult time understanding why dam removal is an issue. A private company owns them and wants them gone, so why oppose the company? Can someone on this site explain why this is something voters should oppose? And please assume I don't have decades worth of water dispute experience in Klamath County, or that I have been party of any of the hand-wringing conversations to take down Big Dam. #
  5. A. Smith ~ Sep. 4, 2016 @ 11:51 am

    The private property argument has a couple of flaws. First Pacific Power is a special kind of private enterprise -- it is a utility. This means it has regional monopoly control. Pacific Power customers can't just go get electricity from another provider. Therefore what Pacific Power does and how it operates must benefit the general public as well as its bottom line. But as important is the fact that Pacific Power doesn't have the money necessary to remove the dams nor the money to handle the environmental clean up and lawsuits that are sure to follow. The private company, Pacific Power, wants to use tax dollars for the majority of those expenses. When it comes to public dollars now we do have a say, a big one, as it is our money. The vote on dam removal this November is important so our elected leaders know exactly what public sentiment is about protecting or removing the dams. #
  6. Terry L Clemens ~ Sep. 4, 2016 @ 8:34 pm

    I've never had a problem with P P & L doing what THEY want to do with THEIR dams....I just don't want them using MY money for this idiotic plan!! There will be a big monetary surprise coming after removing these dams!! #
  7. Finnious T Fogbottom ~ Sep. 7, 2016 @ 10:56 am

    Crashing buttresses and falling dams? Years ago a California padre wanted to improve the appearance of the old mission church which he shepherded. Its Spanish style was captivating but he didn’t like the way the exterior walls looked. There were a number of awkward downward sloping perpendicular walls protruding out from what he considered to be the legitimate exterior walls. After he had them removed and the church collapsed he discovered that they actually had a purpose. Though they weren’t aesthetically pleasing they were of critical importance as they supported (or buttressed) the weight of the roof which the walls by themselves could not. Part of what we are facing in the world today is the rising prominence and influence those who have no clue as to the massive level of exhausting work, commitment, risk, planning, preparation and building that had to take place in order for us to have enough free time and affluence to even be able worry about how appealing and pristine things (like the environment) look, sound and smell. Yet some seem to be as dedicated to the dismantling of those things and systems which buttress our lives and nation as those who actually provided them. Like the old mission church if we are not careful all that we need to sustain us in realistic terms (substance as apposed to form) will be removed for what seem to be good and decent reasons and all will collapse around us. So if you are worried for instance about fish migration and spawning first do some research on “salmon cannons”. You will find that there is already an efficient and low cost way to move fish up and over dams without collapsing them or hurting the concerned critters. After all someday we may actually need a managed year round bottom cooled flow of water in the river, irrigation resources, hydro power, flood control etc. God knows that it would be easier to walk to the moon than build a dam in today’s legal, emotional, contentious, adversarial and social atmosphere. It is always good to be careful about what one is asking for as they could end up with way way less than what they started out with. Finnious #

Leave your reply (* = required field)

* :
* :
:
*
* Comment: