JAMES BUCHAL'S RESPONSE TO COMMENTS OF COMMISSIONER JOHN ELLIOT:

Concerning Mr. Buchal's comments in his last paragraph, do you think that the people of this County would support forming another public bureaucracy and condemning private property (Pacificorp's dams, distribution sub-stations, power lines and metering systems), so they could operate their own exclusive power company? "I believe that has been done in certain European and Asian countries, but how successfully?"

Mr. Elliot is better qualified than I to assess what the people of Klamath County will support. I can say that there are numerous public utility districts all over Oregon, organized under Oregon law, all of which operate successfully. They represented one of the positive achievements of the Roosevelt Era, back when government provided benefits, instead of sucking down resources for bankers and parasites. And doesn't the Settlement Agreement form (or vastly expand) more public bureaucracies?

"Do you think California residents who are also served by Pacificorp might have an objection?"

They have no say in the matter. The District is formed under Oregon law, and could necessarily only take over PacifiCorp properties in Oregon under Oregon law. It might or might not be most effective to pursue parallel efforts under California law, followed by the joint operating agreement between the two public utilities. The PacifiCorp distribution facilities in California are quite small. Nevertheless, we can expect that the California Tulelake farmers, who have been aggressive and successful at securing Federal subsidies, will fight to defend the Settlement Agreement.

"How does Mr. Buchal propose to pay for those properties?"

By borrowing the money at rapidly-dropping long-term interest rates.

"Is he going to help by writing a check?"

No, and personal attacks typically betray a substantive weakness in one's position.

"Pacificorp has indicated that they are prepared to pay $300 million to construct fishladders on the four dams, which will be required by FERC if Pacificorp (or anyone else) intends to operate them. If the public utility district is going to operate the dams, then it better be prepared to pay for those additions."

An Oregon public utility district would be responsible for one of them, and whether or not fish ladders for fish that it makes no sense to introduce are required depends on whether political leadership within the Basin and Oregon emerges that is prepared to stand up to such nonsense.

"If you think that the people of Klamath County are prepared to confiscate private property, then please bring them to the weekly public meetings and present the proposal. Don't forget the checkbook."

Political leadership electrified the entire rural Pacific Northwest, and overcame the well-funded objections of private utilities. At every public meeting of the farmers, there was a man in the back of the room in a fancy suit saying, "who pays?" Leadership overcame those objections.

"Similar questions surround the acquisition of the Klamath Reclamation Project. Who pays?"

The irrigators repaid the capital costs years ago, and continue to pay operational costs.

"And who assumes the liabilities of those canals, pumps, headgates and culverts? You? Your neighbors? How about every American taxpayer, because that's who has the responsibility now."

Insurance is available to cover the costs of people falling into canals and drowning; normal operational costs are paid within the Basin already by the users.

"Since millions have been spent on legal fees fighting the ESA, with no real progress, then what's a few more million? Mr. Buchal knows we don't go to court for free and neither does he. Again, who pays?"

The people can pay for a new army of officials to implement the Settlement Agreement, or they can take over the power and irrigation facilities and pay for that. One way or another, the people of the Basin are going to pay. The welfare state approach of relying upon federal funding to cover the destruction of local economic potential may work for a while, but it is not a long-term, sustainable strategy. Local control is, so long as there is local leadership defending local interests.

"If we are not going to pay, then is Mr. Buchal suggesting we secede from the Union and thereby free ourselves from these laws? I believe that has already been tried."

Silly arguments also betray weakness in a substantive position, and, more importantly, the Settlement Agreement does nothing to free the people of the Klamath Basin from the Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act. Neither does a local public utility district and local irrigation district, but having local control to fight idiotic federal mandates seems smarter than giving the authors of those mandates a half a billion dollars to make more trouble for the Basin.