Document text
Becklin defends board's decision Says vote seeks solution to dam problem By PAUL FATTIG GRANTS PASS -- The Grants Pass Irrigation District board isn't being deceitful by asking district patrons to vote on a controversial proposal that would remove Savage Rapids Dam, says chairman Dennis Becklin. Nor should its decision -- to let patrons decide whether to demand in a mail-in vote Jan. 18 that Uncle Sam pay $27 million to tear down the dam on the Rogue River -- be construed as passing the buck. "Our opponents have claimed that what we are doing is a mock effort," Becklin said. "But this is a genuine attempt to find a solution that is good for the community, the district, the river and will satisfy those who want the dam removed. "We are not playing games here," he added. The board's approval of the patron vote came just before midnight Monday after presenting the list of conditions for dam removal and taking public comments. Most of the 40 people speaking supported keeping the 78-year-old irrigation dam. The meeting drew some 400 people, including Medford resident Bob Hunter, staff attorney for WaterWatch of Oregon, an environmental organization that has been an outspoken proponent for removing what it sees as a fish-killing dam. "I don't think the board has any intention of removing the dam," Hunter said in an interview Tuesday. "I think they are just waiting for a change in the political climate in hopes of saving the dam," he added. "If the patrons approve (the proposal), it will only stall the litigation. This isn't about dam removal at all. It's really just a ruse." One of the main problems with the proposal is that it contains contingencies that can never be met, thus allowing the district to keep the dam, he said. Basically, the proposal demands that Uncle Sam pay $27 million for removing the dam, installing and operating pumps to replace it, restoring riparian zones along the reservoir, disposing of sediments behind the dam, and improving recreational facilities along the river. Martha Pagel, director of the Oregon Water Resources Department, says formal adoption of the proposal by the district is premature. The state cannot by law agree to provisions such as expanding the district's water right or protecting it against lawsuits, Pagel noted. "There are concepts we are interested in and would continue negotiating, but we can't agree to the document as it's written," she said. The National Marine Fisheries Service sued the district in 1998 for failing to meet Endangered Species Act requirements over threatened coho salmon. The Oregon Water Resources Commission canceled a supplemental water right last year after deciding the irrigation district had failed to make progress on a 1994 agreement to remove the dam and replace it with pumps. The district appealed the action to the Oregon Court of Appeals, where it is pending. Despite Becklin's assurances, the proposal does nothing to resolve the controversy, say dam opponents. "Sending this out to a patron vote is meaningless," Hunter reiterated. "We don't view this as a good faith effort at all." But Becklin, who would not speculate on how the roughly 7,500 patrons will vote, disagreed. "My job is to find a consensus, to develop the public will to solve this very, very complicated problem," Becklin said. While some district board members have mixed feelings about the proposal, they agreed unanimously to give patrons the opportunity to vote, Becklin noted. "We have a community that continues to be conflicted over the relative merits of keeping the dam and fighting removal, or removing it and seeking a solution," he said. "This is a referendum to our patrons, to give them a chance to express their opinion." Today's Business Index Mail Tribune Copyright � The Mail Tribune 1999, Medford, Oregon USA