Editor:

"Upstream Battle" (May 7) makes the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA) sound so great, a drunkard's dream if I ever did see one. Just get those dams out and everything will be hunky-dory. Crispen McAllister did say he doesn't care for the plan but that statement wasn't really followed up on.

The key sentence is, "The plan would restore the health of the river without impacting the upper Klamath farms." And why would that be? It would be because the KBRA guarantees the farms first and biggest dibs, dibs that will allow the tribes, the fish and the river downstream to continue to be deprived as well as the refuges. The farms are already getting water guaranteed by the KBRA even though it hasn't been passed. And it's only May and the river looks low already.

The source of the above bunch of hooey is, I'm sure, Craig Tucker, who has long been chief apologist for the KBRA and is quoted as saying, "It's really difficult to explain that the dams we're talking about removing aren't going to affect irrigators." Aw, come on Craig, it's not so difficult and you know it, but you just don't wanna say that the tribe you work for got screwed by the KBRA that you're pushing as the "only option on the table." But you know that's not true either.

The other thing notably absent from the article is the main reason Congress has ignored the KBRA so far and that is the cost. The original estimates have been whittled down some, so hope of it passing is renewed. As for costs, PacificCorp gets off free by passing the dam removal costs on to the state of California and their customers, although they've benefited from the dams for 60-plus years or so, I've lost track.

Sylvia De Rooy, Eureka