Home / Yreka News / SUPPOSE – A DAM FRIGHTENING TALE 

SUPPOSE – A DAM FRIGHTENING TALE 

When I was in law school almost sixty years ago, one of my law professors was Rollin M. Perkins, who taught the course in criminal law.  He was well-regarded nationally, and his textbook, “Perkins on Criminal Law,” was widely used in leading law schools throughout the country.  The students at my law school gave him a license plate that read “Suppose,” the word with which he began each class.  His teaching method was to present…

Partner Ads By Google
Tagged:

6 Comments

  • So, if I built a house with a view of the national forest and the forest service wanted to log it – they should have to consider recompensing me for a loss of my viewshed?

  • Suppose that Mr. John Q. Ordinary Citizen did not perform his due diligence prior to purchasing his property and can now not expect the government to pick up the tab for his lack of good decision making. He should have know this was a private dam and reservoir, with it’s own set of rights and responsibilities. I thought the myth of the western settlement was freedom and independence from the government, along with that personal responsibility.

  • When the dam removal came before voters, was this a state wide vote or, Siskiyou county residents only? If it was county only voters, and Gov. Newsom issued an executive order supporting the removal of the dams, he clearly is subverting, or ignoring, the will of the people. This seems clearly, from a layperson’s perspective, as violating the constitution. The founding fathers made this pretty clear, it’s not rocket science. How does the House and Senate decide which bills get passed? Or the Supreme Court? They understand what it means to be a democracy. Maybe the governor didn’t get the memo.

  • Another question; If farmers and residents didn’t have a voice at the table when the discussion of removing the dams was taking place, could this be considered a form of discrimination? Lord knows native tribes have been discriminated against going back, not decades, but centuries. Is this a form of reparation or retribution? I have always believed two wrongs don’t make a right. I think I understand Gov. Newsom’s decision, he’s a democrat and a possible candidate in the next presidential election, and supporting social justice causes helps get votes from democrats.

  • Perhaps the recompense is a VERY good salmon run right near his house. A jeep road or trail down to river shore? Jeepers, I’d Love to have a salmon run at my front door! what a deal! e.g. now the property is worth more than paid for it. In other words, worth is in the mind of the citizen. I see antiques or locations worth $$$$$$, I would not give a dime for them, except maybe to burn the affront to my senses.

  • Two points I’ve not heard addressed on this topic:
    1. Who has the authority to wave section 5650 Fish and Game Code, which holds that it is a crime to pollute State waters with the sediment that will be released down river when the dams are removed?
    2. The Salmon River, tributary to the Klamath River below the dams also has low salmon returns, yet has no dams. Could it be ocean conditions have more to do with low salmon numbers than do dams far upstream?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *