Removing dams could have a devastating trickle-down effect

The Klamath River fills Keno Reservoir. Water from the reservoir flows down to Buckhorn Springs power station.

It also fills Emigrant Reservoir and the Rogue River drainage, plus generating most of the power for Ashland. This water irrigates our orchards and fields, plus supplementing Ashland water in times of drought.

Take away this water and we will have increased electric rates, no water for recreation, no water for our agriculture and parks, no emergency water for anything.

Do you still think taking out dams doesn’t affect you? It will take only a summer of drought to show how this was a crazy idea.

Elaine Delsman / Ashland

Increasing housing also increases climate change impact

Some growth in Oregon may be inevitable, but we shouldn’t embrace it.

Adding 500,000 houses means 10 vehicle trips per day per unit. Thus, Oregon will have an additional 5 million daily vehicle trips. Interstate 5, frequently at capacity between Salem and Portland, will become worse. 

The New York Times Almanac cites that for every 1,000 Americans, we have 808 vehicles. Thus, if the U.S. adds 25 million people every 10 years, we add 20 million more atmosphere-heating, fume-spewing, wildlife- and insect-killing and tire-grinding vehicles making attempts to reduce our contribution to global warming futile.

Oregon leaders introduced measures to increase densities. But we will still likely consume one-square-mile of farmland, forest land or open space for each additional 3,000 people.

Gov. Kotek should duplicate Governor Tom McCall’s statement: “Please visit Oregon but don’t stay.” But that takes vision and defies the pro-growth mentality of endlessly adding people to our heavy consuming civilization. 

But no one explains how 250 years of growth helped Native Americans preserve their lands and their water, fishing, hunting and mineral rights.  Native Americans might object to trite pro-growth refrains. Now we all should.

Brent Thompson / Ashland

‘Urban elite’ commissioners don’t represent the majority

Why are the Jackson County Commissioners scrambling so hard and exploiting taxpayer-paid employees and resources to fight the Jackson County For All initiatives? Because they have already lost their stronghold to control the county.

The three urban elites currently on the board are adherents of a partisan political group that represents less than 30% of Jackson County voters. Of course they don’t want changes that would make them accountable to the vast majority … the 70% plus.

They don’t want changes that would expand opportunities for minority and rural citizens to participate. While turnout in May elections has been low historically, that’s because the voters who don’t want a partisan label or who choose a minor party have next to nothing on their ballots. In May of 2022, they could cast meaningless votes in uncontested races for judicial seats — why bother?

This year will be different. Every voter will have the opportunity to have their voice heard on the form of our county governing board.

Beverly Vondra / Talent

Additional costs are small price to pay to change board

I proudly helped gather signatures on the three ballot measure petitions that were circulated by Jackson County For All of Us.

Contrary to what County Administer Jordan intimated, I for one let potential signers know that while the three current commissioners salaries would be pooled and then divided between the five commissioners, that of course there would be various increases to the budget.

Now, since the commissioners meeting on Feb. 16, we know Mr. Jordan is saying there will be additional costs, some of them being one-time costs, upwards of $400,000 to $700,000.

Well, let’s do the math — worst case — $700,000 divided over the approx. 225,000 residents of JaCo comes to (drumroll please) $3.11 per resident.

Obviously a large percentage of those residents are children, but still, for a family of 10, this increase would amount to $31.11 annually. For my family of two, that’s an increase of just $6.22 a year; a price we are more than happy to pay for increased representation.

It’s time for the scare tactics of “well into the six figures” to stop. Vote YES on these three ballot measures when you see them on the ballot in May.

Kathryn Brooks / Central Point

Only three commissioners aren’t enough to serve valley

In 1852, when Jackson County was established, the population was under 4,000, reportedly 3,735 in 1860. This is when membership of our Board of Commissioners was set at three.

The population of the county is now over 220,000, making us the sixth-most populous county in the state. The ratio of commissioners to residents at establishment was one commissioner for every 1,250 or so residents. If that was deemed adequate then to allow representation, simple math would indicate that the number of commission members now should be over 170. 

Clearly the maintenance of a Board comprising just three commissioners is unrepresentative. The number of residents each represents has multiplied nearly 60-fold.

The number of elected county administrators in Oregon ranges from three to five. In 24 counties these comprise members of a Board of Commissioners, while in 12 they comprise a county judge and two commissioners. Five of the 36 counties currently have five elected administrators while the remainder have just three.

It is probably no surprise that the counties with five commissioners include four of the five counties larger than Jackson.

It may cost a few thousand dollars to accommodate an increase in the number of commission members from three to five, but the county annual budget is well north of $500 million.

The question for voters is whether democracy is better served by having one commissioner for every 73,000-plus residents or one for every 44,000. Frankly, even the latter seems grossly inadequate to assure reasonable representation.

Alan Journet / Jacksonville