Four Klamath River Dams May Be Removed to Benefit Salmon

NEVADA CITY, California, November 19, 2008 (ENS) - Four dams on the Klamath River that have blocked salmon runs upstream to their spawning areas may be removed in the year 2020 under an historic agreement among federal, state and corporate parties.

Dam removal will re-open over 300 miles of habitat for the Klamath's salmon and steelhead populations and eliminate water quality problems such as toxic algae blooms caused by the reservoirs.

The federal government, the state of California, the state of Oregon and the PacifiCorp electric utility Thursday announced an Agreement in Principle to remove the four dams as part of a broader effort to restore the river and revive its ailing salmon and steelhead runs and aid fishing, tribal and farming communities.

The agreement is intended to guide the development of a final settlement agreement scheduled to be signed in June 2009.

"This is a historic announcement and the culmination of years of hard work from the numerous negotiators from the federal government and the states of California and Oregon, and PacifiCorp representatives who have worked toward a common goal of how best to protect the uniqueness of this region," said Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne.

"We have agreed to a path forward that will protect fish, PacifiCorp customers and the local cultures and communities in the two-state Klamath River basin," Kempthorne said.

The United States will make a final determination by March 31, 2012, whether the benefits of dam removal will justify the costs, informed by scientific and engineering studies conducted in the interim, and in consultation with state, local, and tribal governments and other stakeholders.

At that point, the United States shall designate a non-federal dam removal entity to remove the dams or decline to remove the dams.

Rebecca Wodder, president of the nonprofit American Rivers who for years has urged removal of the dams, said, "We have not popped the champagne cork yet, but we have put a bottle on ice. The initial agreement is a huge step toward a healthy Klamath River Basin. American Rivers looks forward to working out remaining details in the final negotiations."

"This will be the world's biggest dam removal project. But ultimately, this isn't about tearing down dams. It is about restoring one of the most important rivers on the west coast, boosting local economies, and revitalizing fishing, tribal and farming communities."

The Klamath River was once the third most productive salmon river system in the United States. Today, due to the dams, poor water quality and too little water left in the river, the Klamath salmon runs have are less than 10 percent of their historic size. Some species, such as coho salmon, are now in such low numbers in the Klamath River that they are listed under the federal Endangered Species Act.

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger called the agreement "the largest dam removal project ever in history that California, Oregon and our federal and private partners are undertaking to improve water quality, water supply and fish populations in the Klamath region."

"The health of the Klamath River is critical to the livelihood of numerous Northern California communities, and with this groundbreaking agreement we have established a framework for restoring an important natural resource for future generations," he said.

Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski said, "While many months of work lay ahead, this historic agreement provides a path forward to achieve the largest river and salmon restoration effort ever undertaken in a way that's good for fish, PacifiCorp customers, and local communities and our sovereign tribes."

The Klamath Tribes, along with the Karuk and Yurok tribes of California have for years sought removal of the dams.

"With Oregon's best interests in mind, it is with great pride that I will be taking the first step in implementing this agreement by offering legislation to support the dam decommissioning and removal process," Kulongoski said.

Assuming a final agreement is reached next year and pending congressional approval, PacifiCorp will set aside millions of dollars for immediate environmental improvements. The funds would be used to implement numerous measures that will enhance habitat, improve water quality, increase fish populations, and benefit fisheries management in the basin.

"This careful effort to balance the complex needs of numerous interests within the community is exactly the type of approach PacifiCorp takes every time we sit down to the settlement table," said Greg Abel, PacifiCorp chairman and chief executive.

"This flexible framework ensures that our customers will be protected at every step along the way, while remaining consistent with our strong commitment to respecting the environment. We will continue to work diligently with everyone at the table, including the irrigators, environmentalists, the tribes and all local elected officials with the goal of reaching a final dam removal agreement that is in the economic interests of PacifiCorp customers."

Wodder says PacifiCorp's four dams produce only a nominal amount of power, which can be replaced using renewables and efficiency measures, without contributing to global warming.

A study by the California Energy Commission and the Department of the Interior found that removing the dams and replacing their power would save PacifiCorp customers up to $285 million over 30 years.

PacifiCorp agrees to contribute as much as $200 million to cover the cost of removing its four dams and restoring the river. Dam removal funds would be obtained from ratepayers in Oregon and California before removal begins. The impact to customer bills will be less than one percent.

If the costs of dam removal exceed PacifiCorp's contribution, California and Oregon together would contribute up to $250 million. Current estimates of dam removal costs range between $75 million and $200 million.

There are two agreements (1) the Klamath Restoration Agreement and (2) the Agreement in Principle to remove the dams. Both really screw the people of Siskiyou County at or below the dams. We were the sacrificial lamb in a deal with the devil that the Klamath Project Farmers made with the tribes.

Here is a link to information about the Restoration Agreement: http://www.klamathbasincrisis.org/Poweranddamstoc/nodams/toc.htm
Here is a link to the initial report from the County’s consultant concerning the adequacy and credibility of the science supporting dam removal and how it could pose harm to public health, safety and the environment: http://www.klamathbucketbrigade.org/Brownfield_PreliminaryReviewofKlamathRiverDamandSedimentInvestigation071308.htm and http://www.klamathbucketbrigade.org/SiskiyouCounty_TestimonyofMinerandLambie071308.htm and http://www.klamathbucketbrigade.org/SiskiyouCounty_AddendumTestimonyofLambie071308.htm
Here is my initial cost/benefit analysis http://users.sisqtel.net/armstrng/Cost%20Benefit%20dam%20removal.htm and http://users.sisqtel.net/armstrng/Cost%20Benefit%20settlement%20agreement.htm The Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors unanimously opposed the Restoration Agreement.

The official statement of the Board on the AIP is:

The County of Siskiyou wishes to express its concern with the recent Agreement in Principle (AlP) issued with respect to removing the Irongate Dam, the Copco 1 Dam, the Copco 2 Dam, and the J. C. Boyle Dam, and other works presently licensed to PacifiCorp.

While the County of Siskiyou is appreciative of the parties permitting the County to participate in the discussions, the Agreement that has been undertaken by the parties still leaves significant issues unaddressed, not the least of which is the fact that it does not clearly address the cost and impacts to the County of Siskiyou and its constituents, nor does it provide sufficient provisions for determining such impacts. Unanswered by the Agreement in Principle (AlP) are the specific studies that will be undertaken, the degree to which local entities such as Siskiyou County will be permitted to participate, and provisions which essentially allow PacifiCorp and other parties to avoid any liability arising from its ownership and operation of the facilities. Unexplained is the scope of liability for the Dam Removal Entity (ORE) envisioned by the Agreement. In fact, no local input is provided for with respect to who is going to remove these dams which have been such an essential and integral part of Siskiyou County for many years.

Siskiyou County does acknowledge that, under the Miscellaneous Provisions of the Agreement in Principle (AlP), it does state that the Final Agreement “may” address the economic impact of the facilities removal on Siskiyou County and “may” address the issues regarding the City of Yreka’s water supply, as well as other terms. However, these terms are not mandatorily required. The Board of Supervisors opposes the AIP and the process described therein. The County of Siskiyou is of the opinion that those matters addressed in its Resolution in April, 2008, opposing a Sense of Congress Resolution requiring dam removal remain unanswered and that the removal of the dams will be a crippling blow to the County of Siskiyou. The County remains opposed to the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement. The Board of Supervisors directs County Counsel to issue Requests for Qualifications for special counsel to assist County Counsel as part of the Board’s intention to assemble a team to oppose the removal of the dams.

My own personal concerns include: (1) Siskiyou County has long requested in vain that, should the dams be removed, provisions be made to restore the lands behind the dams, mitigations be guaranteed for damage to road and other infrastructure, and that the County receive financial offsets for its substantial loss in tax revenue, impacts to local landowners and economy; (2) The issue of blanket waivers of liability for dam removal leaves landowners and others without recourse for damage to health, property, business and fish and wildlife habitat; (3) There is no certainty in the AIP for protection of the City of Yreka’s water supply; (4) There is no guarantee of the necessary currently non-existent studies that need to be done to determine benefits to fish, probable sediment transport behavior and potential negative impacts on human health, property, business, the economy of Siskiyou County and fish and wildlife habitat; (5) There is no certainty that alternatives such as a fish bypass will be given consideration; (6) The AIP appears to embrace the Klamath Restoration Agreement. There is no change in the unacceptable provisions concerning a fisheries restoration plan to be written by the tribes and agencies and the imposition of a river-wide “governance structure” that has inadequate and unequal representation of mid-Klamath stakeholders. These stakeholders, such as Copco landowners, and the Scott and Shasta Valley famers/ ranchers, were not a part of negotiations under that Agreement but would be subject to it.

This is probably the only place you will ever hear that there is another side to the feel good kumbaya stories the tribes, environmentalists and Klamath Basin farmers send out. None of the reporters ever ask the people here who are directly affected.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.