Removing 4 Klamath River dams may save money, report finds

Los Angeles Times ^ | December 2, 2006 | Eric Bailey

[calcowgirl]

Setting the stage for a knockdown fight over the fate of four towering Klamath River dams accused of hammering salmon stocks and the West Coast fishing industry, a new government study released Friday has found that decommissioning the dams could cost $100 million less than operating them for another generation.

The economic analysis, ordered by the California Energy Commission in cooperation with the U.S. Department of the Interior, should provide ammunition for Indian tribes, environmentalists and commercial fishermen eager to see the hydropower dams demolished to reopen more than 300 miles of river that have been blocked to migrating salmon for more than half a century.

"It's now official: The Klamath hydro project is an economic loser," said Steve Rothert of the group American Rivers.

The report, produced by a private consulting firm and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's Technical Services Center, found that the cost of demolishing the dams and buying market-rate electricity to offset the lost hydropower over the next three decades would be far less than installing the vast infrastructure and improvements expected to be needed for the dams to win license renewal.

Though the hydro project historically has been able to cheaply deliver enough power for about 70,000 homes, new environmental rules would limit the project's unfettered operation, reducing electricity generation by 23%, the study found.

The cost of erecting fish ladders and other projects to help salmon get past the dams and cure water-quality problems would boost the 30-year cost of the project to between $230 million and $470 million, according to the report.

Removing the dams and buying replacement electricity over the next three decades would cost between $152 million and $277 million ... Depending on the price of power in the future, dam removal could save PacifiCorp ratepayers up to $285 million ...

[tubebender]

You mean the infamous...

IF IT'S YELLOW LET IT MELLOW

IF IT'S BROWN FLUSH IT DOWN

???

[calcowgirl]

Thanks dandelion! I'm relatively new to this subject so I didn't know about Andy Kerr or Larch.
But, it's not surprising that they are making way for their investments in green energy to prevail.

[tubebender]

My first thought was he is the offspring of Barbara Kerr but he is far worse. My bet is he spent time in Earth/Dirt First while giving lessons to the ELF...

[calcowgirl]

I always figured that Barbara Kerr was related to the ex-President (back in the 60s) of the University of California, Clark Kerr. Liberals one and all!

[SERUM10]

Remember, energy matters are complicated and not always what they seem. I know the main CEC report author, Dr. Richard McCann, well and he's no crazy, wacko-tree-hugger. He's no further off the chart than center-left and his wife worked for Republican state lawmakers in Sacramento. He's an economist who know energy matters from years of detailed work in the field and may be wrong but isn't an ideologue.

Best read and critique the report as listed above and draw your own conclusions.

[greasepaint]

the issue here is, farmers needing their welfare?

I'm kinda tired of millionaires on the dole

[marsh2]

The following is my recent column on the issue. As for the study, it fails to consider that the County will lose a substantial amount of tax income from decommissioning of the facilities and the devaluation of private property. There is also no provision for the loss to 1500 private property owners from having to view a mud flat rather than a bass lake out your window and at the end of your dock.

*****

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) held two hearings in Yreka last week to gather comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on re-licensing of the operation of four hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River. Three of these dams – Iron Gate, Copco I and Copco II are located in Siskiyou County. J.C. Boyle lies above Copco 1 in Southern Oregon.

My comments were made at the hearing held in the morning. Most were in response to the proposal advanced by Indian tribes, environmentalists, fishermen and some Upper Klamath Basin farmers in favor of dam removal:

Because of the dams, the public benefits from the production of 151 megawatts (mw) of clean electricity, especially the production from operations that provide energy during periods of peak load demand. The project also does supply some flood control benefits that can be critical to residents downstream of Iron Gate Dam.

There are proposed license conditions to mitigate (compensate) for the effects of the hydro-project that will increase fish spawning and rearing habitat, enhance wildlife habitat, support recreational opportunities, and protect the quality of the environment. The Staff Alternative proposal allows for the public benefit that derives from power generation, while complying with requirements of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to protect and enhance the Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs) associated with the designated river segment below the JC Boyle powerhouse in Oregon and the eligible segment continuing from the California border down to Copco Reservoir. This area is known for its Class IV+ whitewater boating and trout fly-fishing.

There are many negative impacts of dam removal. Among them are:

More than 20 million cu. yds. of fine sediment exist above the dams that would be mobilized down river to cement-in spawning beds, destroy populations of invertebrates and smother salmon eggs. This would likely have significant, irreversible, and irretrievable effects on fish, prey species, invertebrates, and other elements of the river ecosystem immediately upon dam breaching and for decades following.

Approximately 1,500 privately owned parcels could suffer depreciation in value due to: loss of shorefront property; loss of water access; loss of lake views; loss of recreational opportunity; impacts of the deconstruction process; and impacts of muck and mire until the area is rehabed and revegetated. There would also be a substantial loss of tax revenue to Siskiyou County and California for the facilities and any diminishment of property values.

Siskiyou County also sent letters to the Governors of California and Oregon and our legislators. The County continues to oppose dam removal, although it does not oppose activities that seek to introduce anadromous fish (salmon and steelhead) above the dams. In fact, the Board of Supervisors supports fish ladders as a win/win solution. The County believes that all reasonable options to reintroduce fish, (short of dam removal,) should be fully explored before the option of dam removal is pursued. However, if FERC considers dam removal, funds should be made available to finance a robust dam removal impact assessment study prior to any decisions being made. Any decision to remove or decommission dams should ensure that all the impacts to the interests of the County and its constituents, not just the interests of the proponents of dam removal are identified and fully funded and satisfied prior to removal.

[sergeantdave]

Protecting salmon, kangaroo rats and endangered cockroaches is infinitely more important than farmers. Farmers, after all, engage in destructive things like making popcorn, raising hamburger and growing tofu and alfalfa sprouts for hippies.

Farmers need to change careers and worship gaia and send 25 bucks to the Sierra club.

[Jeff Head]

...and what of the cost, economically, of destroying the agricultural and related businesses in the impacted area over the next generation? That system was built for agriculture too and the farmers and ranchers have paid for it...both out of their pockets and in blood and toil.

I do not see that side of the economic equation factored into this mix at all and therefore the whole thing is not only a bogus study, it is a bogus study with an agenda.

Now, when and where have we seen this type of thing before?

More of the same...different package. I can tell you from my own experience that the Bureau of Recalamation has been infested on the environmental side with rabid, agenda driven individuals. Those on the operations side, those actually man and work the dams, are constantly having to fight them internally. It is no wonder, IMHO, that outside entitites can manipulate the system and get these types of reports.

The farmers and ranchers and their representatives and friends will need to stand again and beat this down and show it for the junk science that it is.

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

Being on the East coast I missed the slogan. But who wants that Jesse Jackson chant running around in their hear. Nasty!...

[B4Ranch]

Unless the small farmers write a very clear and understandable report showing this report is false they are going to lose their water rights .......which is part of Agenda 21.

Agenda 21 is not a fight that we have been winning!

[marsh2]

Actually, the four dams they are speaking of are well below the Klamath Project. There are really very very few farms and ranches on the Klamath below Iron Gate dam that would be directly served with irrigation water. (The large ag areas of the Scott and Shasta Rivers are tributary to the Klamath - and the Trinity, another tributary, is largely diverted to the Central Valley of CA for irrigation.) The issue here to the Project might be that the removal of dams eliminates some control over downriver flows and flow-related water quality aspects. This could result in higher immediate demands on water from the Klamath Project for salmon needs because there is less storage for management.

The Bureau of Reclamation does not operate these four dams. They are operated by PacifiCorp - for hydroelectric or flow regulating purposes.

Yes, the Klamath Project irrigators wanted a continued break on their electricity. It was some ridiculously low amount - $.006 per mil, I believe. The rest of the Klamath system was paying $.07. It has been the same rate since the early 1900s under the claim that the Klamath Project made water available to PacifiCorp for cheap power.

With the FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission relicensing,) Pacific Power determined that the operation of the Klamath Project no longer provided any benefit to them so they brought the Project irrigators up to the same rate as everyone else in California. The irrigators potested and won a four year phase in in the rate. They recently lost their first decision on a request to keep it at .006 for another 50 years.

Siskiyou County opposed the continued low rate on the grounds of "fundamental fairness." Although all the Pacific Power rate payors in the West had paid for the subsidized rates to the Klamath Project, any new deal for continuation would fall only on the California rate payors (Siskiyou Co., Del Norte, a small part of Shasta and Modoc.) This would have meant that CA rate payors would have gone from carrying a subsidy of around $78,000 a year to $7.8 million. Calculations indicated that this would have meant a 25% residential rate increase on an area with significant poverty levels.

As it currently stands, rate payors will bear the burden for four years. I believe residential customer rate will increase 14% to do this.

[SierraWasp]

Hay calcowgirl! I'm you like exercisin yer powers as a prodigious researcher and like learnin exactly how devious and demonic GANG-GREEN can really be... stay hooked up with dandelion here and you two cross pollinate and compare notes.

This controversary extends back several years now on FR and is a huge issue that was interrupted by the smashing September 11, 2001 WTC attack. At that time it had been one of the biggest and hottest issues on FR. Read Jeff Head's narratives and many exciting threads from 1999 to 9/11/01!!!

I would be particularly pleased to see you and other Southern CA FReepers join in with Central and Northern CAL, along with Southern OR FReepers in "pulling the covers" off one of the most sinister plots of GovernMental and Non-GovernMental EnvironMental militant activists on and off line!!!

If the two of you (and any others) join together to expose the fiendish and devastating militancy of these promoters of Affirmative Action for Fish & Plants and Welfare for Wildlife at the direct expense of stuggling American farmers who have paid ALL their dues to this nation... You will have a growing and vocal "cheering section" right here on the premier conservative website on the world-wide web!!!

[SierraWasp]

Ok! This map is great. But I'm still a little confused... Which dam is it and where is it in relation to this map that holds back the Upper Klamath Lake (reservoir) from which the farmers divert their irrigation water right next to the city of Klamath Falls? Or where is Klamath Falls in relation to this map and how far away, or up river is it from the "Link River Dam" shown on the upper-right of "Figure 1-1?"

Anyone???

[OregonRancher]

don't forget me.....

[SierraWasp]

"Money that could be used toward decommissioning of the dams was approved as part of a bond measure passed by California voters last month."

OMG!!! See??? This is the kind of stuff that you and tubularman can bring to the table and add weight to the fraud of Schwartzenfrauder and this GANG-GREEN bunch of human haters being in league with each other to engage in "RURAL CLEANSING" of not only Klamath Basin farmers, but will soon be working on ag people all over eastern CA in Schwartzenfrauder's 25 million acre Sierra-Nevada CONservancy covering 1/5th of CA!!!

It all fits together, people!!! All of it fits like pieces of a jig-saw puzzle!!!

[SierraWasp]

"Prop 84 is a virtual landmine of $$$$ for enviros."

Not to be picky, but didn't you mean a goldmine to finance landmines to blow up dams and farmer's rights to water?

He who controls the use of water, controls the land. For without water, the land is worthless to mankind!!! (same goes for air and uses in it, pretty much)

[SierraWasp]

You ROCK!!! Bravo!!! Encore!!! Great postings!!!

[SierraWasp]

That isn't the same issue here that you've seen repeatedly in other areas of the country. This one's quite different. Yes, you'll find some subsidies, but meanwhile they're able to drive these farmers out by stealing their water and rights, who paid for the irrigation system including the dam and conveyance parts years and years ago under an agreement with the Feds to build it for 'em.

These particular farmers in this particular region are NOT Archer-Daniels Midland!!! Many of them are barely surviving, even with their meager subsidy if they qualify for one... Stick around and watch this issue unfold all over again.

Now it's got the Goliath of Arnold Schwartzenegger's bondage measures in the Billions, pitted against these poor dirt farmers who've done nothing to anyone but grow potatoes for Lays Potato Chips for generations on what used to be seasonal flooded swampland!!!

[SierraWasp]

"...and some Upper Klamath Basin farmers in favor of dam removal:"

WHAT??? You're kidding, aren't you??? How many of these idiots are there???