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