Hope For An Ailing (Klamath) River

The agreement announced Tuesday on the future of the Klamath River offers reason for cautious hope that the troubled waterway can recover from years of human intervention and abuse while meeting the conflicting needs of fish and farms.

The agreement � forged by the farmers, fishermen, American Indians, government agencies and conservation groups whose views on the Klamath’s future long have clashed � achieves the seemingly impossible: a broadly supported plan to allocate the free-flowing waters of the river without dams.

That these longtime adversaries, who for years battled over a finite supply of water for farmers and the fate of fish protected by the Endangered Species Act, settled on a $1 billion plan to restore the Klamath Basin is an extraordinary accomplishment. If such an agreement, two years in the making, is possible, there’s reason to hope the many remaining obstacles can be overcome.

PacifiCorp, the owner of the four aging hydroelectric dams that have stood on the river for a century and supply power to 70,000 homes, has not agreed to their removal. That’s cause for significant concern, even a whiff of skepticism. Without the support of PacifCorp, the plan cannot succeed.

Yet it’s tantalizingly possible that PacifiCorp will agree to remove the dams.

Federal energy regulators are considering the utility’s application for a new 30-year to 50-year license to operate the dams. The National Marine Fisheries Service has said it will agree to the relicensing only if the utility builds fish ladders to allow endangered salmon to reach waters above the dams.

The improvements are expected to cost the utility $300 million, more than twice the estimated $120 million cost of taking the dams down. PacifiCorp previously has said it is willing to remove the dams if ratepayers don’t have to foot the bill.

Then there’s the issue of funding � no smaall matter at a time of squeezed federal budgets and a looming recession. More than half the estimated billion-dollar cost of the plan would come from money already being spent to mitigate the impact of the dams. But Congress would have to provide another $500 million, most of it for salmon restoration, and Oregon would have to contribute some lottery dollars. It remains to be determined who will pay for dam removal.

Finally, federal agencies must determine whether the plan provides adequate water for salmon. Two conservation groups, Oregon Wild and WaterWatch, which were not involved in the final agreement, have criticized the new plan as a sweetheart deal by the Bush administration that gives farmers the water they want while placing salmon at risk of insufficient flows.

The Klamath’s woes are many and complex. Its salmon runs, once the third largest on the West Coast, have been devastated by excessive water diversions for irrigation; by the dams that block migrating fish and turn the river into unnaturally warm petri dish for fish-killing algae and bacteria; by agricultural runoff; by unsound logging practices that contribute to erosion; and by the loss of wetlands habitat. As a result, salmon returns have become so small that the 2006 commercial season was all but shut down off the Oregon and California coasts.

Even with its shortcomings and risks, the new plan offers reason to believe the Klamath can overcome its many problems eventually. The cooperation among so many conflicting interests suggests the river blame game finally has come to an end, and that a workable plan to save the Klamath is within reach.

A deal on Klamath's dams http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/21/EDQTUHPP9.DTL

PROPOSED KLAMATH AGREEMENT INCLUDES REMOVAL OF FOUR DAMS http://www.cbbulletin.com/Free/255317.aspx

North Coast Journal January 17, 2008 : IN THE NEWS : SHORT STORIES http://www.northcoastjournal.com/011708/shortstories0117.html

Deal afoot to alter Klamath for users - OregonLive.com http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/120045571098470.xml&coll=7

Proposed Agreement in the Klamath Basin establishes a new paradigm for watershed management in the West http://www.ewire.com/display.cfm/Wire_ID/4471

Klamath pact hinges on dam removal http://www.capitalpress.info/main.asp?SectionID=67&SubSectionID=792&ArticleID=38546

Albany Democrat Herald: Archived Articles http://www.dhonline.com/articles/2008/01/18/news/opinion/4edi01_klamath.txt

News from the Front #91, January 17, 2007 http://www.buchal.com/salmon/news/nf91.htm

http://users.sisqtel.net/armstrng/opinion011808.htm

MUCH MORE THAN DAM REMOVAL: Last Tuesday was the first time I, as so-called participant, was able to review the full contents of the 200 page plus dam settlement agreement or “Proposed Klamath River Basin Restoration Agreement for the Sustainability of Public and Trust Resources and Affected Communities.” http://www.edsheets.com/Proposed%20Klamath%20Basin%20Restoration%20Agreement%20%20January%2015,%202008%20(Draft%2011).pdf I had anticipated a dam removal alternative to the re-licensing of the hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River. Obviously, through the work of busy little subcommittees, this has morphed into something quite larger than what I had anticipated. I don’t know about anyone else, but the bulldozer has left tractor treads on my forehead. The Board of Supervisors will be holding public meetings on the document before it makes its decision whether to agree to the document as a signatory. Times and places for these meetings will be posted here: http://www.co.siskiyou.ca.us/bos/agenda/agenda.htm Please voice your opinion.

There are extensive portions of the document that will affect the mid-Klamath River areas (including the Scott and Shasta Valleys,) about which I had never previously been informed.

GROUNDWATER: The Agreement does not recognize County jurisdiction over groundwater use.

COUNCIL OF FISH MANAGERS: The agreement would establish a council of “fish managers” drawn from state, federal and tribal agencies. Over the next 50 years, throughout the “Klamath River Basin” or “Klamath Basin,” (which is defined to include lands tributary to the Klamath River in California and Oregon – excluding the Trinity River,) this council would create and implement plans for fisheries restoration, reintroduction and monitoring. Implementation will be done according to the principles of “Adaptive Management.” The Council would be funded with $493.2 million for the first 10 years and government agencies would agree to reallocate current available restoration funds to this pot of money. Fish species covered would include chinook, coho, steelhead, rainbow trout, lamprey, bull trout, suckers, sturgeon and eulachon.

This portion of the proposal is reminiscent of the now defunct Klamath River Basin Fisheries Restoration Task Force (KRBFRTF), but without any representation by the Counties that have general land use authority over the area in question. It also does not include the selected special interest lobbyists (commercial and in-river fishermen) that served on the prior Task Force, although it does include the tribes. Taking a look at the performance review of the previous Task Force over the last several years of existence, out of $1 million allocated per year, a bout $450,000 of that went to the US Fish and Wildlife regional and Yreka offices. Of the remaining $550,000, about $150,000 went to Chinook population studies, (carcass counts, spawning escapement, juvenile emigration studies,) often performed by the tribes. Of the remaining $400,000, about $150,000 went to core funding for the various watershed councils. That left about $250,000. Some of that went to education and awareness. Most of it went to various fish studies – commonly performed by the tribes. Total funding for actual restoration projects dwindled to an annual allocation of about $50,000 to be shared in the Klamath River Basin below Iron Gate.

In reviewing the entire KRBFRTF over its 20 year life, funds were allocated as follows: 14% was spent on support of the federal committees; 15% was spent on program administration; 11% was spent on project management; 8% was spent on small tribal hatchery rearing ponds; 1% was spent on education; 19% was spent on “assessment, monitoring and research”; and 10% was actually spent on on-the-ground habitat restoration projects. Regionally, Scott Valley received 6% of the funds and 41% of that went to habitat restoration; Shasta Valley received 7%, with 41% of that going to habitat restoration. Considering this long established pattern, I can’t see that this would play out differently, except all government restoration money would be funneled through the new fisheries council without any semblance of balanced representation.

FEDERAL AGENCY GOVERNANCE: Federal government control over water allocation has been disastrous to agriculture in the federal Klamath Project. This is because of what is called the “federal nexus” or legal requirements flowing from federal involvement of the Bureau of Reclamation (BoR) in the management of the Klamath Project. They do not have this type of jurisdiction over the Scott and the Shasta. The hue and cry has been for a “basin wide solution” to draw other areas of the system away from State, local government and court jurisdiction and under this same federal control. For several years, there was talk from the BoR of creating a basin wide Conservation Implementation Program (CIP.) The purposes of the CIP were to: (1) sustainably restore the ecosystem of the Klamath River basin system; and (2) manage water to meet federal endangered species and tribal trust obligations for the Klamath Project by coordinating efforts across the whole Klamath system. The CIP central federal governance umbrella was to include a coordinating council.

Surprise, surprise! The current proposed Settlement Agreement includes a Klamath Basin Coordinating Council (KBCC.) Its purpose is to promote “sustainable restoration and renewal of the Klamath River Basin." It will serve as a FACA (Federal Advisory Committee Act) body that will make recommendations to federal agencies for funding and other actions. The Fish Managers Council will send it annual reports of what it has done with the restoration money. The KBCC will set priorities, share information, seek funding and provide dispute resolution related to the implementation of the Settlement Agreement. The KBCC will operate on a "basin wide perspective for hollistic solutions and approaches;" and “no Klamath Basin interest shall bear an unreasonable portion of the burdens imposed." In other words, it will endeavor to share the pain.

The interim KBCC will include state, federal, tribal and local governments that are parties to the Agreement. Then a corporate governance Charter will be drawn which will include selected representation from the federal agencies, the two states, Klamath Siskiyou and Humboldt Counties, the Klamath Yurok, Hoopa and Karuk tribes, the “On-Klamath Project” Water users; the Upper Basin “Off-Project Water Users, commercial fishing, and environmental groups. But wait…where is your seat at the table? Surprise, Surprise! You aren’t invited. But don’t feel bad, neither was Pacific Power or it’s 70,000 ratepayers. Also, the KBCC will link and coordinate the Settlement Agreement with Biological Opinions, Recovery Plans, watershed working groups and RCDs in the entire Klamath River Basin. (The strategy here is to apparently pull the watershed groups out from the land use oversight of the Counties and under oversight and financial sponsorship of the new regional governance structure.)

In addition to being very disturbed at this effort to set up a basin wide chartered governance structure over riverian resources that includes selected non-elected special interests, I am also concerned at the intent to sustainably manage resources solely for fisheries and ecosystem restoration. In case the basin wide community has not noticed, Siskiyou County’s economy has been bled to death by reorienting management priorities from putting bread on our family’s tables to fisheries production and other species management. In case they hadn’t noticed, our local economy gets very little out of reallocating resources to fisheries, spotted owls and salamanders. Where is the environmental and social justice in Siskiyou County’s 12.3% average unemployment; massive job loss in the timber (80%) and agricultural (45%) sectors; 65% of our children in low income and 27% in poverty? Enough is enough.

THIRTY PIECES OF SILVER: As you have no doubt read, the Klamath Water Users have bargained for a variety of provisions to offset the new regulatory exposure of potentially introducing endangered salmon into the Upper Klamath area: a secure water supply, continued historic low electrical rates, and a Safe Harbor Habitat Conservation Plan. I have unanswered questions as to who will subsidize the proposed electrical rate break to the Klamath Project. I know that California ratepayers are currently subsidizing Project rates as they gradually increase to rates equivalent with the mid-Klamath. It also appears that the Upper Basin will be the recipient of new alternative energy facilities to offset loss of the Klamath hydropower dams. I wonder why they are not to be constructed in the same area where the loss will occur?

In mitigation for dam removal – (1) the loss of local power generation capacity; (2) the long term loss of tax revenue on the hydropower facilities and potentially devalued properties around Copco and Iron Gate Dam; (3) the loss to local businesses; (4) the loss of hydropower control over river flow levels; (5) the potential release of large amounts of sediment; and (6) in mitigation for the aesthetic and environmental impacts of dam removal, Siskiyou County gets the promise of the group to ask the California Legislature for a quantity of money (estimated at $20 million) to be paid to the County. Also, the area where the lakes are drained will be rehabilitated and damages to roads accessing the area will be mitigated in the CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) process. Local land owners will be ineligible for just compensation due to any property devaluation as this is a private and not a public power project. Also, it is anticipated that the party removing the dam will seek immunity from suit for any damages that might ensue. That sounds fair – right?

The tribes have secured an active role in “collaborative management of the fisheries program” and will also receive $80 million in economic revitalization funds for the first 10 years. Funding can be used at the tribes’ discretion for internal capacity building, administration of the fisheries program or for restoration projects. Tribes shall have priority for federal grants under the fisheries program. The parties to the Settlement Agreement will support tribal efforts to get additional long tern economic revitalization dollars. The Klamath tribe also will receive money to purchase the Mazama Forest Project in Klamath County.

There is more, but I have given myself a headache – with the bulldozer tracks on my forehead and all……..

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.