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.
Do you know if dam removal (and hydroelectric) is widespread across the country? I'm trying to understand what the primary motivator is. Land development? To make alternative energy relatively less expensive by shutting off supply and driving up the cost of everything else? To drive the country folk into the city? It's just mind boggling to think there are so many that are complicit in the actions.