Water Education Foundation
This is just one post in the Salmon Category
Click here to view all posts

Coverage wrap up: Federal and state officials sign nonbinding deal to remove Klamath River dams

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on November 14, 2008 at 8:01 am

From the Associated Press:

An agreement signed Thursday lays the groundwork for removing four hydroelectric dams from the Klamath River to help one of the West Coast’s most beleaguered salmon runs and end a longstanding environmental dispute.

Removal of the PacifiCorp dams is expected to begin by 2020. Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne said in a conference call that President George W. Bush had told officials “to find a collaborative solution” that doesn’t pit one interest group against another.

The Bush administration had strongly backed farmers in 2001 after the Endangered Species Act forced the shut-off of irrigation water to thousands of acres of farms to leave enough for threatened salmon.

When the administration restored irrigation in 2002 over the objections of tribes and conservation groups, low water conditions in the Klamath River led to the deaths of 70,000 adult salmon returning to spawn.

“We were motivated to find a solution because we’ve seen how bad it can be,” Kempthorne said. “Nobody wanted to say, ‘It’s beyond our abilities to solve this.’”

The nonbinding agreement signed by Kempthorne, PacifiCorp and the governors of Oregon and California calls for a final agreement by June 30, 2009, and gives the federal government until 2012 to figure out whether removing the dams is feasible. It sets 2020 as the deadline for starting to remove the dams but does not include a deadline for finishing the job.

From the San Francisco Chronicle:

“This is a huge milestone toward what would be the largest river-restoration effort ever undertaken,” said Steve Rothert, California director of American Rivers, a national nonprofit river conservation group. “There’s still a lot of work to be done, but PacifiCorp went on record in front of the world and said this is a good deal and good policy.”

It has taken several years for the stakeholders to reach an agreement. Talks of removing the dams began in 2002 after a federally ordered change in water flow led to the die-off of 33,000 salmon.

But negotiations between PacifiCorp, California, Oregon, the federal government, fishermen and various Indian tribes became more serious as the problems with the salmon fisheries came to a head this year. There have been devastating declines in the number of spawning salmon in both the Klamath and Sacramento River basins. The paltry numbers forced regulators for the first time to ban all ocean fishing of Chinook salmon this year in California and Oregon.

From the New York Times:

In a conference call Thursday, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne, a longtime opponent of dam removal in his native Idaho, hailed the provisional agreement as ending a bitter struggle among conservationists, Indian tribes and fishermen in the Klamath basin on one side and farmers and local communities on the other.

All the parties had coped with worst-case situations in the past decade. In 2001, irrigators had their water shut off, crippling agricultural production. In the dry year of 2002, the Interior Department ordered water distributed to irrigators and tens of thousands of salmon in the Klamath died; in 2007, low salmon populations in the Klamath led to sharply curtailed commercial fishing.

“After living through moments that would tax the character of most anyone, the good people of the basin came together,” Mr. Kempthorne said.

Gov. Theodore R. Kulongoski of Oregon, a Democrat, said the provisional agreement would be “a model not only for the West but the rest of the country of how the federal and state governments and private industry can work together.”

But not everyone is happy, says the Los Angeles Times:

But the deal, which could require fiscally strapped California to finance $250 million of the demolition costs, came under immediate attack from foes who called it a scheme riddled with loopholes that favor farmers and other allies of the outgoing president.

The Los Angeles Times explains:

Foes of the agreement said it makes no sense to strike a deal weeks before Barack Obama becomes president. “It’s just nutty to commit to this with Bush heading out the door,” said Tom Schlosser, an attorney for the Hoopa tribe of Northern California.

He and other foes say PacifiCorp might exploit the agreement as a delaying tactic, arguing that the deal has loopholes that allow the company to back out as late as 2012.

In the meantime, they said, the agreement will essentially shut down California’s water quality hearings on the Klamath dams.

Steve Pedery of Oregon Wild said the deal also links dam removal to the $1-billion restoration package he believes favors farmers over fish. “This has been a well-orchestrated campaign by the Bush administration taking advantage of a desire for dam removal to sell another package that’s actually bad for salmon and wildlife,” he said.

The deal is seen as good news for efforts towards restoration of salmon on the Snake and Columbia rivers, says the Idaho Statesman:

In the past two weeks, the political dynamics of the Columbia and Snake River salmon debate changed dramatically. The election of new U.S. senators in Idaho and Oregon – one a Republican and the other a Democrat – may signal the coming of expanded talks on salmon and dams.

And Thursday, the Bush administration put its weight behind a plan to remove four dams on the Klamath River in Oregon and California – a major shift in the government’s position on dams in the West.

The Klamath plan not only helps salmon but also allows irrigators enough water to continue their farming operations. The issues surrounding the dams, salmon and water are remarkably similar to those faced on the Snake River. “This shakes the foundation of salmon recovery,” said Bill Sedivy, executive director of Idaho Rivers United. “It shows that even conservatives are willing, when it makes sense, to take dams down.”

At the least, it signals a newfound willingness for all sides to come back to the table on an issue that has pitted them in a deadlock as solid as the dams themselves.

Dan Bacher at IndyBay.org covers the mixed response from environmental groups:

In a statement issued today, Malena Marvin of the Klamath Riverkeeper said the organization is “cautiously optimistic” about a tentative, non-binding Agreement in Principle to remove four of PacifiCorp’s Klamath dams. “While the Agreement in Principle does provide a path toward dam removal, a Final Agreement has not yet been signed and several important issues have not been resolved,” said Marvin.

Klamath Riverkeeper has served as a watchdog over PacifiCorp’s water quality and environmental justice issues over the last several years, and will continue pressuring PacifiCorp to comply with clean water laws until the dams are removed. “After all the work we’ve put in advocating for removal of these dams, it feels good to hear the words ‘dam removal’ come out of PacifiCorp headquarters, and we applaud the bold stance stakeholders and policy makers have taken,” Marvin said. “However, we won’t throw our party until we see the Final Agreement, and we’re satisfied the terms of that agreement will keep fish alive until 2020 on the Klamath River. Tribal members, fishermen, conservationists, and local people have logged a lot of miles fighting for this river. We’re not about to stop until we see the water flowing free again,” added Marvin.

California Trout, a conservation organization that has been involved in talks among conservationists, farmers, Tribes, and other stakeholders for several years over the potential removal of the PacifiCorp dams, also praised the agreement. “Today’s announcement of an Agreement in Principle among the federal government, the California and Oregon state governments, and PacifiCorp lays the groundwork for the eventual removal of these dams and the return of the fish to their historic spawning and rearing grounds,” said Brian Stranko, CEO of California Trout. “California Trout is very pleased to see that an Agreement in Principle has been reached between the governments and PacifiCorp. PacifiCorp acknowledgement that dam removal is in the best interest of their shareholders and ratepayers makes this a win-win situation for the fish and the company.”

Not all environmental groups and Indian Tribes are supporting the agreement. Oregon Wild is opposing the deal because they believes it shifts away the responsibility from PacifiCorp and provides no guarantees for dam removal. Other conservation organizations are now also reviewing the document.

“Everyone wants dam removal, but why are we letting the Bush administration dictate Klamath Basin policy?” said Sean Stevens, spokesman for Oregon Wild, a group that was kicked out of settlement negotiations. “This is the same administration that caused the worst fish kill in U.S. history. Now the administration is setting up a deal with all sorts of ‘off ramps’ and lets PacifiCorp off the hook. We already have processes like the 401 Clean Water Permit process and the FERC licensing that have found that removing the dams would be less expensive than installing fish ladders.”

Clifford Lyle Marshall, Chairperson of the Hoopa Valley Tribe, criticized the agreement for its non-binding status – and questioned why there was a rush to sign the pact in the final days of the Bush administration. “While many are applauding the AIP as a first step towards dam removal, it’s essentially a gentleman’s agreement that doesn’t bind any of the parties and provides lots of ‘off ramps’ for PacifiCorp,” said Marshall. “It is not an agreement to take down the dams.

Marshall was also concerned about the timelines in the agreement. The pact states that the federal government will not have to finish their analysis of whether the dams should be removed until March 31, 2012 – and then wouldn’t initiate dam removal until 2020. Although there are some interim measures to help fish in the agreement, he feels that they are probably insufficient for fish survival through the time dam removal is completed. In addition, he criticized the agreement for circumventing the FERC relicensing process, as well as the Clean Water Act 401 permitting process required for relicensing dams.

“How will requiring no change on the Klamath Dam’s operations until 2020 impact the salmon?” asked Marshall. “Keeping the water in the current quality and quantity on the river will have a severe impact upon Klamath salmon.”

He also noted that the agreement will require legislation by the state and federal governments authorizing the money to remove the dams, as well as legislative approval by the state of Oregon to set the power rates to offset the costs of dam removal to PacifiCorp. “This agreement is turning into a billion dollar bailout by the taxpayers without really addressing salmon restoration,” Marshall concluded. “This whole process is a manipulation of what is now a lame duck administration and I would as soon wait until the next administration takes a fresh look at the Klamath issue.”

Even more information … !

November 14, 2008 · Filed Under Salmon

Comments

3 Responses to “Coverage wrap up: Federal and state officials sign nonbinding deal to remove Klamath River dams”

  1. The Underground’s Short Casts for 2008-11-14 — The Trout Underground Fly Fishing Blog on November 15th, 2008 12:01 am

    [...] rounds up all the coverage about the Klamath River dam removal story: http://aquafornia.com/archives/5509 [...]

  2. Aquafornia Summary of Klamath River Dam Removal | Northern California Hiking Trails Blog on November 15th, 2008 9:40 am

    [...] just published a major post summarizing the coverage of the proposal to remove Klamath River dams. It includes articles from the San Francisco Chronicle, the Los Angeles Times, and the New York [...]

  3. The Underground’s Short Casts for 2008-11-15 — The Trout Underground Fly Fishing Blog on November 16th, 2008 12:01 am

    [...] rounds up all the coverage about the Klamath River dam removal story: http://aquafornia.com/archives/5509 [...]

Leave a Reply