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

Waters still turbulent in Klamath dam deal

Posted by: Maven on February 19, 2009 at 8:06 am

From the Eureka Times Standard:

Northern California Indian tribes and conservationists on Tuesday express disparities over whether the state’s lead water quality agency should give more time to negotiations or forge ahead with regulatory means to clean up problems generated by the Klamath River’s four dams.

Those closest to the ongoing talks with dam owner Pacificorp asked the State Water Resources Control Board to stall the regulatory process that would grant or deny a water quality certificate for the dams. The delay would allow Pacificorp, state and federal agencies, tribes, farmers and environmental groups to polish off an agreement to take out the dams, they argued.

But others told the board that the state needs to aggressively hold Pacificorp’s feet to the fire, and push the process along on a parallel track with the separate negotiations.

The water board has issued a request for comments on a notice to prepare an environmental impact report on continued operation of the hydropower project. It’s one of the first stages of the California Environmental Quality Act process, and the deadline for comments is Feb. 23. Proponents of the delay are asking that be stretched to July 15.

Chuck Bonham with the group Trout Unlimited said the agreement in principal reached in November is a rejection of the status quo — depleted fisheries and toxic algae blooms — even if it isn’t perfect. He said what would be the country’s largest dam removal project needs more time at the negotiation table, and that the involved parties can’t undertake two processes that are at odds with each other at the same time.

”We’ve never tried something this bold or this big before,” Bonham said.

However, Hoopa Valley Tribe Chairman Clifford Lyle Marshall accused the settlement’s backers of pushing propaganda. The agreement in principal, he said, provides too many opportunities for Pacificorp to walk away and no assurance that water quality standards on the river would be put in place between now and when the dams begin to come out after 2020. In the meantime, the water behind the dams “looks like split pea soup,” he said.

Read more from the Times-Standard by clicking here.

Dan Bacher has more commentary at IndyBay.org:

Tuesday, February 18, was a busy day in the battle by Klamath River activists to remove PacifiCorp’s fish-killing dams. In Sacramento, the California State Water Board heard a progress report from the draft dam removal deal’s negotiators.

The Klamath Riverkeeper and 20 local activists and tribal members submitted comments encouraging the Water Board to take a tough stance on PacifiCorp’s water pollution until the dams come down. Erika Terence, the Klamath Riverkeeper, said in a letter delivered to the board that “In the event of another extension, the Riverkeeper submits that the Agreement in Principle released in December is flawed.”

She said the negotiating parties must provide the board and the public with “a tangible work-product” that includes a series of criteria, including pursuing “a funding path that does not include money to fund Klamath dam removal from a California general obligation water bond that would also be likely to fund the peripheral canal, new dams or other ecologically damaging projects.”

I applaud the Klamath Riverkeeper and Klamath Justice Coalition for taking aim at any plan that would include dam removal as a trade off for a peripheral canal and more dams. When the agreement was released in November 2008, Governor Arnold Scharzenegger in a statement tried to pit Klamath River dam removal advocates against Delta advocates by pushing for a peripheral canal and more dams while agreeing to dam removal.

More of Dan Bacher’s commentary at IndyBay.org, and news from the Klamath Riverkeeper by clicking here.

February 19, 2009 · Filed Under Northern California

Comments

Leave a Reply