The Klamath Hydro Deal fails to compel Pacificorp or the government to commit to dam removal now. Photo: Mouth of the Klamath, by Sam Camp © camphoto.com
The Northcoast Environmental Center is building a coalition to support an alternative to the draft Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (Klamath Hydro Deal).
As a member of the Klamath Conservation Partners, NEC will continue to develop an alternative legislative dam removal framework that secures a shortened timeline for dam removal and federal takeover provisions.
While we appreciate the considerable effort that has gone into creating the Klamath Hydro Deal, we cannot support the deal in its current form since it fails to compel Pacificorp, the states of Oregon and California or the federal government to commit to dam removal now.
Instead, the Klamath Hydro Deal leaves the ultimate decision on dam removal to the Secretary of Interior based upon a judgment of whether or not it advances restoration of salmonid fisheries and whether the deal is in the public interest.
Additionally, the numerous pre-conditions and off-ramps along the path to anticipated dam removal in 2020 leave too many doors open that could significantly lengthen the timeline or even allow Pacificorp and state or federal parties to back out of dam removal.
The coalition believes the dams must come down as soon as possible. They cannot be operated in an environmentally responsible manner, and they are driving wild salmon to extinction – along with the communities that depend upon the ecosystem of a healthy Klamath River.
Therefore, the NEC is joining with others who share these concerns to move forward with specific suggestions for how to assure the dams are out within a decade.
We will support and endorse Klamath dam removal legislation under the following conditions:
• The Klamath Hydro Deal (KHSA) should be severed from the proposed Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA). Clean and clear dam-removal legislation that is unburdened by the controversial and costly terms of the KBRA is more politically viable and will more effectively restore the Klamath River Basin. The vast majority of issues addressed in the KBRA are different than those of dam removal and should therefore be dealt with separately.
• The timeline for dam removal must be shortened significantly. The KHSA should authorize and direct the Secretary of the Interior to prepare a plan for federal removal of the four lower Klamath River dams and submit it to Congress by 2012. Klamath River salmon and river communities should not wait ten years for removal of these antiquated dams to begin.
• Dam removal will be funded through Pacificorp customer contribution of $200 million and an independent $250 million general obligation bond in the state of California. Bond funds must not be attached to additional infrastructure projects in California. If other state-based funding means are impaired or unavailable, a federal contribution must be provided to accomplish dam removal.
• During the interim period prior to dam removal, all annual dam licenses should be subject to interim conditions deemed necessary for the adequate protection of fish, wildlife, water quality, or other aquatic resources. Interim conditions must be subject to public and expert agency review and comment.
This approach represents the prudent course for Klamath River Basin restoration. The Klamath salmon are suffering now from these dams. Waiting until 2020 or later, as the Klamath Hydro Deal suggests, for dam removal to begin is not acceptable.
The current position of the NEC is not a departure from the broad outlines of the Klamath Settlement Agreements; rather it should be seen as an alternative tactic to arrive at the goals that the proposed Klamath Hydro Deal framework fails to reach.
The NEC has long believed that a negotiated outcome to solving the complex problems of the Klamath Basin holds more hope than other alternatives such as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) relicensing process or continued litigation. The FERC option fails to acknowledge the very real dilemma of disjointed outcomes.
In his book, Dam Politics: Restoring America’s Rivers, Dr. William Lowry posits that two main factors drive outcomes of dam removal and restoration: political receptivity to change and the physical complexity of the ecosystem. Unfortunately, the Klamath Basin presents the quintessential case for low political receptivity to fundamental changes along with a massively complex spatially diverse ecosystem.
The FERC, in crafting their comprehensive plan for the Basin, may not find a clear path forward to removing all four dams and creating free-flowing conditions with volitional fish passage. Instead, they could arrive at some disjointed outcome such as partial fish passage or removal of some, but not all four Lower Basin Klamath dams.
Fundamental ecosystem restoration demands that Iron Gate, Copco One & Two, and J.C. Boyle dams be removed. To avoid jeopardy and arrive at recovery, fish species need access to the entire Basin. We cannot afford to risk the partial solution that FERC relicensing presents.
Additionally, the NEC continues to be troubled by the linkage between the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement and the Klamath Hydro Deal. We believe the KBRA, because of its sheer complexity and expense, has the potential to frustrate the opportunity for fundamental changes and dam removal outcomes. We do not believe the combination of the two offers a clear path to clean dam removal. This is why we are supporting alternative legislation aimed at fundamental changes offering Basin-wide solutions.