Comment period on the Dam Settlement Agreement, January 22, 2008 at 11:10 in the Board of Supervisors chambers at the Courthouse in Yreka.  People have asked for the dam settlement agreement comment time. ~ ed

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…….. 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material  herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have
expressed  a  prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit
research and  educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

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