Looking closely at the costs and benefits offered by the Klamath Restoration Settlement Agreement

Marcia Armstrong, Siskiyou County Supervisor

March 29, 2008

As a representative elected by people living along about 110 miles of Klamath river , and two of its tributaries, the Scott and Salmon Rivers , I am looking closely at the costs and benefits offered by the Klamath Restoration Settlement Agreement.

The benefits to my constituents appear to be few and uncertain. Dam removal could benefit salmon, which provides a minor contribution to the County’s economic base. However, I understand that PacifiCorp ran models that showed that fish populations would not rebound as claimed. In addition, without Iron Gate dam the fish hatchery would be unable to operate, which would decrease salmon runs by about 25%. The California Dept. of Fish and Game promises to ask the State Legislature to give up to $20 million to offset the estimated County loss in tax revenues from the dam facilities and potential revaluation of property impacted by dam removal. However, it looks like the County would have to: (1) prove its actual loss in revenue; (2) receive the money on other than a lump sum basis; and (3) it is implied the money would be regranted to local people rather than supporting the County’s General Fund. The State is currently in a budget deficit of more than $15 billion, so chances of that passing are pretty slim. If we don’t get the promised money, Siskiyou County can opt out of the agreement after the dam license is surrendered.

The costs to my constituents from the agreement are many. The list is long and clearly  indicates that they may be in a far worse position by the County signing it than by not signing it. It appears that the dams could come out anyway and the Settlement Agreement could go forward anyway without the County’s approval. One thing we might gain is retention of the right to sue the federal and state government for damages. We also could draw public  attention to the fact that, although this could be the largest dam removal project the United States has ever seen, the peer reviewed impartial scientific studies to support it have not been done, and the negotiation process has been corrupt, politically motivated and unfair.

There is not even a certainty that anyone will have liability for severe physical impacts:  potential damages to bridges, roads, private property ­ such as mining claims and increased flooding in areas like Seiad Valley , or impacts to the salmon fish from the release of 20 million cubic yards of sediment down the Klamath. (Even during the NEPA/CEQA process mitigation requirements can be completely waived.) There is no provision for money to restore the raw lake bottoms to be left by dam removal. The City of Yreka could suffer severe damage to its water supply and water lines and no provisions are made. People living around the lake would lose a locally valuable prize bass and perch fishery, established lake ecosystems used for recreation, a designated California Wild Trout fishery and Class IV-V summer white water rafting opportunities. The Klamath tribe would be given an interim fishery below Iron Gate to the detriment of the indigenous Shasta tribe, as well as the resorts, guides and local residents who traditionally fish there.

There are also indirect impacts. The tribes agree not to demand additional water from the Upper Basin and the Klamath Project, but the Yurok tribe has publicly stated that they may still go after the Scott and Shasta for additional flows. Currently, the Scott and Shasta Valleys receive grants from many agency sources for salmon restoration. The new agreement would apparently funnel all Klamath restoration funds through a Council that includes the fish agencies and the tribes. In the agreement, priority would be given to tribal projects.

One of the greatest implications of the Settlement Agreement is unknown: How electrical rates will be impacted. Humboldt County and the Yurok tribe are not in Pacific Power’s Service Area. They will not be impacted. The Klamath Project Users have negotiated a frozen electric rate of $.03 rate per kilowatt hour. In some sort of exception to the reopening of negotiations rule, the Off-Project irrigators in the Upper Basin are looking for the same rate. How will the costs of putting in fish ladders or of dam removal and securing a replacement power source affect your rates? In 2006, Pacific Power requested a rate increase from the Calaifornia PUC. For each $1 million of expenses they claimed, the rate of the California rate payer was to increase 1.48%.

Think about it. The installation of fishways (ladders) is estimated to cost from $300-$415 million. Dam de-commissioning cost estimates vary widely from 100 million to a billion ­ particularly if sediment must be moved.  Power replacement costs are estimated from $20-$30 million. After all these protections in the Settlement Agreement, who is left to pay for these costs? The answer is ­ YOU!

My readers can see an online list of questions I have posed concerning the Restoration/Settlement document here: http://www.sisqtel.net/armstrng/ It points to the many negative impacts of this proposed agreement on my constituents

(Permission to post from the author.)