Klamath dams do add to warming

By Regina Chichizola
Klamath Riverkeeper 

Albany Democrat Herald

January 21, 2008

In the increasingly heated debate over the fate of the four Klamath River dams, Pacific Power keeps muddying the facts.

Dam removal on the Klamath is supported by science, will not affect flooding, and would cost PacifiCorp’s customers much less money than keeping the dams.

PacifiCorp left the Klamath dam negotiates, and has ignored numerous studies that prove dam removal would save their customers, and Warren Buffett’s PacifiCorp millions.

Energy analysts are so certain that keeping the dams would cost more money than removing them, they sent a signed letter to public utilities commissions in three states asking them not to approve ratepayer hikes for costly upgrades associated with relicensing the Klamath dams. In fact, they suggested approving rate changes only for decommissioning. Special interests? No, this was the California Energy Commission.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission released another analysis several months ago confirming the economics. According to FERC, Pacific Power customers will save $210 million by removing the dams. Replacing the dams power with real green energy was factored into economic studies. Add this to the millions of taxpayer dollars in disaster relief for commercial fisherman that lost their livelihoods to the 2006 salmon closure, and those dams are looking expensive.

A grassroots coalition of native tribes, commercial fishermen, ratepayer advocates and conservationists has formed to tell the real story behind the Klamath dams.

Scientists and tribal water quality officials have discovered that PacifiCorp’s dams are responsible not just for blocking fish and killing fish, but also for outbreaks of toxic algae at levels thousands of times what officials consider harmful to human health. Dangerous to touch and toxic when ingested, the toxic algae created by PacifiCorp’s reservoirs is a known liver toxin implicated in tumor growth and organ failure. This alga’s off-gassing also adds to global warming by releasing methane.

PacifiCorp was aware of this problem, but did not inform the public until the Karuk tribe did its own analysis. Meanwhile, the Klamath communities, which are dependent on fishing and recreation dollars, have suffered.

Removing the dams is not risky. Many environmental studies have been done that show dam removal can be done safely and environmentally, and many studies are still occurring. It is clear that leaving the dams in place will mean the Klamath remains a disaster.

PacifiCorp officials know they cannot turn a profit on the Klamath anymore. So they try to maintain the status quo with stalling tactics, such as leaving Klamath negotiations. Now Pacific Power is attempting to convince the public that their costumers will not be protected if dams are removed, and the dams are green despite economic and environmental studies.

The truth is, Klamath dam removal is the best way to save fish and the communities that depend on them, and it can be accomplished safely while bringing economic benefits to local communities and to PacifiCorp’s ratepayers and real green energy to Oregon .

Klamath residents have come together to try find a real solution in the Klamath. PacifiCorp continues to try to stall and deceive their customers and Warren Buffett’s shareholders.

The Klamath dams generate little electricity, will loss money for customers, and provide no flood protection and no irrigation diversions. They do kill fish and breed toxic algae. Together Klamath residents, ratepayers and the American public can convince Pacific Power to make the right decision on the Klamath.

The writer, the Klamath riverkeeper, is based in Ashland .

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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://www.dhonline.com/articles/2008/01/21/news/opinion/7edi04_warming.txt