The largest river restoration effort

March 1, 2008

By Michelle Ma

Triplicate staff writer

Jan. 15 was an unusual day.

A hefty proposal to renew the Klamath River Basin was released that day after stakeholders from 26 diverse groups worked for more than two years to draft the document.

It calls for the largest dam removal project and river restoration effort in history.

Known as the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, the draft settlement is hailed by some as a solution to years of distrust, heartache and conflict among the basin's interest groups, which include American Indian tribes, farmers and fishermen.

But since the confidential negotiations ended and the proposed agreement was made public, people from the rural farms of Southern Oregon to our local ocean port have been talking.

Some say it's an unfeasible disaster. Others claim it's the best chance for basin-wide restoration. Many are unsure.

But folks do seem to agree the proposal is unusual, both for its ambitious goals and because it resulted from negotiations among groups that have historically fought.

"There's been a series of catastrophes for most of the major players in the basin over the past 20 years," said Larry Dunsmoor, a biologist with the Klamath Tribes. "All these different groups have been trying to get what they need."

People are weary, Dunsmoor said, of using the courts, Endangered Species Act mandates and other tactics to fight for what they need from the Klamath basin. Past attempts at negotiations just haven't worked.

"This (agreement) had enough of the major ingredients, and after enough pain was suffered by the major groups, it has just sort of made it to the top of the hill," Dunsmoor said.

But the proposal is also riddled with complexities that cause those involved to admit that even if the settlement is passed, many uncertainties would persist.

For instance, if given free passage to the entire river, would salmon make it back to the upper basin? Will Congress agree to help fund the costly proposal?

The settlement, which would cost about $985 million over the next decade, calls for guaranteed amounts of water for wildlife refuges and Klamath Reclamation Project farmers to irrigate near the river's headwaters. It gives salmon a chance to thrive in more miles of habitat. It provides tribes with resources to become more economically sustainable and devotes money to manage fisheries.

And lastly, the proposed agreement requires Portland-based PacifiCorp to remove four of its hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River .

The power company has shown no sign of agreeing to that mandate.

"The only thing we can consider signing is something that is clearly, to us, the best outcome for our customers," said Toby Freeman, PacifiCorp's regional community manager based in Klamath Falls , Ore.

Separate, confidential talks continue with PacifiCorp to try to come up with a business deal that would get rid of the dams and still satisfy the power company's need to provide the lowest possible rates for customers.

"Our interests have been super clear from day one and they haven't changed," said Freeman, who is not participating in the current confidential talks about the dams.

"We're here to make sure that our customers are protected, and that means they get a reasonable outcome here—and a lowest-cost outcome," Freeman said.

Relicense or remove?

The power company is currently trying to relicense four of its hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River . Federal Energy Regulatory Commission staff have recommended leaving the dams in place and trucking fish around the structures. But federal wildlife agencies have mandated that fish ladders and other fish passage improvements totaling about $300 million would have to be added to the dams for their continued operation.

The settlement, if it goes forward, could supercede federal relicensing.

When the proposed settlement was released in mid-January, two participating groups—the Hoopa Valley Tribe and Klamath Off-Project Water Users—didn't approve the draft.

Stakeholders had hoped to sign the draft with the blessing of their constituents—and secure a promise from PacifiCorp to remove its dams—by February, but that time frame quickly passed. Instead, the tribes, counties, irrigators and environmental organizations that began meeting in January with their constituents are getting mixed reactions.

For instance, Siskiyou County in California and Klamath County in Oregon have both held public meetings that were dominated by citizens who opposed dam removal, and thus, the settlement.

In contrast, Humboldt County supervisors decided after hearing public comment to approve the draft on the condition that an agreement is reached with PacifiCorp to remove the dams. The Yurok Tribal Council approved the agreement on identical terms. Similarly, members of the Klamath Tribes recently voted to endorse the draft agreement.

"We need a way to take care of our people," said Jeff Mitchell, Klamath Tribes councilman and a settlement negotiator. "We need jobs, we need opportunities, we need resources."

A little pain for everyone

The draft settlement is already having an impact on the daily lives of people who live and work along the Klamath River .

It has inspired numerous guest columns in the region's major newspapers, urging support or rejection.

It has summoned a meeting of nearly 300 concerned Siskiyou County citizens and brought together small groups of farmers—exhausted and caked in dust after a full day's work—to ask questions and work through confusion.

This agreement, most say, isn't ideal for any one group. The projected in-stream river flows perhaps aren't as fast as some would like for fish, and water guarantees for farmers could be higher, parties said.

It hasn't been an easy process for stakeholders. Klamath Reclamation Project farmers and ranchers have wrestled with the issues, but most irrigators seem to want to move forward in support of the agreement, said Bob Gasser, who owns a fertilizer company and has spoken with many farmers about the settlement.

The Klamath Water Users Association that represents on-project farmers and ranchers announced this week that most of its member irrigation districts have decided to support the agreement.

"It may be the best thing that's ever happened to the project, but we just don't know," said Gasser, also a board member with the water users association. "Everybody's got to hurt a little to make this thing work."

Reach Michelle Ma at mma@triplicate.com.

Stakeholders

A diverse group of stakeholders has worked for more than two years to shape the draft settlement. Here is a general list of those involved:

•American Indians

Four tribes have been involved with settlement negotiations, advocating for restoration and dam removal to improve river health for fish. The Hoopa Valley Tribe doesn't support the draft agreement, saying it doesn't provide adequate water assurances for fish.

•Irrigators

Farmers and ranchers in the upper basin want water guarantees and cheap power rates. The Klamath Water Users Association—which represents irrigators on the federal Klamath Reclamation Project—mostly support the agreement, but Klamath Off-Project Water Users do not. These irrigators say the draft settlement doesn't satisfy their need for affordable power.

•Counties

Humboldt and Siskiyou counties in California and Klamath County in Oregon took part in the settlement talks, but Del Norte County did not. Humboldt County supports the agreement, as long as PacifiCorp's dams are removed. The other two counties are still holding public meetings, and most citizens are speaking out against the settlement.

•Conservation, fishing

A number of environmental groups, including California Trout, Northcoast Environmental Center and Trout Unlimited participated in negotiations.

•Federal, state agencies

National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other federal groups took part in talks. Wildlife agencies from Oregon and California , including the state's Department of Fish and Game, were also represented.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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.triplicate.com/news/story.cfm?story_no=7845