As a multiple degreed geologist, I would like to
comment on the last available Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission environmental impact statement on the removal of the
Klamath dams *.
This report states that complete studies have not
been undertaken to understand the total amount of sediment
accumulated behind the four Klamath mainstem dams to be removed,
nor the riverine and fluvial effects generated by the release of
this sediment. Until those studies are completed and we
understand the nature of the sediment and its totality, it is
very unwise to pass legislation regarding ratepayer monetary
assumptions resulting from dam removal.
The FERC report states that removal of the
sediment, should that be the course chosen, could range up to
$4.5 BILLION. That assumption is that there are no heavy metals
or toxics in the sediment that would require a Superfund type
cleanup of the sediment. If that is the case, an order of
magnitude greater cost will be incurred. The few sediment cores
taken to date are only a few centimeters deep, while the actual
accumulated sediment ranges from about 1 and a half to four
million metric tons of fine sediment.
So no real knowledge of the toxicity or heavy metal analyses are
available for all four dams. 540,000 ratepayers, most of whom
are in Oregon, divided by the FERC high estimate of sediment
removal would be a cost of about $8000 per ratepayer.
Citizens who live on the river year round are
very concerned about the flooding of the mainstem Klamath during
the months of December through April. Many who have lived there
prior to the building of Irongate state that extensive flooding
and erosion of the river regularly occurred. The FERC report
also states that no definitive studies have yet been undertaken
to determine probablility of flooding, whether they be 50, 100,
500 or thousand year flood events. When major runoff events
happen in the Klamath Basin, above the mainstem of the river,
the dams now provide a “ponding” effect which decreases the
water velocity and decreases overall turbidity throughout the
system. If the dams are removed, the massive erosional effect
of these runoff events will destroy most of the gravel beds
which provide the salmon breeding grounds of the river. Sediment
will be redistributed irregularly throughout the lower areas of
the fluvial system and many of the salmonids known breeding
locations will be eradicated.
The FERC report states that $35 million
additional per year will be required from 540,000 Pacificorp
ratepayers as the cost of replacement electricity. That will
increase the average ratepayer’s monthly electric bill by 10%
for the next ten years, at today’s rates. If “green”
electricity is required as a replacement that will increase the
monthly electricity charges by an order of three or four times
their present rates. The replacement cost is presently
determined based on coal fired replacement. Pacificorp presently
uses power generated from its Wyoming coal fired plants. To
exchange clean hydropower for coal fired electricity is
draconian at best.
I urge SB 76 not be released from committee
until a better understanding of the actual cost ** to ratepayers
and the geology and geomorphology of the system without the dams
is accurately understood.
Respectfully submitted by:
Gail Hildreth Whitsett
BS in Geology, Honors College Oregon State
University
MS Geology, Oregon State University
Princeton University, Yellowstone-Bighorn Research Facility
23131 N. Poe Valley Road
Klamath Falls, Oregon 97603
(541)882-1315
*FERC Report –FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT FOR HYDROPOWER LICENSE –FERC/EIS -0201F Vol 1 and
Klamath Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 2082-027
Appendices Vol. 2
Pages 853-891 add estimated costs of option
implementations. Intentionally spreading any reference to
possible sediment removal costs apart from other costs,
references on estimated sediment volumes totaling approximately
9100 acre feet is on Table 3-3 (page 3-21) and the estimates of
sediment removal costs range up to $487,000 per acre foot (page
4-6) , with individual possible sediment removal estimates for:
John C. Boyle on page 4-8 ($7 million); Copco 1 on page 4-8
($2.9 billion) and Iron Gate p. 4-10 ($1.5 Billion)
**A facet of SB 76 that is not addressed is that
no one is responsible in the event dam removal results in cost
overruns. The Agreement in Principle (page 9 ) states:
“The final Agreement shall resolve how to provide
for further funding of costs in excess of the State Cost Cap, if
during the process of Facilities removal it becomes reasonably
apparent that actual Facilities removal costs are likely to
exceed $450,000,000 or in fact do exceed that amount. The
United States, California, Oregon, Pacificorp and Pacificorp’s
customers do not accept liability for any costs in excess of
$450,000,000 for Facilities removal, absent specific subsequent
agreement.”
It seems imprudent to apply $200 million toward a
project when there is not currently a plan in place for funding
the project in its entirely. It is foreseeable that in the
future there will be cost overruns and the state will be
required to authorize additional funding or be left with a
partially removed dam or set or dams. Undoubtedly, the state
will feel compelled to provide additional funding under these
circumstances, or perhaps legislation will be required to put
the additional charges on the shoulders of the ratepayers. The
state should wait until there is a plan in place for funding the
entire cost of dam removal before investing money in this
project. Otherwise, the initial contribution puts the state in a
position where it will be required to either force taxpayers or
ratepayers to cover a portion or all of the unforeseen costs
associated with these dams removal.
(Permission to post from the author.)