|
Become a friend of the Klamath Bucket Brigade All donations are tax deductible |
|
This Website is Dedicated to Alvin Alexander Cheyne January 10, 1921 - June 17, 2005 |
GovTrack.us is an independent tool to help the public research and track the activities in the U.S. Congress, promoting government transparency and civic education through novel uses of technology.
Agreement on dams Deal has political, economic implications
Groups that spent months negotiating an agreement between the federal government, the states of Oregon and California and PacifiCorp to remove four Klamath River dams had little time to celebrate.
As Craig Tucker, Klamath campaign coordinator for the Karuk Tribe, said, “We had a few beers … but now it’s time to roll up our sleeves and get back to work.”
The nonbinding dam removal agreement signed Thursday sets a framework for a document that, if finalized, would allocate up to $450 million to remove the J.C. Boyle, Copco 1 and 2 and Iron Gate dams, which supporters believe will improve water quality and restore salmon runs.
Before a final agreement is signed — the deadline is June 30, 2009 — groups must study implications of removing the dams.
Dams in the West
For Greg Addington, executive director of the Klamath Basin Water Users Association, a misleading implication is that the agreement sets a precedent for removing dams throughout the Pacific Northwest.
“It’s not. You have to judge every situation on its own merit,” he said. “It’s a hard pill to swallow for our guys. We generally think we should be building more dams.”
Addington also said the agreement means his group needs to work with PacifiCorp to implement steps in the document, including finding economical power sources to replace energy lost by removing the dams. While that happens, he said efforts to implement January’s Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement must continue.
Politics at play
The dam agreement also has political implications.
With the up coming change in presidential administrations, the goals include informing yet-to-be named Obama appointees on the dam proposal and restoration agreement, and working with Congress to have necessary legislation introduced.
Under the dam removal agreement’s timetable, a decision on whether to remove the dams will be made by the Secretary of the Interior in 2012.
“We don’t want to be dependent on one party,” Addington said, referring to long-standing working relationships with the outgoing Bush administration and Oregon Sen. Gordon Smith, a Republican who was not re-elected.
U.S. Rep. Mike Thompson, a Democrat whose California congressional district includes a portion of the Lower Klamath River, said Friday he would request hearings to help the process. U.S. Rep. Greg Walden of Oregon also has worked closely on a settlement.
“This is not about partisan politics,” Tucker said. “This is about the communities themselves having that power. We want the (Obama) administration to work with the communities, too.”
Mike Chrisman, California Resource Department secretary, said during a Thursday press conference:
“From California’s perspective there’s a tremendous opportunity here. We’re looking forward to dealing with the next administration.”
Steve Rothert of American Rivers, a conservation group, said implications the agreement reflects partisan politics are untrue, explaining a 3-1/2 year study process will include extensive environmental review.
“I am confident, because I know the scientific record on dam removal,” he said, “that the decision will be in favor of removing the dams.”
Price tag
Rothert and others believe one of the impacts will be a firmer price tag for removing dams. He said a 2007 California Coastal Commission study puts the cost of removing the dams between $75 million and $200 million. Tucker also believes the agreement’s $450-million figure is far higher than the probable cost.
But Jim Cook, a Siskiyou County supervisor whose district includes the largely prodam removal Tulelake Basin as well as downstream communities that strongly oppose removal, thinks the cost estimates are low.
“I think they low-balled the cost of removing the dams and I think they high-balled the cost of adding the fish ladders,” Cook said. “I think they doctored the numbers.”
Rothert and others believe removing the dams would put an end to ongoing and costly Band-aid solutions to problems they say will continue if the dams are kept in place.
Earlier this year, $170 million in disaster relief funds were given to commercial fisherman in California, Oregon and Washington when their season was closed, the second such payment in three years.
More than $60 million was provided in 2006 as a direct result of Klamath River concerns.
Side Bar
Future goals
June 30, 2009:
The original signers of the nonbinding dam removal agreement must sign a final agreement for dam removal efforts to continue. The final agreement would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct scientific, economic and engineering studies to determine the feasibility of removal.
March 2012:
Pending evidence supporting dam removal, the Secretary of the Interior would designate an agency to carry out dam removal around 2020.
June 30, 2009:
The original signers of the nonbinding dam removal agreement must sign a final agreement for dam removal efforts to continue. The final agreement would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct scientific, economic and engineering studies to determine the feasibility of removal.
March 2012:
Pending evidence supporting dam removal, the Secretary of the Interior would designate an agency to carry out dam removal around 2020.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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