|
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.
Opponents of removal offer alternatives By LEE
JUILLERAT Dam bypass proposed
H&N Regional Editor
If a proposed agreement to remove four Klamath River dams
falls through, what should happen next?
It depends on whom you ask.
The proposal, signed Nov. 13 by PacifiCorp, federal and
state officials, agrees to begin removal of the four dams by
2020, pending Congressional and state approvals and the
outcome of environmental reviews.
Three of the dams, Irongate, Copco 1 and Copco 2, are in
Siskiyou County, and the fourth, J.C. Boyle, is in Klamath
County. Cost of removal is estimated at $450 million.
Opponents of dam removal — specifically the Siskiyou County
supervisors — say there are plenty of workable alternatives.
Siskiyou County, a county heavily affected by dam removal,
prepared a Congressional briefing paper, “Solutions and
Alternatives for the Klamath River.”
It offers other ways of rebuilding fish populations and
improving water quality without removing the dams. Key
alternatives include developing a fish bypass, expanding
fish propagation efforts and transporting young salmon
upstream.
“There are better ways,” said Siskiyou Supervisor Jim Cook,
whose district includes Tulelake Basin farmers who support
dam removal and downstream water users strongly opposed to
the idea.
But Craig Tucker, a spokesman for the Karuk Tribes, which
support dam removal, said options to the current dam removal
effort are less desirable than dam removal.
Finding solutions
“I think it’s fair to say that we are committed to finding
solutions to the fishery crisis that are compatible with a
viable farm economy in Upper Basin,” Tucker said. “Plan B
for dam removal effort is always the FERC (Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission) process, but going through FERC
instead of reaching a settlement means that we lose an
obvious mechanism to provide benefits to agriculture, as
well as funding the necessary fishery restoration work that
needs to be done.”
FERC is the agency is charge of relicensing PacifiCorp’s
dams. If removal is ruled out, the relicensing process would
resume.
Dam removal also is a key component needed to implement the
Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, a separate proposal
that allocates water resources among stakeholders along the
250-mile Klamath River Basin.
Dan Keppen, executive director of the Family Farm Alliance,
has not been part of the Klamath negotiations, but calls
himself an interested observer.
“I, too, would like to see what that fallback strategy is,”
Keppen said. “However, I think both the dam removal and
restoration agreement proposal provide several off-ramp
opportunities for the parties to go in another direction.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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