Oregon Legislature provides key piece for restoration pact

Surcharge, plus guaranteed cap, moves process forward

Klamath Falls Herald and News

Editorial

June 28, 2009

Oregon’s Legislature came up with a key link in helping the Klamath Basin move toward settlement of many of its Basin-wide water and environmental issues.

Last week legislators approved Senate Bill 76 and sent it to the governor for his signature. The bill would allow PacifiCorp, owner of four Klamath River dams in Oregon and California, to put a $1.50 monthly surcharge on Oregonians’ power rates for studies and possible removal of the dams. It also puts a $180 million cap on what Oregonians would pay through the surcharge.

Removal of the dams is the linchpin for the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, a wide-ranging effort to settle most Klamath Basin water issues.

Added to the legislative bill in the late stages were firmer guarantees against Oregonian ratepayers being held liable for dam-removal costs beyond $180 million. The total cost for ratepayers in general would be $200 million, with 90 percent of it paid by those in Oregon, where 90 percent of the PacifiCorp customers live. PacifiCorp’s California customers will pay the remaining 10 percent, $20 million.

Long-time source of complaints

The four dams that would be removed are J.C. Boyle Dam in Klamath County, the only one in Oregon; and Copco 1 and 2 and Iron Gate Dam in northern California. The river enters the Pacific Ocean near Klamath, Calif., about 240 miles southwest of Klamath Falls.

The dams have long been a source of complaints from American Indian Tribes and fishermen because of the drastic falloff in salmon reproduction from the river. Undoubtedly, though, there are other factors involved, such as ocean conditions and the reduction in water for many years from Klamath River tributaries.

Much of the attention had become focused on the Klamath Reclamation Project, which irrigates about 180,000 acres in the Klamath Falls and Tulelake areas. It was shut down for much of the 2001 irrigation season so that more water could be used by endangered fish species at both ends of the river. At about the same time, PacifiCorp was approaching the end of its 50-year license for the dams and starting through the lengthy relicensing process.

The restoration agreement grew out of the PacifiCorp process and took on broader aims that went beyond the dams, but were tied tightly to them.

The fact that Klamath County’s three legislators didn’t support S.B. 76 reflects the divided opinions that exist on the restoration agreement and dam removal. That comes particularly from local Basin irrigators not on the Klamath Project — the off-Project irrigators.

Those divisions are likely to continue.

Nobody in this process should think that stopping dam removal means that things will stay the way they are. They won’t, other than the people involved will continue to spend a lot of money on litigation.

If the dams stay, PacifiCorp will have to put in fish ladders costing hundreds of millions of dollars and will have to meet federal water standards that will add even more costs and mean the dams will generate a lot less electricity than they do now.

The restoration agreement, in some form, represents the best way for the Basin to settle major issues that run the length of the river and the 2009 Oregon Legislature did its part to make it happen.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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.heraldandnews.com/articles/2009/06/28/viewpoints/op-ed/doc4a4713b7e834a086542780.txt