August 13, 2006
Climate looks right for progress
It's hard to say where discussions over the future of the Klamath River dams go from here, but there is much more of an open-mindedness on the subject than has been present in the recent past.
Movement is welcome, especially if changes result that improve the river's health, regardless of whether those changes include dam removal.
The dams - Iron Gate, J.C. Boyle, and Copco 1 and 2 - generate about 150 megawatts of power and represent 1.7 percent of PacifiCorp's total output. The utility, owned by MidAmerica Energy Holdings Co., serves 1.6 million customers in six states. They're located near the Oregon-California border between Ashland and Yreka.
At issue is the license renewal for the dams as they near the end of the original licenses' 50- year run, though they can be extended on a year-to-year basis.
Indian tribes along the river have launched a campaign to get the dams removed to re-establish upper Klamath Basin spawning grounds for salmon, and improve the river's health. Poor runs of Klamath River salmon from the river led to closure of about 700 miles of Oregon and California coastal areas to commercial fishing this year.
In addition, the Karuk Tribe on the California stretch of the river reports that high levels of toxins have developed in the reservoirs behind the dams, leading the tribe to call for the reservoirs' closure to the public.
“Now we know that these dams are not only hazardous to fish, they're hazardous to people as well,” according to Karuk Vice Chairman Leaf Hillman. “These dams create horrific water quality problems. We expect this will make it difficult for PacifiCorp to get a clean water permit from the state of California.”
A number of things have happened recently to change the atmosphere around the dam-removal issue.
PacifiCorp was sold by ScottishPower to MidAmerica. Tribes said the attitude switched when that happened, though PacifiCorp Energy - the subsidiary of PacifiCorp that is handling the relicensing process - said it didn't.
PacifiCorp Energy's president, Bill Fehrman, said this week, “We are not opposed to dam removal or other settlement opportunities as long as our customers are not harmed and our property rights respected.”
Craig Tucker, who is in charge of the Karuk Tribe's dam removal efforts, said “Certainly when we first started, they said there was no way they were going to consider dam removal. This is the first time they've released a media statement with us, saying, ‘Dam removal is OK by us.' They just don't want to stick it to ratepayers.”
That doesn't mean it'll happen
Fehrman's statement undoubtedly is being parsed by everyone who has an interest in the situation, and many people do. Clearly, though, it's not the same as saying the dams were going to get pulled out.
Something else has happened in the past few years that may be smoothing the way toward solution of at least some of the Klamath's problems.
Resource users at both ends of the river - farmers and ranchers in the upper Basin, tribes along the river's length, and ocean-going fishermen - have managed to reduce the acrimony and finger-pointing. They understand each other's problems better, and they deserve credit for their efforts.
They are lots of interests to be considered.
PacifiCorp doesn't want to increase rates because of dam removal. Presumably, the company's shareholders also have to be considered.
Irrigators and others in the upper Basin want to come out of the licensing process with dependable and affordable power. They also need a reliable water supply and not to have the Klamath Reclamation Project become embroiled in another dispute over water needs for salmon entering the upper Basin.
Tribes want adequate water for fish species all through the river, and some of those species carry the extra weight of being protected by the Endangered Species Act.
But the climate seems right for major changes - far more so than they were a few years ago. Those at the bargaining table should seize the moment, and the Oregon and California governors should lend an assist.
Editorial board
Pat Bushey wrote today's editorial, which represents the view of the Herald and News editorial board.