






|
Become a friend of
the Klamath Bucket
Brigade
Send
Donations Here
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.
|
|

Settlement has long way to go
before dams are gone
Even
acknowledging that, this is a
really big deal
Klamath
Falls Herald and News
Editorial
November
16, 2008
The “agreement” on removal of four Klamath River dams
announced last week is a
major step forward, but
there are many steps
left before there’s a
done deal and each step
is also going to be
major — and difficult.
Removal of the dams is a
key part of the Klamath
Basin Restoration
Agreement, which
proposes to settle
continual struggles over
how to allocate water in
the Basin. But it’s also
a separate issue.
Some stakeholders are
conflicted, taking one
view on dam removal and
a different one on the
overall agreement.
Last week’s
breakthrough included a
nonbinding “agreement in
principle” by the states
of Oregon and
California, the federal
government and
PacifiCorp, which owns
the four dams.
If everything falls into
place, removal of the
dams would begin by
2020. The expected cost
is up to $450 million.
The first 3½ years would
be spent in due
diligence studies.
Are California
funds certain?
Many questions remain:
Dams are a source of
“green” power — is it
wise to get rid of them?
Is dam removal fair to
those involved? How
solid can this be if it
relies in part on a vote
by California voters for
$250 million in bonds?
Is this anything more
than a good business
decision by PacifiCorp
to rid itself of future
liability for the dams?
And is there anything
wrong with that? What’s
likely to happen in a
change of presidential
administrations?
The list of
questions goes on and
on.
While much depends on
the answers, the
agreement in principle
gives Cabinet-level
endorsement to dam
removal, and implies the
same endorsement for a
wide-reaching process
that’s aimed at ending
contentious water wars
in the Klamath Basin.
Each year is a struggle
over how to allocate
water to irrigators and
fisheries in the
hourglass-shaped Basin
that stretches from
above Klamath Falls to
the Pacific Ocean 300 or
so miles away. By
opening up fish habitat
above the dams, their
removal would also
attempt to revive salmon
runs that once were
among the biggest in the
nation.
The four dams that would
be taken out are J.C.
Boyle Dam in Klamath
County, the only one in
Oregon; and Copco 1 and
2, and Iron Gate Dam, in
California. Iron Gate is
the farthest south,
located northeast of
Hornbrook, Calif.
For several years,
PacifiCorp has been
working through the
process of relicensing
the dams after a 50-year
license ended. Efforts
by irrigators, tribes
and other interests to
settle a wide range of
major resource issues
beyond the dams
themselves grew out of
that process.
It has also been clear
that even if the dams
were relicensed,
operating them would
cost PacifiCorp a lot
more. Estimates of new
fish ladders required
have ranged up to $300
million and it’s likely
there would have been
substantial new costs to
meet federal water
standards.
This is a long,
complicated process, and
while dam removal is a
foundation for the
overall Basin
restoration agreement,
it is also a stand-alone
issue.
A lot of things need to
happen before dams are
removed and the Klamath
Basin Restoration
Agreement becomes fact.
No matter how difficult
the remaining process
is, however, the
progress made public
last week is a very big
deal.
Pat Bushey wrote
today’s editorial.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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
|