May 29, 2010

   They support a comprehensive Klamath Basin water settlement, but don’t want dams removed on the Klamath River.

   Following last week’s election, Klamath County commissioners Cheryl Hukill and Al Switzer wrote a letter to constituents clarifying their stance on the controversial Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement and related dam removal settlement.   But Switzer and Hukill admitted dam removal is a battle they can’t win.    

    “We know that whether we signed the agreement or not, the dams are destined to come out,” the commissioners said in the letter.

   The commissioners said their letter, published in Thursday’s Hearld and News, was partially prompted by Commissioner John Elliott’s loss in the Republican primary to Dennis Linthicum.

   “John losing the election showed us loud and clear that our message did not get heard,” Hukill said.

   Elliott supports the KBRA, but said he has not taken a stand on dam removal as a separate issue. Linthicum said he opposes the KBRA and dam removal. The KBRA includes provisions to help ensure low power rates for irrigators, create additional water storage area in Upper Klamath Lake, settle water adjudication disputes and adjust the amount of irrigation water available depending on the type of water year. It hinges on and advocates removal of four hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River.

   Hukill and Switzer said they have always been against dam removal, but needed to do a better job of publicizing it.

   Tom Mallams, president of the Klamath Off-Project Water Users, thinks they are simply reacting to the polls.

   “They heard what voters said,” said Mallams, who opposes the KBRA and the dam removal settlement. “The voters don’t want the dams out.”

   Hukill and Switzer, who will be up for re-election in 2012, said they thought Linthicum’s stance against dam removal helped him beat Elliott in the primary.  

   Jobs and energy

   The commissioners said their reason for supporting the KBRA is simple: jobs.  

   They say the agreement will make agriculture more sustainable and the local economy more stable. “The KBRA may not be perfect, but it is better than what we’ve got,” Switzer said.

   They said energy creation was the reason they want the hydroelectric dams to stay in place.

   “I just believe that with our reliance on foreign oil, we really can’t afford to pull out a renewable energy source,” Switzer said.

   The Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement proposes four dams — Irongate, Copco 1, Copco 2 and J.C. Boyle — be removed. Together, the dams produce enough energy to power an estimated 35,000 homes, Hukill said.

   The dams, however, do not store irrigation water and provide little flood control. Both commissioners said that removing them would have no direct effect on local agriculture.  

   A package deal

   Hukill, Switzer and Elliot in February agreed to sign onto the restoration agreement and the related dam removal settlement.

   Participants in the agreements could not sign one without the other.

   “They’re intertwined,” Switzer said. “You can’t get around it.”

   Hukill and Switzer said conceding dam removal was worth the benefits of the KBRA.

   “We can stomach the fact that they have to take the dams out if it will benefit our farmers and ranchers,” Hukill said.

   Greg Addington, executive director of the Klamath Water Users Association, said the two agreements mean more reliable water sources for irrigators.  

   “It’s not about dams for us,” he said. “It’s about changing the way the system is managed to ensure that agriculture is a viable option in the area.”

   The four dams are owned by PacifiCorp. The cost of their removal will be paid by ratepayers. Up to $200 million will be paid by an increase in energy rates to PacifiCorp’s customers in Oregon.

   An additional $250 million will come from California bonds not yet approved by voters.