Legislation to help pay
for removal is also still in the
works. Under a bill already approved
by the Oregon Senate, up to $180
million would be collected from
PacifiCorp’s 500,000 Oregon
ratepayers to go toward dam
removal.
The legislation would
create a surcharge that would raise
the average Oregon customer’s bill
by about $1.50 a month. Agricultural
power users would see about a 2
percent increase in their bills.
Oregon lawmakers
A bill that would charge
the Oregon Public Utilities
Commission with placing that
surcharge on PacifiCorp customers’
bills to help pay for dam removal
has yet to be voted on by state
representatives, or to even have a
House committee hearing.
State Sen. Doug Whitsett,
R-Klamath Falls voted against the
bill when it passed the Senate
earlier this year.
He said additional
amendments to the bill proposed by
ratepayer groups and others to
protect ratepayers and taxpayers
from further costs of dam removal
have not come forth from Gov. Ted
Kulongoski’s office as promised.
Additionally, state Rep.
Bill Garrard, R-Klamath Falls, also
opposed to dam removal, said the
bill has to have a hearing in the
House Environmental Committee by
April 17 or it will be dead. He said
the bill will likely be moved to
another committee.
Jillian Schoene,
Kulongoski’s spokeswoman, said the
governor’s office continues to be
involved in negotiations concerning
a final dam removal agreement, which
is due by June 30. The talks are
progressing, she said.
Garrard said he wants to
organize another meeting with
various stakeholders connected to
the agreement and irrigators off the
Klamath Reclamation Project to
address concerns.
Federal lawmakers
Federal lawmakers continue
to say that the restoration
agreement needs broad support in the
Basin if it is to be seriously
considered by Congress.
Tom Towslee, spokesmen for
U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said
the senator hasn’t received new
information on the agreement since
visiting the area several weeks ago.
Wyden said during that time that a
consensus would be needed for the
document to succeed and until then,
federal legislation will have to
wait.
“Sooner or later, this
will have federal involvement,”
Towslee said. “Now is not that
time.”
Julie Edwards, spokeswoman
for U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore.,
said the senator’s staff in Southern
Oregon is gathering information and
monitoring the events surrounding
the agreement.
He is equally concerned
about having broad support for the
document, and Edwards said there is
no indication yet when legislation
to implement it would come before
Congress.
Opponents/Irrigators
Irrigators conducted a
meeting in Merrill about two weeks
ago to voice opposition to the
agreement to an invited group,
though some irrigators supportive of
the agreement also attended.
Tom Mallams, a board
member of the Klamath Off-Project
Water Users, said the meeting was in
response to numerous meetings other
stakeholders in the Basin conducted
behind closed doors, while also
giving opponents the chance to speak
freely without being intimidated.
“A lot of the Project
people are leery of coming out in
the open and talking,” he said.
Mallams and other
opponents maintain the restoration
agreement doesn’t properly address
the issues of water security,
affordable power and protection from
environmental regulations for
off-Project irrigators.
They’ve also expressed
concerns over removing the four
hydroelectric dams on the Klamath
River and providing the Klamath
Tribes the Mazama Tree Farm in
central Klamath County.
Mallams said he has sought
further negotiations with
stakeholders, especially on-Project
irrigators and the Klamath Tribes,
to work out the problems but nothing
has been arranged, though he’s
seeing a growing inclination to have
both sides meet.
Proponents/Irrigators
Irrigators supportive of
the agreement, on and off the
Project, met with Klamath County
Commissioners in recent weeks
advocating for the document and to
hear commissioners’ concerns.
Steve Kandra, Klamath
Water Users Association board
member, said stakeholders are
scheduled to meet in Sacramento next
week to make changes to the
agreement in preparation of
releasing a final document.
Those changes will mostly
revolve around dates and
technicalities, while major
components, such as the concept of
dam removal, won’t be removed or
modified.
Proponents also are
watching the state legislation that
would help pay for dam removal and
developing plans to make power for
irrigation affordable in the Basin.
Studies on how much sediment is
behind the dams are under way to
determine how much is there and what
issues it might contribute to if the
dams are removed.
Off-Project irrigators in
support of the agreement told
commissioners progress is being made
in establishing a way to provide
affordable power, having assurances
against environmental regulations
and working with the Klamath Tribes
on settling water conflicts, but
that more work is needed.
“We’re tearing each other
apart and we need to get back
together,” said Bob Sanders, board
member with Upper Klamath Water
Users Association.
Dave Solem, manager of the
Klamath Irrigation District, told
commissioners that proponents are
pursuing building more water storage
in the Basin,
but the nature of such a project
means it couldn’t be a condition of
the restoration agreement.
Proponents also have
pointed out that the delay to this
year’s irrigation season would have
been avoided if the restoration
agreement had been in place, as it
would have settled various water
supply concerns.
Fishermen
Glenn Spain said the
restoration agreement is a chance to
correct some of the West’s most
retractable problems.
The Northwest’s regional
director for the Pacific Coast
Federation of Fishermen’s
Associations is also involved in
crafting a final dam removal
agreement, something difficult to do
given the differing viewpoints of
stakeholders.
Otherwise, he said his
organization is working to keep
lawmakers abreast of the restoration
agreement so that it can be acted on
quickly when legislation is needed.
Klamath Tribes
Jeff Mitchell is
optimistic about negotiations
regarding dam removal and allocation
of water in the Klamath Basin but
that much work remains to be done.
The Klamath Tribal Council
member said tribal representatives
have continued to participate in
talks about removing four dams on
the Klamath River and also are
meeting with off-Project irrigators
to address their concerns. Those
talks must continue in order for the
disputes over water to be resolved.
Legislation at the state
and federal levels is needed to move
forward. Most importantly, he said
there needs to be strong consensus
in the off-Project areas of people
willing to work with the Tribes and
other stakeholders.
“It’s really up to the
community now to decide whether to
get this done,” he said.
Environmentalists
While some environmental
groups support the restoration
agreement, others, such as Oregon
Wild, oppose it and are continuing
to monitor its progress and the
possibility to challenge it.
The environmental
organization was left out of
discussions about the agreement
after much of the rest of the
stakeholders had moved on. Spokesman
Sean Stevens said Oregon Wild does
have allies involved in talks and
they are now playing the role of a
watch dog.
“When we got the boot, we
didn’t stop working there,” he
said.
Stevens said the agreement
doesn’t contain sufficient
protections for fish and wildlife
refuges. Dam removal also is not
guaranteed and the organization
believes any dam removal agreement
would contain enough loopholes to
aid PacifiCorp in not removing the
dams.
A final version of the
restoration agreement and dam
removal agreement aren’t yet
available, but Stevens said Oregon
Wild may pursue legal action against
the documents’ supporters if
necessary.
Siskiyou County
Siskiyou County Supervisor
Jim Cook said the board of
supervisors and
county are still actively involved
in the restoration agreement and
that headway is being made in
addressing some of the county’s
concerns.
Supervisors voted to
oppose the agreement because it
calls for dam removal, which could
negatively impact property taxes and
property values.
Klamath County
Klamath County is the only
county in the Basin that has not
taken a stance on the restoration
agreement, and commissioners said
they continue to seek answers and
information to their questions and
look for a way to participate in
discussions.
Commissioners said they
are particularly concerned the
document doesn’t make a strong
enough call for increased water
storage. Commissioners Al Switzer
and Cheryl Hukill have also
commented they don’t support dam
removal, though Switzer has
commented that it is a decision left
to PacifiCorp.
Commissioner John Elliott
said the county is looking for a way
for him to continue participating in
discussions with stakeholders on the
agreement.
The county stopped its
involvement in the talks after
county counsel Dan Bunch raised
concerns about an elected official
participating in closed door
meetings.
Side Bar
