|
Become a friend of the Klamath Bucket Brigade 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.
Who's at the table?
Water
stakeholders likely
to have seat as
discussions on dams
continue
H&N Staff Writer
November 15, 2008
Stakeholders who developed the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement will likely have a seat at the table during final talks on a dam removal agreement.
Federal, state and PacifiCorp officials signed a nonbinding agreement Thursday that would remove four hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River to restore salmon runs.
The restoration agreement, which allocates resources to stakeholders along the 250-mile Klamath River watershed, hinges on dam removal.
Stakeholders and government officials said participation by Basin representatives is necessary.
One stakeholder said he’s hopeful those talks also would lead to a more equitable restoration agreement. Others said further negotiation would allow the dam removal agreement and the broader restoration agreement to complement each other.
“They need to fit hand in glove,” said Chris Paolino, spokesman for the U.S. Department of the Interior.
The nonbinding agreement calls for removing J.C. Boyle dam in Klamath County and Copco 1, Copco 2 and Iron Gate dams in California around 2020 at a cost of up to $450 million. Removal must be supported by federally funded studies and would be paid for in part by the utility’s California and Oregon ratepayers.
Officials called the current dam removal agreement a framework. It calls for a final agreement by June 30, 2009.
Connecting the two
Greg Addington, executive director of Klamath Water Users Association, said stakeholders in the Klamath Basin weren’t involved in initial discussions on dam removal. They want a solid connection between dam removal and the restoration agreement efforts, as well as dedicated timelines and a commitment to address local power needs.
Both Addington and Jeff Mitchell, a Klamath Tribes council member, said they view the coming negotiations as an opportunity to polish the restoration agreement and ensure it meshes with dam removal, something that requires inclusive participation.
“We have to mesh together to create one seamless document,” Mitchell said.
Off-Project concerns
Tom Mallams, an irrigator off the Klamath Reclamation Project and a representative of the Klamath Off-Project Water Users, said he’s hopeful that broader negotiations will make it possible for his group’s concerns to be addressed.
“I don’t know if it’s going to happen or not,” he said. “We’ll wait and see.”
Mallams said the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement doesn’t address his off-Project group’s need for assurances on water and power. Mallams stressed there is still much to accomplish before dam removal can proceed, and he said no stakeholders signed the dam removal agreement.
Water agreement stakeholders said they would meet soon to determine their next steps. Addington said a final restoration agreement likely be wouldn’t released or signed until after a final dam removal agreement.
“It’s time for people to make a decision on whether they want to be a part of this or not,” he said.
Side
Bar
Water summit
still on the
agenda
A summit to discuss ongoing water conflicts in the Klamath River Basin is still in the works, according to one government official.
Govs. Ted Kulongoski of Oregon and Arnold Schwarzenegger of California pledged nearly two years ago to hold the meeting in Klamath Falls. The summit was postponed at the request of stakeholders who were still developing the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement.
Jillian Schoene, Kulongoski’s spokeswoman, said the summit is still a goal of the governor, though when it will happen and other details haven’t been determined.
Sandy Cooney, spokesman for the California Resources Agency, said he did not know if the summit was still one of Schwarzenegger’s priorities, nor has he heard whether the governor has ruled it out.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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