Oral and written testimony before the House Subcommittee on Water and Power

July 23, 2010
Tom Mallams
President Klamath Off Project Water Users
Beatty, Oregon
541-892-2629

Madam Chair and Sub Committee Members,

Our organization was formed about 5 years ago to deal with power rate issues starting with the relicensing process of the Klamath River dams. I personally have been involved in the water issues for the past 30 years. Our groups is based on volunteers, there are no paid positions like all others that are pushing for dam removal and the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement. I would like to help correct the misconception of the dam removal and Klamath Basin Restoration issue. I know there have been individuals and groups portraying the sentiment in the Klamath Basin as being in favor of the Klamath Hydro Settlement Agreement and the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement. This is not true.

There is a dam removal agenda being pushed by outside organizations such as Sustainable Northwest. This group alone has spent well over $1.25 million promoting dam removal and the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement. We are submitting part of their 2007-2008, 990 Tax forms showing they spent $447,158 in this single year in the Klamath Basin. This same year they paid Natural Heritage Institute $112,487. This group is represented in the stake holder meetings by Richard Roos Collins who is the literal author of the Klamath Hydro Settlement Agreement and Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement. Also, in this same year

Becky Hyde was paid $63,835 as a consultant for Sustainable Northwest. These individuals and others have come before you in the past professing widespread support exist in the Klamath Basin. The support only exists with those that are paid to have that position. Becky Hyde’s’ newly formed Upper Klamath Water Users Association is financed mainly by Sustainable Northwest. Their attorney Greg Corbin is on Sustainable Northwest Board of Directors and the firm Greg works for, Stole Reves, are large contributors of Sustainable Northwest.

There have been three polls and thousands of petitions gathered opposing both documents. The recent local elections dramatically evidence the sentiment in the Klamath Basin. A nine and one half year incumbent County Commissioner supporting these documents lost to an unknown political newcomer that opposes the documents. In the Same election a long time incumbent opposing these documents defeated a well know supporter of the documents. The huge margin was the same in both races 65% to 35%. This is a very clear message of opposition to dam removal and the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement.

Our Senator Ron Wyden has stated in two town hall meetings in the Klamath Basin that he would not support dam removal or the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement without Basin wide support. That support obviously does not exist!

The Bureau of Reclamation apparently has $11.2 of stimulus funds to use in the studying of dam removal. This seems rather contradictory, since the Bureau of Reclamation is supposed to preserve and protect infrastructure, and protect irrigated agriculture. Dam removal accomplished the exact opposite. It destroys infrastructure and permanently down sizes irrigated agriculture in the Klamath Reclamation Project and the Off Project area as well. Another study is completely repetitious. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission completed a study as well as the Camp Dresser MCKee (CDM) Report commissioned by the Department of Interior, both paint a clear picture of the Billions of dollars that will be required to destroy these dams and deal with the sediment behind the dams and the ensuing economic disaster that will result from dam removal. The CDM Report was actually supposed to be kept from public view. This was stated in the cover letter of the CDM Report. This cover letter was added when the actual CDM Report was leaked to the public.( I have attached the cover letter.) Why should the tax payers and our elected officials, pay for a study and be denied access to its content? With the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement being implemented the question has to be asked “How many studies need to be funded and completed before a decision is made?” The rhetorical answer seems to be “Until the desired results are promoted.” This stimulus money could and should be spent in a more appropriate way, preserving and building infrastructure which is one of the main goals of Bureau of Reclamation. It makes one wonder how many other instances of this unchecked unsupervised spending exist within the DOI?

Approximately 1 ½ years back I attended a FERC meeting in Yreka California. Some of FERC’s expertise and responsibilities is evaluating dam relicensing and dam decommissioning. In this meeting it was evident that Department of Interior was manipulating the process so that the final say on decommissioning would be up to them through a Secretarial Determination. They have indeed accomplished this. Now we are to have faith in the Department of Interior to make an unbiased, science proven decision on dam removal. Every public meeting I have attended with Department of Interior, we are all reminded of their Tribal Trust and Tribal Treaty responsibility with the Tribal interests. This creates a political driven decision not based on science and facts.

Thru this wide process many so called concessions are permanent and mandated in the documents. These are written into the documents and have to be completed. These so called concessions, (we consider them surrender items), include complete and total dam removal, 92,000 acre land gift to a sovereign nation, downsizing irrigated agricultural land within the Klamath Reclamation Project and the Off-Project area as well, forced to drop contests in the State Water Rights Adjudication, forced endorsement of additional massive tribal in stream claims with a priority date of Time Immemorial and not being allowed to sue for any damages that may be the result of dam removal. The very best we get in return is a 50 year unenforceable contract consisting of some maybe and hoped for benefits. And as far as additional dam removal scenarios, Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner Mike Campbell stated in a meeting January 26, 2010, “This is a policy issue, a precedent setting event.”

When this process first began we had three main goals or objectives

1 - Protection from ESA and Biological Opinions – these documents give absolutely no protection. They even reaffirm that the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement and Klamath Hydro Settlement Agreement does not change or affect either the ESA or BO

2-Affordable powers for agriculture – These documents do not deliver any hope of affordable power. John Bezdek from Department of Interior answered that question with the simple response “A Snowballs Chance.” This answer was in response to the question “what are the chances of affordable power for agriculture being achieved in these agreements?”

3-Stability of water deliveries – These documents do not produce any additional water for agriculture. They actually permanently down size project irrigated acres and off project irrigated acres. The additional in stream claims required in these documents are not achievable. So the call on agriculture water will escalate.

What are the alternatives to these current documents? Continue with the State Water Rights Adjudication, then, with a solid base to start with, work for a true comprehensive settlement. As Mike Campbell, said, this is how settlements are normally done. Dam removal has no place as a pawn in settlement. It amounts to legal extortion or blackmail, to Pacific Corps rate payers and tax payers.

As for fish passage, there are a large number of other alternatives besides total dam removal. All these options have been completely ignored, because this whole process has been directed at dam removal with no other option even being considered.

The closed door exclusionary meetings were designed from the start to have this specific out come. Valid irrigation groups were denied a seat as a stakeholder simply because they were not in favor of dam removal and a favored true equitable settlement.

One of Bureau of Reclamation purposes is to support environmental and eco system restoration. If we were to actually restore the Klamath River basin to its natural state before irrigated agriculture was present, the conditions would be drastically worse than at present. The water quality conditions present here when the earliest explorers documented the conditions was unbearably poor. The early explorers would not camp within miles of Klamath Lake and the Klamath River because of the smell, insects, and water they would not even allow their livestock to drink.

You cannot allow us to spend ourselves into bankruptcy trying to correct Mother Nature. The massive amounts of natural occurring phosphorus in the upper basin render the possibility of pure water in the lake and river an impossible prospect.

I also submit for the record

1-List of opposition to the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement and Klamath Hydro Settlement Agreement

2-990 Tax Records of Sustainable Northwest – showing relationship to supporters and this powerful environmental group

3-CDM cover Letter

Thank you for your allowing me to testify and to be able to convey the opinion of the people in the Klamath River Basin. We are in desperate need of oversight and accountability in these life altering matters.

Tom Mallams
President,
Klamath Off-Project Water Users Association
tmbrokenboxranch@gmail.com

(Permission to post from the author.)