Among those who have issues with the
recently announced decision are the
Siskiyou County Board of
Supervisors, who have opposed the
idea since it inception. In a recent
phone interview, Supervisor Jim Cook
outlined many of the concerns that
he feels have not been adequately
addressed in the proposed agreement.
Cook outlines concerns
Cook noted, among other things,
that, in his opinion, it is a
misperception that the decision is
widely accepted as being in the best
interest of the county and expressed
his concerns that there are still
too many unknowns for sound
decisions to be made on the issue.
“We want an honest review of all
options,” Cook stated emphatically,
implying that those studies have yet
to be done and that there is simply
not enough information to warrant
dam removal as the best course of
action.
Cook, who emphasized his background
as a biologist, also noted that he
was unclear as to the ultimate goal
of the dam removal project.
“If they want more fish, there are
other ways of doing it,” he said. He
cited hi-tech fish ladders as an
economically feasible alternative to
removing the dams. He also voiced
the concern that it could be “an
environmental disaster if they let
that sludge down the river the way
that they are proposing.”
While the program may have a “feel
good” appeal for some, Cook’s other
concerns range from the loss of a
clean source of power generation to
the substantial reduction of revenue
that the county would suffer because
of the deal.
“People want to feel good about the
river running free, but they don’t
care that it will increase global
warming,” stated Cook, noting that
removing a “clean” source of energy
production (hydroelectric power) in
an era of economic and energy
uncertainty makes no sense to him.
He noted too that the four dams
currently provide enough electricity
to power 70,000 homes and that power
could, arguably, be replaced by
coal-fired electrical power
generation.
Important tax revenue
Cook also stated that currently, the
county receives between $750
thousand and $1 million annually in
tax revenues from the dams. The
loss of this income would be
substantial for a county that ranks
as one of the poorest in the state.
When queried as to whether he
thought the dam removal process
could generate jobs locally, the
supervisor remained doubtful, citing
the fact that the firms handling the
job would be coming from out of the
area.
“Look, we don’t even have companies
that can handle the road paving in
our county. They come from Redding
and Alturas.”
Cook emphasized his concerns and his
respect for the residents of Copco
Lake and other riverside residents
who stand to lose a lot if the dam
removal program comes to fruition.
He noted, in particular, that he
felt that their concerns were not
simply “reactionary” but that they
simply wanted to see the studies
that support this decision as the
best course of action.
“I have a lot of respect for those
people,” said Cook.
Dam removal in a nutshell
The recent announcement is a
collaborative plan between the
federal government, the state
governments of both California and
Oregon and Pacific Power. With Iron
Gate Dam, Copco 1 and 2, and J.C.
Boyle Dam currently up for
relicensing, Pacific Power is put in
the position of implementing costly
retrofits or pursuing the removal
option.
The first goal set by negotiators is
a round of talks, working towards a
final dam resolution agreement. The
deadline set for this is June 2009.
The AIP then places the onus upon
the federal government to
scientifically assess the costs and
benefits of the dam removals, with
the federal government making a
final determination by March 31,
2012 as to whether the benefits of
the project will justify the costs.
This decision will stem from
engineering and scientific studies
conducted by state, local and tribal
governments and other stakeholders,
upgrading the program to a “binding
agreement.”
At that point, the federal
government would then designate a
non-federal Dam Removal
Entity to dismantle the dams or
decline to remove the dams, at which
point PacifiCorp will return to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
for re-licensing.
If, however, all moves forward as
tentatively outlined, removal of the
four dams in question, three of
which lie in Siskiyou County, could
begin as early as 2020.
What’s next?
Year 2020, of course, is a long way
away, and there are many “ifs” in
the prevailing equation. For
opponents, the lengthy review
process could be a boon to their
cause.
When asked how the Board will
proceed from here, Cook reiterated
that he wanted to see more studies
done.
“What is this thing going to cost
and who, ultimately, will be paying
for it?” Though, in theory, that
question has already begun to be
answered, Cook has his doubts.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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
