You would not know it if you get your Klamath information from media sources, but the Hoopa Tribe has continued strong advocacy for the Klamath River and Klamath Salmon at a time when most of the Klamath’s self-declared “champions” have put their advocacy on the shelf in favor of supporting the Bush Interior-Schwarzenegger-Kulongoski-PacifiCorp agenda for the Klamath River and Klamath Dams.
Organizations like the
Pacific Coast Federation of
Fishermen's Associations (PCFFA)
which have in the past been frequent
litigants challenging the
government’s Klamath decisions are
now supporting those decisions. For
example, PCFFA,
The Hoopa Tribe also recently refiled a petition which was originally made to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in February 2007. That petition, which FERC denied, requested that FERC impose ramping rate and minimum flow requirements for the J.C. Boyle dam as conditions in the annual operating licenses which it is giving PacifCorp pending final resolution of the Klamath dam issue.
The
ramping rate and minimum flow
requests are for
Redband Trout. Redband
inhabit the river above
A judge has already determined that the ramping rate and flows which have been requested by federal and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife biologists for Redband Trout are reasonable. The Hoopa petition asks that FERC make them a requirement in annual licenses which are being granted to PacifiCorp to operate the dams pending a final resolution on relicensing the dams.
FERC originally rejected the petition because (in part) it said that “since completion of the relicensing proceeding is itself awaiting issuance of water quality certification, there would be no environmental advantage in instituting yet another proceeding that could not be completed until water quality certification were issued.” But now there is a good chance that process too will be put on hold pending negotiations. The argument of FERC for rejecting the petition will become moot if the California Water Board again grants a delay in the water quality certification process as requested by Interior, PCFFA and others.
The Bush-Schwarzenegger-Kulongoski-PacifiCorp Agreement in Principle proposes “Interim Conditions” for operation of the dams by PacifiCorp until at least 2020. While PCFFA and other groups have indicated support for those interim measures, the Hoopa Tribe says they are not adequate to protect fish and water quality. That’s why they have refiled their petition to FERC and part of why they do not support a further delay in the water quality certification process.
It is amazing that no other organization has so much as filed a letter in support of the petition to FERC on behalf of water for Redband Trout. Why have these former Klamath Defenders become so compliant with the government? And why are trout organizations like Trout Unlimited and the Federation of Flyfishers apparently willing to go along with at least a 10 year delay before Redband Trout get the flows which biologists say they need? KlamBlog offers the trout groups and others the opportunity to explain themselves.
But
there is more to this story than
flows for trout. The ramping rates
and flows below J.C. Boyle Dam are
key to PacifiCorp’s profits from the
Klamath Hydroelectric Project. The
current ramping rate (which
alternately flood and dewater the
KlamBlog and others have noted that delaying dam removal until 2020 is neither necessary nor desirable. If the Hoopa Tribe succeeds in getting FERC to impose the ramping rate and flows biologists have called for below J.C. Boyle Dam, PacifiCorp - like all corporations focused primarily on profits - might well have a change of heart.
The Hoopa Tribe is quietly working to get the dams down well before 2020. Too bad the other “Klamath Defenders” are not joining them.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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

