NEC assumes
leadership role on Klamath River issues
Felice Pace
July 18, 2008
Most readers are aware that
the Arcata-based Northcoast Environmental
Center (NEC) has undergone a series of
changes over the last several years. First
the Centers long-time home in downtown
Arcata burned to the ground. Then the
long-serving editor of the ECONEWS,
Sid Dominitz, resigned that position<!--[if
!supportFootnotes]-->[1]<!--[endif]-->.
And in July 2006 the NEC lost its long-term
director when Tim McKay passed away
suddenly.
The triple
whammy hit the Center hard but KlamBlog is
pleased to report that the NEC is making a
strong comeback. The ECONEWS has an
energetic, young editor in Erica Terence, a
native of the Salmon River Country, and
executive director Greg King has come up to
speed quickly on the issues and appears ready to
provide leadership within the Northcoast’s
environmental community. NEC has also increased
the size of its board of directors and has
established a conservation committee to guide
its activist work.
Over the
past year King and the NEC have placed special
emphasis on
Klamath River issues, something
which we believe Tim McKay would heartily
approve. First the Center raised the funds for
an independent scientific review of
Klamath River flows specified in the
proposed Klamath River Basin Restoration
Agreement – a controversial Water Deal
being promoted aggressively by the Klamath Water
Users Association and the Karuk Tribe<!--[if
!supportFootnotes]-->[2]<!--[endif]-->.
One would have thought one of the national
environmental groups involved (American
Rivers, Trout Unlimited) or the Klamath
Basin Coalition would have commissioned this
review but these groups did not; the NEC stepped
into the void.
Here’s what
NEC contract hydrologist Greg Kamman said about
the Deal’s proposed Klamath
River
flows:
As a hydrologist, the focus of
my review of the assumptions integrated into the
WRIMS modeling was on the accuracy and
feasibility of water supply and demand
expectations. The areas of greatest concern to
me relate to the ability of the project to
actually achieve: the 100K AF expansion of water
storage within and around Upper Klamath Lake;
the 30K AF augmentation of inflow to Upper
Klamath Lake (UKL) associated with agriculture
retirement in the upstream “out-of-project”
area; and reliance on groundwater supplies to
augment project wide water demands during
interim and drought periods and the reliability
of 1961-2000 period to represent baseline
hydrologic conditions.
The issues
Kamman raised have never been adequately
addressed by the proponents of the Water Deal.
For example, KlamBlog has called for the
Deal’s proponents to produce the Drought
Plan which is mentioned in the proposed
Deal but not included in it. KlamBlog
believes the Drought Plan would reveal
that under the Deal it would be necessary
to lease water from irrigators and to mine
Lost
River groundwater in order to supply
river flows which by Public Trust Right
belong in the river. KlamBlog opposes paying
anyone for the Public Trust Water fish need to
thrive.
Hydrologist
Kamman later stated in a letter that he now
believes tribal and federal managers can be
trusted to do the right thing in the
Klamath River
Basin. But his
scientific critique remains substantially
unanswered. You can read the
NEC-commissioned scientific
reviews at the NEC’s
web site. Scroll down
to the bottom of the page for the links.
More
recently, the NEC, along with Klamath
Riverkeeper, has moved strongly to mobilize
citizen participation in the State Water
Resources Control Board’s consideration of
whether PacifiCorp’s Klamath
River dams can be certified as
complying with the Northcoast Basin Plan
and the Clean
Water Act.
And when PacifiCorp withdrew its certification
request, the NEC quickly distributed a citizen
alert complete with a sample letter to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
calling on that body to immediately impose
requirements on the company’s Klamath River
operations to address ongoing water quality
issues - including threats to salmon and humans
resulting from toxic algae produced in the
reservoirs and discharged into the Klamath
River.
Once again
the NEC stepped into a void. Neither the
national groups involved on the Klamath, nor the
California Hydropower Coalition, nor the Klamath
River Basin Coalition have taken steps to
mobilize citizen pressure on FERC to impose
conditions on PacifiCorp’s current Klamath
operations.<!--[if
!supportFootnotes]-->[3]
Lack of
efforts by the environmental community to
educate, mobilize and involve citizens has been
one of the changes KlamBlog has observed in
recent years on the Klamath along with an
increased amount of secrecy. It appears that
most of the environmental groups now involved in
Klamath River issues prefer to take an “insider” approach
which locks the public out of deliberations in
favor of back room deals with irrigators and
federal agencies. This mirrors what is happening
nationally – many mainstream environmental
organizations seem increasingly interested in
making deals with polluters and less interested
in mobilizing citizen pressure on the despoilers
of nature. KlamBlog is thrilled to see the NEC
break this pattern by devoting time and
resources to citizen education and involvement.
We hope other environmental groups involved on
the Klamath will follow the NEC’s lead by
devoting time and resources to informing and
mobilizing citizens.
If you like
what’s happening at the NEC, take the time to
thank them for their efforts and encourage them
to continue focusing on citizen education and
mobilization. Unlike many environmental
organizations, the NEC still provides
staff
contact e-mail addresses
on their web
site.
<!--[if !supportEndnotes]-->_______________________________
<!--[endif]-->
<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[2]<!--[endif]-->
You can read KlamBlog’s evaluation of
the proposed Water Deal in our
January 29th post, reactions
to the Deal posted February 1st
and about impacts on Klamath
refuges in the March 16th
post.
<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[3]<!--[endif]-->
KlamBlog checked web sites for
American
Rivers, Trout Unlimited, Friends of
the River, the California Hydropower
Coalition and the Coalition for the
Klamath River Basin.
None of their web sites contained a
citizen alert prompting involvement in
the SWRCB water quality certification or
to pressure FERC to impose conditions on
PacifiCorp’s current Klamath
River operations in order to
address water quality problems. The
Klamath Basin Coalition website’s “Action
Center” contains this message: “This
page is under construction. Check back
frequently. Last updated 5/20/03.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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