Tribes, State post warning signs on Klamath River

Another straw on the back of Iron Gate and Copco dams?

* The economic benefits, drawbacks if - and when - the dams come down

By Phil Hayworth

Pioneer Press Staff Writer

Pioneer Press

Fort Jones , CA

530-468-5355

mailto:pioneerp@sisqtel.net

Wednesday, October 3, 2007

Page E 8

Last week, members of the Yurok Indian tribe posted signs at common entry points along the Klamath River south of the Iron Gate dam warning of the toxic algae called Microcystis aeruginosa.

Similar signs were posted this summer around the dams - authorized by the Siskiyou County Department of Health and the California Northcoast Regional Water Quality Control Board. The algae problem was thought to mostly affect the water behind the dams. Last week's postings were the first south of Iron Gate and Copco Dams.

Then, on Monday, the Yurok were joined in their down-dam posting efforts by officials from the water quality board, who reportedly authorized the signs south of Iron Gate .

Residents downstream of the reservoirs reportedly were alarmed when the Klamath River recently turned a bright lime-green color, wrote S. Craig Tucker, Klamath Campaign coordinator and spokesman for the Karuk Tribe, in a press release last week.

He wrote that water-quality tests confirmed residents' "fears" that there was far more of the toxic algae in the water than is regarded safe. 

The bright green algae -- which generally flourishes in warm water and, when shaken and stirred by turbulence, becomes toxic -- reportedly causes liver failure and promotes tumor growth. Exposure to high levels can lead to organ failure and death, some say.

The postings are just another sign that the dams, which supply hydro-electric power - but no irrigation water -- to Siskiyou County residents, among others, are in serious jeopardy of being dismantled. 

Some argue that the dams coming down could be a huge economic gut-punch to Siskiyou's economy. But Tucker thinks it'll be just the opposite.

"I think Siskiyou County is looking a gift horse in the mouth," he said. "Fixing the river is good business."

Salmon could flourish, he said, bringing anglers to the river. He said a January 2006 study by Ecotrust, an environmental research firm in Portland , shows that each fish caught by a recreational river angler is worth $200 to the local economy. If water quality and quantity improve fishing on the river - and the number of fish caught on the river doubles -- it could bring $4.4 million to the area's economy each year, he said.

But it'll cost a lot of money to dismantle the dams and, right now, no one's sure exactly who would pay or how much. Low-ball estimates show it could cost $35.6 million. Some studies show that figure to be closure to $83 million.

But even that figure is too low, responds California Assemblyman Doug LaMalfa, R-Redding. 

"It'll cost twice what they're saying," he said.

Even at $83 million, Ecotrust argues, some 2,150 jobs could be created, pumping more than $235 million into the economy. If it's twice that, the figure could play into the hands of the proponents of dam removal, who argue that the higher the cost, the better the economic impact to the area's economy. The Ecotrust study shows that, for every $1 million spent on dismantling the dams, approximately 21.5 jobs are created and that for every direct job created in the construction sector, more than two indirect and induced jobs are created.

If the dams do come down, Tucker said, then the key to making the best of the situation, is to keep the thousands of acres of land now owned by PacifiCorps on the county's tax rolls.

If the lands leave the tax rolls, Siskiyou County would suffer a "significant loss" of about $1 million a year, which is about what the county now gets from PacifiCorps, Tucker said. If, after removal, the lands remain in private hands, "they are still taxable," he said.

"Certainly it would be unfair to expect Siskiyou County to take a million-dollar-a-year hit in tax revenues," Tucker said.

Meanwhile, things aren't looking good for PacifiCorps. The company's license to produce power expired in 2005. They're been operating on an interim license, but the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, has yet to approve long-term renewal. Iron Gate , Copco I and Copco II together produce about 65 megawatts of power - or about one percent of the 8,300 megawatts PacifiCorp's sells to customers in California , Oregon , Washington , Utah and Idaho , according to Ecotrust. 

If they don't get approved by FERC, PacifiCorps stands to lose millions. It costs them $23.3 million to keep their hydro-electric operations afloat. If, by some chance, they are granted a license, it'll cost them millions more to install fish ladders and screen turbines on the four dams, which federal agencies could make a requirement of the relicensing agreement. PacifiCorp ran computer simulations to estimate the additional cost of such installations and put the figure at $100 million, according to Ecotrust.

Those additions would bump the total cost of the project up another $3 million a year, they argue. It all might force PacifiCorp to sell the dams or pull them down altogether, observers say.

Meanwhile, FERC is likely awaiting the outcome of negotiations between 26 water, farming, tribal, government and energy interests who, over the last two years, have wrestled over whether the dams should stay, how they could be made safe for spawning salmon and how they affect water quality in the Klamath River. Some of those interests -- particularly environmental and tribal ones - in the meantime have launched coordinated legal attacks challenging how the dams affect water quality and salmon populations in the Klamath.

But negotiations are said to be wrapping up. Terry Morton, executive director of the Klamath Watershed Council in Klamath Falls , Oregon , said representatives from each of the 26 interests are now presenting their sides of the deal to their various constituencies.

"I've heard that participating agriculture and some environmental groups are more optimistic now than any time in the past," she said.

Details about if, when and how to dismantle the dams could be revealed as soon as next month. Even Klamath-area farmers seem to be on board or are, at least, looking forward to an agreement soon.

The devil is now in the details, said Greg Addington of the Klamath Water Users Association.

"We need to get something, some product, out in November," he said. "People have heard that it's all confidential. It's really just a question of how much has to be spelled out in the document."

He said he hopes the big stuff is done, and that the details can be fixed down the road. But for Addington and the 1,400 Klamath-area farmers and ranchers he represents, two things have always been a priority in the negotiating process: guaranteeing a reliable source of irrigation water and affordable electricity.

"Our opinion is that we should be creating more water storage, more power," he said.

He believes they're done just that. Farmers will pay more - as they have for the last few years - and up to 7 to 8 cents per kilowatt hour in stepped-up pricing over the next few years.  It's a big jump from the half-cent paid over the last 50 years under the old contract with PacifiCorp and propped up by the Oregon Legislature.

But it's less than what Californians stand to pay, he said. Word is that the California Public Utilities Commission negotiated a four-year stepped increase that will cost Siskiyou and other power consumers 9 to 10 cents per kilowatt hour.

It'll mostly come in the form of pumping costs to various Klamath and California irrigation districts, which will pass the bill onto farmers, he said.

And then there's the Salmon issue.

"The idea that we could have salmon in our backyards that haven't been here in 100 years is scary and sobering," he said. 

That's because salmon will have miles more of river to run up, and Klamath farmers will have more than just the threatened sucker fish to worry about when the endangered salmon come swimming into their back yards.

Addington said that, before he signs off on the deal, he's hoping to nail down iron-clad agreements that would prevent salmon protection measures from forcing farmers to limit water supplies. In 2000, measures to protect the sucker fish cut off water to Klamath farmers and decimated the areas economy. That won't happen this time, Addington said, and is working on "regulatory assurance" that it doesn't.

The only group not on board now seems to be the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors.

Two weeks ago, the board wrote a letter to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger requesting that he strongly consider standing behind the board's desire to keep the dams. Two board members, Marcia Armstrong and Jim Cook, signed off on a letter to the Sacramento Bee arguing the benefits of the dam. Even more, they argued that the bringing down the dams could hurt the county.

Assemblyman LaMalfa said he stands with the board.

"We shouldn't move too quickly," he said. "If we move too quickly, we might move in the wrong direction."

He said further studies should be done on costs, and to determine who will pay for it all.
Tucker said that negotiations about who will pay are still open, and that the Karuk Tribe at least supports mitigating any losses to some area landowners, who find themselves with long-distance views of the new and improved Klamath River, instead of lake-front homes.

(Permission to post from the publisher.)