Will the Klamath Dams' Removal Benefit Farmers or Be Traded for News Dams in CA? 

Since it was announced last week that a deal had been reached for the probable removal of four dams on the Klamath River, I've been ecstatic. The Klamath dams have been the cause of massive fish kills, are owned by the richest man in America Warren Buffett, do not provide green energy, have shut down west coast fisheries, and have hurt the Native American culture.  Of course, since the Bush administration negotiated the deal, I am wary there may be a hidden agenda for this once mighty river in my neighborhood.

Should the nonbinding deal go through, this would be the largest dam removal project in US history.  The alternative for PacificCorp to re-license the dams was to build fish ladders mandated by federal biologists costing $300 million. Dam removal is the cheapest option and the best decision for the health of endangered salmon on the Klamath River. The California Energy Commission reported PacifiCorp could save $101 million over the next 30 years if the dams were removed and replacement power bought.  As part of the deal, ratepayers will foot $200 million in removal cost, and California will ask voters to approve a $250 million bond.  Studies and analysis will occur until 2012, at which point the dams could be removed in 2020.  Under the deal, PacificCorp would receive immunity from the dams� environmental liabilities.

Bush wanted the deal to remove the dams, yet his administration has always backed farmers in the dispute over water rights, such as when irrigation was shut off to under the Endangered Species Act in 2001. Even after the Klamath dams� removal deal was announced on November 13, 2008,  Bush released a statement saying, �Together, we have produced an agreement that will greatly reduce the risk of future shutdowns of the irrigation system.�  Already, the Klamath deal is under attack for supporting farmers over fish. Many suspect the deal will shut down California water quality hearings that may have doomed the dams anyway.

What does the Klamath Dams� removal mean for other proposed dam projects in California?  Last January, Schwarzenegger said California needed to build more dams in his State of the State address.  At a press conference last week with Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne and Mike Chrisman, California Secretary of Resources, Arnold said:

We are here today to celebrate something really big, which is a great victory for the environment of California.  With the Klamath River Agreement we are making actual history, because this will be the biggest dam removal project ever in the history and the biggest one in the United States. So this is great for California and this is really great also for Oregon. Now, let me just say that we all know that we have a very serious water problem in California and, of course, we want to make sure that we build more water storage, above-the-ground and below-the-ground water storage, but they have to be strategically located. So this is why it is important that we continue building those, even though we want to take four down. I've been worried, of course, about our declining salmon population, and with this agreement here we are setting the stage for the return of the historic salmon runs on the Klamath River.

Four dams forward, two dams backward:  Schwarzenegger had to slip in his proposal for new reservoirs during this historic moment. Schwarzenegger and Senator Feinstein have campaigned for a water bond measure that would build two new reservoirs, Temperance Flats on the San Joaquin River and Sites on the west side of the Sacramento Valley, even though both watersheds are over-appropriated already and the dams may never fill. Now there is fear that the Klamath dam removal would be included in the same bond.  According to Dan Bacher, advocate for fish restoration in California:

Missed in most media reports of the agreement is Schwarzenegger�s expectation that this agreement could become a �quid pro quo� to sacrifice the California Delta fish and Central Valley chinook salmon species, now in an unpredented [sic] state of collapse, for removing dams on the Klamath.

A coalition of recreational anglers, commercial fishermen, Indian Tribes, conservationists and Delta farmers is strongly opposing Schwarzenegger�s campaign to put a water bond including a peripheral canal and more dams on the ballot this coming year. Although massive opposition to dams and the canal prevented the Governor and allies from putting the proposal on the November ballot, dam and canal opponents fear that he and his corporate agribusiness backers will try to get the water bond on the June ballot.

California's water problems are complex, but we can't sacrifice one river, because we are restoring another. The Klamath deal may not result in dam removal in the end, and many respected tribes and environmental groups oppose the agreement, such as the Hoopa Valley Tribe, North Coast Environmental Center and Oregon Wild.   These groups fear the deal will become a bailout for Klamath Basin agriculture, and frankly, no one trusts the Bush administration to make sound environmental decisions.  The dams need to be removed with no strings attached.