
Advocates
urge removal of Klamath dams
By
Winston Ross
The
Register-Guard
December 1, 2006
NEWPORT
- Fishermen, scientists and
conservationists urged the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on
Thursday to do something the agency is only barely considering at this
point: remove the
Klamath River
's four major federally
regulated dams.
About 60 people turned
out at a hearing in
Newport
on Thursday night to weigh in on a government hearing that
could affect West Coast fishermen for the next half-century.
Problems on the
Klamath River
resulted in a drastic
reduction of this year's commercial salmon season, a disaster
declaration from the U.S. Secretary of Commerce and $1 million in
emergency state aid for the
Oregon
fleet. Economists called it
the second-worst salmon season since 1971.
Now the government is
deciding whether to relicense dams in the Klamath Hydropower Project, a
license that lasts for 50 years.
Last month, the energy
commission released a draft of an environmental impact statement that
considers the pros and cons of relicensing the PacifiCorps-owned dams,
including alternatives.
What the draft doesn't
consider - at least not as an official alternative - is what most of the
speakers who took the lectern Thursday night asked for: removing all
four major dams.
"The scientists, the
American people are telling you they want these salmon back. They're a
product that can't be replaced. You can't go to
China
and get these salmon,"
said Henry DeRonden-Pos, a commercial salmon fisherman. "These dams
are old, antiquated antiques that need to go away. Hopefully you people
will do your job and get the
Klamath River
back on its feet
again."
Attendees of the hearing
told the federal agency's representatives to change the draft to include
a look at the dam removal option, echoing the recommendation of two
other major entities: the National Marine Fisheries Service and the
Pacific Fishery Management Council.
"The issues involved
with the Klamath dams have long-term, far-reaching implications, not
only for the basin but the entire West Coast," said Michael Becker,
a
Newport
troller. "If we get
this wrong and lose the salmon, there's no way back."
Onno Husing, director of
the Oregon Coastal Zone Management Association, argued that the
collateral damage of a closed salmon season outweighs the economic
benefits of keeping dams.
This year, Husing said,
"what had been a $10 million fishery went down to $2.5 million, and
that's just the ex-vessel value. Our economists estimate if you start
talking about the ripple effects, the money could be somewhere between
$20 (million) and $30 million."
That the dam relicensing
would come up during the same time period as the fishery failure
"was almost an act of God," Husing said.
"Finally, the
Klamath River
salmon caught a
break," Husing said. "If these dams were never built, would
you permit them to be there? I would submit the answer is no."
PacifiCorps spokesman
Dave Kvamme said in a telephone interview earlier in the day that the
federal government has never ordered a dam removal, and that his company
was eager to reach a settlement that would satisfy its
Northern California
customers' power needs and
those who rely on a healthy salmon run.
"We have reached
settlement outcomes in six other drainages successfully," Kvamme
said.
The Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission staff's recommendation was to haul young salmon by
truck to healthier watersheds and raise them elsewhere, an idea derided
by many of the speakers Thursday night.
Winston Ross can be
reached at (541) 902-9030 or rgcoast@ oregonfast.net.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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
Source:
http://www.registerguard.com/news/2006/12/01/d1.cr.fish.1201.p1.
php?section=cityregion |