County opposes dam deal

By Dale Andreasen

Daily News

November 26, 2008

Yreka, Calif. - Siskiyou County’s Board of Supervisors is saying not so fast on an agreement to tear down four Klamath River dams, including three located in the county, and is considering legal action to halt their removal.

Following a closed session during its Nov. 18 regular meeting, the supervisors issued a statement voicing concern and opposition to the agreement announced Nov. 13 between the federal government, states of California and Oregon, and PacificCorp.

The non-binding agreement calls for removal of the four hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River starting in 2020, following a four-year period of study.

In exchange for protection from liability, PacifiCorp will pay $200 million in dam removal costs. California will ask voters to approve a $250 million bond to cover additional costs.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Yreka office required fish passage – such as fish ladders – to be installed as a condition of renewal of a permit to continue operating the dams. The cost of removing the dams is reportedly cheaper than installing fish passage.
The board of supervisors has consistently opposed both dam removal and the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement reached last year by various stakeholders and environmental groups.

New county counsel Tom Guarino has been directed by the board to begin interviewing qualified attorneys with the goal of hiring a special counsel to assist him in assembling a team to oppose the removal of the dams. The complete text of the county supervisors’ statement follows:

STATEMENT OF THE COUNTY OF SISKIYOU

The County of Siskiyou wishes to express its concern with the recent Agreement in Principle (AIP) issued with respect to removing the Irongate Dam, the Copco 1 Dam, the Copco 2 Dam, and the J.C. Boyle Dam, and other works presently licensed to PacifiCorp.
While the County of Siskiyou is appreciative of the parties permitting the County to participate in the discussions, the Agreement that has been undertaken by the parties still leaves significant issues unaddressed, not the least of which is the fact that it does not clearly address the cost and impacts to the County of Siskiyou and its constituents, nor does it provide sufficient provisions for determining such impacts. Unanswered by the Agreement in Principle (AIP) are the specific studies that will be undertaken, the degree to which local entities such as Siskiyou County will be permitted to participate, and provisions which essentially allow PacifiCorp and other parties to avoid any liability arising from its ownership and operation of the facilities. Unexplained is the scope of liability for the Dam Removal Entity (DRE) envisioned by the Agreement. In fact, no local input is provided for with respect to who is going to remove these dams which have been such an essential and integral part of Siskiyou County for many years.

Siskiyou County does acknowledge that, under the Miscellaneous Provisions of the Agreement in Principle (AIP), it does state that the Final Agreement “may” address the economic impact of the facilities’ removal on Siskiyou County and “may” address the issues regarding the City of Yreka’s water supply, as well as other terms. However, these terms are not mandatorily required. The Board of Supervisors opposes the AIP and the process described therein. The County of Siskiyou is of the opinion that those matters addressed in its Resolution in April, 2008, opposing a Sense of Congress Resolution requiring dam removal remain unanswered and that the removal of the dams will be a crippling blow to the County of Siskiyou. The County remains opposed to the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement. The Board of Supervisors directs County Counsel to issue Requests for Qualifications for special counsel to assist County Counsel as part of the Board’s intention to assemble a team to oppose the removal of the dams.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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.siskiyoudaily.com/homepage/x1720670277