A draft
report
released
Tuesday
by the
U.S.
Department
of the
Interior
says a
landmark
agreement
to
remove
dams in
the
Klamath
Basin
will
restore
salmon
and
sustain
irrigation
for
farmers
in
Southern
Oregon
and
Northern
California.
The
findings
seem to
support
a bill
recently
introduced
by Sen.
Jeff
Merkeley,
D-Oregon,
and
North
Coast
Congressman
Mike
Thompson,
D-St.
Helena,
that
would
authorize
the
Interior
Department
to
decide
whether
to
remove
the four
Klamath
River
dams.
Thompson
issued a
statement
on
Tuesday
urging
his
colleagues
in
Congress
to act
on the
bill,
which
dam-removal
proponents
claim is
being
held
hostage
by the
partisan
rancor
that is
enveloping
the
Capitol.
”The
synthesis
of
studies
released
today
scientifically
confirms
that the
agreements
in place
represent
the best
way
forward
for the
Klamath
River
Basin
and its
communities,”
Thompson
said in
the
release.
“Years
of
scientific
and
technical
studies
have
concluded
that the
dam
removals
will not
only
benefit
our
river
basin by
restoring
fish and
wildlife
habitats,
it will
strengthen
our
economy
by
creating
thousands
of jobs.
The time
for
Congress
to act
is now.”
Under
the
removal
agreement
-- which
necessitated
compromise
from dam
owner
PacifiCorp,
fishermen,
farmers,
environmentalists
and
tribes,
many of
which
had
spent
years in
conflict
-- the
parties
were
tasked
with
providing
a
comprehensive
environmental
and
economic
analysis
of the
impacts
of
removing
the four
Klamath
River
dams.
The
report
released
Tuesday
came as
a part
of that
process.
”The
science
and
analysis
presented
in these
reports
are
vital to
making
an
informed
and
sound
decision
on the
Klamath
River
dam
removal,”
Interior
Secretary
Ken
Salazar
said in
a press
release.
The
draft
report
-- which
largely
repeats
previously
released
findings
--
states
that dam
removal
would
improve
salmonid
fish
populations
in the
long
term and
create
1,400
construction
jobs
during
the year
it would
take to
remove
the
dams. In
more
good
news for
proponents
of dam
removal,
the
report
also
puts the
estimated
cost of
dam
removal
at
$291.6
million
in 2020
dollars,
well shy
of the
$450
million
cost cap
outlined
in the
historic
removal
agreement
signed
by more
than two
dozen
groups
in
February
2010.
But the
report
also
includes
some
kernels
for
those
opposed
to the
dam
removal
agreement,
noting
that
removal
would
potentially
increase
flooding
risks,
cut
electricity
production
and
decrease
property
values
and
recreational
opportunities
at the
four
reservoirs
currently
sitting
behind
the dams
slated
for
removal.
Overall,
the
report
is good
news,
said
Karuk
Tribe
spokesman
Craig
Tucker.
”It's
another
affirmation
that
implementing
our
agreements
is good
for
fish,
good for
farms,
good for
the
economy
and good
for
America,”
Tucker
said.
It
appears
the
agreement's
biggest
obstacle
is
Congress.
The
interior
secretary
is
responsible
for
deciding
whether
dam
removal
is in
the
public's
best
interest
by March
31, but
he can't
make the
determination
until
Congress
passes
legislation
clearing
the way.
While
Thompson
and
Merkeley
have
introduced
the
legislation
-- which
carries
18
co-sponsors
-- it
has seen
little
movement
as
Congress
remains
gripped
by
partisan
gridlock.
”We're
frustrated
by
Congress'
inability
to take
care of
issues,”
Tucker
said,
adding
that the
lack of
legislative
progress
has
nothing
to do
with
Thompson,
who
Tucker
said has
been a
leader
on the
issue.
“Folks
that
work in
the
beltway
say
they've
never
seen
gridlock
of this
type.”
If
Congress
fails to
act in
time to
meet the
March 31
deadline
outlined
in the
dam
removal
agreement,
many
seem to
feel the
deal
would be
dead.
However,
Tucker
said
Tuesday
he
doesn't
see that
as an
insurmountable
obstacle,
saying
all
stakeholders
would
“absolutely”
return
to the
table to
work out
an
extension.
”Just
because
we're in
a tough
Congressional
environment,
doesn't
mean
we're
not
going to
keep
pushing
forward,”
Tucker
said.
“We
think we
have a
bipartisan
solution
to one
of the
West's
biggest
water
woes.”
While
the
agreement
may have
bipartisan
support,
it is
not
universal.
Representatives
of the
Hoopa
Valley
Tribe,
which
has
argued
the
project's
environmental
reports
are
inadequate
and
generally
been a
detractor
of the
agreement,
were not
immediately
available
for
comment
Tuesday.
In a
message
left for
the
Times-Standard
shortly
before
deadline,
fisheries
biologist
Pat
Higgins
said the
hypothetical
number
of jobs
created
by dam
removal
would be
a
short-term
stimulus,
while
the
potential
damage
to the
Klamath
River
ecosystem
by the
dam
removal
agreement
would be
long
standing.
”Getting
the dams
out is
good but
the
Klamath
Dam
Removal
Agreement
that
goes
with it
is very
bad --
it
doesn't
do
enough
to clean
up the
pollution
and it
doesn't
leave
enough
water
for
fish,”
said
Higgins,
a
fisheries
consultant
for the
Resighini
Rancheria,
a tribe
located
in Del
Norte
County.
One
thing
working
in the
agreement's
favor,
Tucker
said, is
the $37
million
sitting
in a
trust
fund,
accruing
interest,
with
more
money
being
added
monthly
to fund
the
removal
project.
PacifiCorp's
550,000
Oregon
customers
have
been
paying
an extra
2
percent
per
month on
their
electric
bills
since
the fall
to fund
the
removal
project,
and the
company
started
charging
its
California
customers
the fee
earlier
this
month.
Tucker
said
stakeholders
will
focus
their
energy
on
lobbying
Oregon
Congressman
Greg
Walden,
R-Hood
River,
and Sen.
Ron
Wyden,
D-Ore.,
to
support
the
project.
”We need
to get
them to
step up
to the
plate
and help
us with
this,”
Tucker
said,
adding
that the
two
lawmakers
have not
yet
voiced
either
support
for or
opposition
to the
project.
“We're
going to
keep
appealing
to them.
We think
they're
key
players
in
this.”
On the
web:
To view
the full
report
and the
individual
studies,
visit
www.klamathrestoration.gov.
Thadeus
Greenson
can be
reached
at
441-0509
or
tgreenson@times-standard.com.
