It is interesting that the Klamath River, among the most powerful environmental lightning rods of our time, should be the first test of a new Energy Act provision designed to let power companies challenge what federal scientists believe to be the best thing for fish affected by their projects.

An administrative law judge is expected to rule this month on several issues of fact that Klamath dam owner Pacificorp has disputed. While the judge's decision will set no legal precedent, the hydropower industry and conservation groups are watching closely how he rules. His decision to accept certain facts -- like how much spawning habitat is available to threatened coho salmon between the dams -- will have direct implications on whether fish ladders are required as federal agencies have recommended.

Cynically, Pacificorp holds that there is no spawning habitat in the stretch of river its four dams plug up. That's because the reservoirs are so unfriendly, with toxic algae and high water temperatures, that salmon couldn't survive there. Of course, it's Pacificorp's dams that create these conditions. Instead, it wants to truck salmon around the dams into streams above Upper Klamath Lake.

Practical considerations aside, how can this be viewed as anything but a temporary measure? If Pacificorp is issued another 50-year license to operate its project, are we really prepared to nurse along a river that could otherwise be nearly completely restored by then? All for 150 megawatts of power?

We continue to advocate taking a close look at removing the dams on the Klamath, and begin -- now -- the process of rebuilding its former glory. Strangely, Pacificorp has said it's willing to consider a plan to remove the dams, all the while going to court in an effort to make its marginal project pay for a few more decades.

The river is too sick to allow its condition to go on much longer.

This is the chance to set the Klamath River on the course to good health again, not another 50 years from now.