Tentative New Deal Would Remove Klamath River Dams

[Sea Wolf]

Here's an article of interest to read and think about.

I wonder if it's the predecessor of other such agreements?

I'm including the text here as a link would expire fairly quickly.



Copco No. 1 dam on the Klamath River outside Hornbrook, Calif., is shown in this March 16, 2004, file photo. A deal calling for removal of four hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River to restore struggling salmon runs has been forged among farmers, Indian tribes, fishermen, conservation groups and government agencies battling over scarce water in the region. (AP Photo/Jeff Barnard, file)


Deal Would Remove Klamath River Dams
2008-01-16 03:46:45
By JEFF BARNARD Associated Press Writer


GRANTS PASS, Ore. (AP) — More than 300 miles of struggling salmon runs would be restored along the Klamath River as part of a landmark $1 billion proposal that represents the largest dam removal project in the nation's history.
The plan, announced Tuesday, followed two years of closed-door negotiations between farmers, Indian tribes, fishermen, conservation groups and government agencies battling over the fate of scarce water and fish protected by the Endangered Species Act.
"What we've come up with is a blueprint for how to solve the Klamath crisis," said Craig Tucker, a coordinator for the Karuk Tribe, which has been working for years to restore dwindling salmon catches that were once key to members' diet and culture.
The proposal calls for the scrapping of four aging hydroelectric dams that have stood on the river for nearly a century — providing electricity for 70,000 customers but also blocking salmon from reaching their spawning grounds.
The agreement faces significant hurdles. It must be reviewed by federal agencies, including the U.S. Justice Department, and the dams' owner, PacifiCorp, which must agree to their removal, perhaps as soon as 2015.
In addition to money already being spent to mitigate the impact of the dams, the deal also calls for some $400 million in new spending on salmon restoration, primarily from Congress, for a total of $1 billion over 10 years.
The plan contains no provision for paying the estimated $180 million to remove the dams, leaving that to PacifiCorp, a unit of MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co., which is controlled by Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc.
PacifiCorp has previously said it would be willing to remove the dams if its ratepayers don't have to pay. But it has also been pursuing a new 30- or 50-year operating license, which would require it to spend about $300 million to build fish ladders.
"It's worth taking a pretty serious look at it," said PacifiCorp spokesman Paul Vogel, who noted his company wasn't part of the negotiations. "We don't know whether anyone has seriously represented our customers on our behalf, because our customers have to be protected in this."
Steve Thompson, director of the California-Nevada office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Sacramento, Calif., said the Bush administration has supported the settlement process, but the plan must be reviewed by federal agencies.
Thompson added that he knew of no dam removal project in the country that has restored more habitat or would generate more fish, and characterized the new spending as a better investment than past disaster relief to farmers and fishermen.
Opposition to the agreement is coming from the Hoopa Valley Tribe, based on the Trinity River, which flows into the Klamath below the dams; some farmers who are not part of the Klamath Reclamation Project; and two conservation groups tossed out of the talks last spring, Oregon Wild and WaterWatch.
Hoopa Chairman Clifford Marshall said the agreement gives irrigation water priority over the needs of salmon and requires the tribe to waive its water rights on behalf of fish, without any hard assurances the dams would come out.
"Dangling a carrot like this will not work for Hoopa," he said.
Luther Horsley, president of the Klamath Water Users Association, which represents the 1,000 farms on the project, said farmers would achieve their goals of predictable irrigation deliveries, affordable power for irrigation pumps, and freedom from future lawsuits involving endangered species.
Steve Pedery of Oregon Wild and Robert Hunter of WaterWatch said they were skeptical that the deal could actually produce the extra water that salmon need to thrive, or that Congress could come up with the money. They characterized the agreement as a sweetheart deal for the Bush administration to give farmers what they want.
The Klamath, straddling the Oregon-California line, was once the third most productive salmon river system on the West Coast, but it has declined because of misguided hatchery practices, overfishing, development and the loss of habitat to dams, mining, and logging.
Fish returns have become so small that in 2006 commercial salmon fishing had to be nearly shut down off most of Oregon and California, causing a federal disaster declaration.
———
On the Net:
Documents on the proposal: www.edsheets.com/Klamathdocs.html

[1TUBERIDER]

Something has to be done on the Klamath. We are losing our fishery due to the poor management of the Klamath.

My wife and I were jet skiing on the Klamath several years ago. The water was warm as it has ever been. We were dodging sick fish everywhere. The sea lions were having a field day. This was in the estuary. We looked at the mouth and we could see the salmon coming in.

We then went upriver. The whole cruise we saw sick fish. They were laying on the surface or just under it. In the eddies we saw hundreds of salmon belly up. It was disgusting. We decided to go home and stay out of the river. It was sick.

Then last summer the Klamath again had slow flows, warmed and then the algae came back. We were warned not to swim in the Klamath. Low water flows are again the reason.

I don't know if removing the dams will cure the problem, cause it would seem that the river would even have lower water flows without the dams as there would be no storage. I defer to the studies.

I hope the situation changes.

Jeff

[dogon dory]

Sorry, Folks - Post Deleted By Author

[Sea Wolf]

Dan-

Of course, I know you're engaging in hyperbole (is that still legal in Alaska? Is an examination and permit required? Does the state government use the oil $$$ income to pay some folks to sit around and do nothing else?).

However, I'll offer the following:

I don't think anyone expects them to remove the really big, invaluable dams and powerhouses like the Grand Coulee, Shasta, or Hoover Dams, but this does demonstrate that there can be enough pressure to force the diverse sides to work together to solve some of these issues. Perhaps some more fish ladders and habitat restoration are in store for us.

There's hope in that, and I hope the cooperation under pressure spreads to the salmon and other fishing interests in coastal waters.

Joe.

[Alasgun]

What part of cooperation under pressure don't I understand.
Mike

[dogon dory]

Sorry, Folks - Post Deleted By Author

[Larry H]

If power generating capacity to 70,000 homes is removed, perhaps the govm'nt should fund the installation of solar power to those 70,000 homes.

If a home system costs $10,000, that would be a total of $700,000,000. Sounds like a lot, but we give billions (that's multiples of $1,000,000,000) to other countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, much of the use of which is unaccounted for. We should take care of our own problems at home first!

My son installed a $35,000 system (somewhat oversized)on his large two story house in So Calif and now sells power to the utility company in excess of his usage.

[thataway]

We have a friend in Los Angeles who put in the Solar pannels on half of his roof--and his total electric bill last year was $.18 (eighteen cents!)--most of the time he was putting power back on the grid. But the family is very power conservation minded.

I had heard of rumors of removing some of the large dams. Eventually they will become silted up in the lake basins.

I don't know much about the cost of Hydro power today, but when my father was with S. Calif. Edison hyro was still the most expensive way to generate power over all.

[Larry H]

Bob,

Here is Western WA we pay only $0.08 per KWH. I think most of our electricity is hydro. When I lived in So Calif the rate was $0.14 and went up the more you used. There, most of the power was made by burning oil or natural gas.

On dams silting up: Lake Mead which is formed by the Hoover dam on the Colorado was designed so that the bottom third of the lake is a silt basin.

[Sea Wolf]

[dogon dory]

Sorry, Folks - Post Deleted By Author

[Sea Wolf]

Dan and all-

You may be right about shotgun weddings, the times have changed. But I thought it was an idea us older folks could relate to, anyway. Nonetheless, it's hell when you're reminded you're just another old fart!

I'm sure glad I'm not trying to sell any marginal ideas on the site these days, it sounds like the Winter Wonder Weather has got a lot of folks tuned up to a high form of generous congeniality and good humor! And it's only about 100 more days until Mother Nature does her the annual Spring Thaw Out and the boys in cyberspace put away the Poison Pens and get out their fishing rods!

So much for my evening edition of Hyperbole Happenings and Funnin' with My Friends!

Cheers!


Joe.

[thataway]

In Penacola, we have coal fired power stations, and the cost is six cents per killowatt hour. This includes the cost of construction of new plants and upgrades to decrease emissions (I am not an advocate of coal fired plants, but that is what is here) Most of the hydro stations are very old--and the costs have been amortized. The cost of running is very low, but the cost of construction is very high. I don't know how they compare with nuc power.

Also S. Calif. has lots of other issues in the power rates--including the high cost of transmission lines, right of way property, insurance, etc. Some areas in S. Calif have a high end rate of close to 32 cents per killowatt hour. (from what I have been told). Hydroelectric power is only 9% to 12% of the power generated in the US and about 25% world wide.
Coal is 55% of the power generation in the US.

I cannot comment on Lake Mead, but Powell recieves 65 million tons (55,000 acre feet) of sediment a year and sediment has claimed 1/5 of its storage capacity. The effect of this depends on the water level and inflow. The lake has been full only one year, and near full last in 1999. So there is a real limitation. There are "plans" in some groups minds to eliminate Glen Canyon dam, or to at least allow silt to come down river (to Lake Mead). Of course all of these "plans" have massive impact on our boating and the ecology of the basins.

[Wandering Sagebrush]

I was a bit surprised to see this thread on the site, but appreciate it being here. It is good to have more people informed and discussing issues like this. There are no easy answers, but we have to realize that we have over allocated our water resources, and we have to fix it. The fixes are going to take time, but the alternatives are streams without enough water, and certainly with out the fish that we want to be there.

The founders of Oregon Waterwatch were personal friends, as is Bob Hunter. I believe that these folks have a high degree of integrity, and are trying to do what's right without stepping on the little guy (e.g. the farmers). An example of this is the coming removal of Savage Rapids dam on the Rogue. Rather than having a fish killing dam, the Grants Pass Irrigation folks have pumps that continue to supply their agricultural needs. There is a lot of emotion wrapped up in both the Rogue, and the Klamath since it does mean changes to ways of doing things that have become cultural heritages. I would urge you to support organizations like Oregon Waterwatch, as they are working hard for people here in the west.

[hardee]

On the Olympic Peninsula there are plans in the near future to take out the Elwa River Dam to improve fishing.
There are wind turbine farms going up along the Columbia river for renewable resource power, and in S. Cal, if they want to reduce the cost of power transmission there they should be putting in more solar power and wind generator systems.
I'm not against fishing, but I agree that the dams do provide flood control, which is often taken for granted, and more even water flows if allowed to do so to keep the streams flushed when needed, and slowed when not needing the higher flow.
My $0.02 worth.

Harvey
SleepyC