Klamath Riverkeeper Erica Terence appears to be hitting her stride, assuming an important role in Dam and Water Deal debates and navigating the difficult waters of
Speak Your Piece: The gravy train is leaving; where's Siskiyou County?
By Erica Terence
Sunday, June 28, 2009
While rural residents struggle to stay afloat during a national recession and California's enormous budget crisis, Siskiyou County leadership is fighting the largest economic boon the county may ever see: dam removal and Klamath River restoration.
Even if the current settlement agreement hits stumbling blocks, the dams will come down via the relicensing process simply because they cannot meet basic clean water standards. Let's not forget that PacifiCorp, the company that owns the dams, wants them to come down. Backed by science, economics and broad political support, the tracks have been laid for dam removal. In fact, the train is ready to leave the station.
Siskiyou County supervisors would do well to step aboard and start making sure the project puts Siskiyou County to work, rather than spreading misinformation about dam removal.
It is certainly the job of the supervisors to make sure the county's interests are represented in the ongoing dam removal negotiations. Before one bit of concrete is removed, the entire dam removal plan will have to pass the muster of the National Environmental Policy Act and a host of other federal, state and local laws. The supervisors are right to make sure this happens, and it will. Misrepresenting the truth about dam removal does nothing to help the county or its people regain economic strength or restore an iconic river.
The supervisors do Siskiyou County a disservice by not recognizing the exceptional benefits that dam removal and river restoration provide to the county and its workforce. The Klamath Hydropower Agreement and the related Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement will point hundreds of millions of dollars of work at Siskiyou County and will create hundreds of good paying jobs.
The county hasn't seen this kind of work project since Interstate 5 was built 40 years ago.
What's more, restoration jobs will continue after the last dam has come out and provide a lasting source of income for many people in the county.
Then there are the economic and public health benefits that come with a cleaner Klamath, free of the toxic algae pollution that plagues the reservoirs and river every summer. (Agencies have already posted the reservoirs as toxic this summer.) Dam removal is the first step in returning a strong fishing, tourism and recreational economy to Siskiyou County, centered on this amazing, newly restored river and its vastly improved water recreation opportunities.
The choice is clear. Siskiyou County supervisors can stick their heads in the sand and let outside contractors take 10 years of family-wage construction and restoration jobs, or they can start tooling up for the hundreds of millions of dollars that will be invested in our local economy and insist local businesses are first in line for the gravy. So why are the county's leaders failing to lead us toward the biggest economic boon in decades?
Erica Terence is Klamath Riverkeeper's riverkeeper.
© 2009 Scripps Newspaper Group — Online
___________________
Klamath Riverkeeper Press Release | For Immediate Release
August 5, 2009
Contact: Erica Terence, Klamath Riverkeeper, office: (530) 627-3311, cell: (530)340-5415, erica@klamathriver.org
RIVERKEEPER SETS SIGHTS ON DAM DEAL’S WEAK POINTS
Klamath River group pressures Klamath negotiators, Congress to address potentially illegal aspects of final dam removal package
Orleans, CA-- With dam removal negotiators holed up for what's supposed to be their final meeting to hash out differences this week, Klamath Riverkeeper is pressing nine points that the citizen-powered nonprofit needs to see addressed before it can support the deal.
Removal of the Klamath Hydro Project’s four dams on the Klamath River in Northern California and Southern Oregon would revive ailing salmon fisheries and improve water quality. It would be the largest dam removal project in the world and one of the largest river restoration efforts in the United States.
The group said it might take legal action to jumpstart the dam removal process if these issues aren't adequately addressed.
Klamath Riverkeeper has been a major player in the past several years of the dam removal campaign, pushing the dam owner PacifiCorp to the negotiating table by filing four lawsuits pressuring the utility to deal with the lethal legacy of its dams and calling on its parent company Berkshire Hathaway to clean up the corporation's act at annual shareholders' meetings in Omaha, Nebraska.
The group has deliberately stayed outside the dam removal settlement negotiations of the last three years, awaiting a promised final product from the parties at the table, but has grown weary of watching deadlines come and go with no visible progress while salmon runs falter and toxic algae blooms continue to pose a public health threat on the Klamath.
"We'd like to support this legislation, which we expect will lead to dam removal, fish reintroduction, restoration work, funding for tribes, a reinvigorated fishing industry, innovative water balancing, better survival rates for fish and better health for people throughout the rural basin. But if our concerns are not adequately addressed, we will be forced to consider other ways to protect the Klamath's unique natural resources, including legal and/or legislative strategies," Terence said.
The bottom line, the Riverkeeper reminded, is that without a sufficiently strong settlement, the whole process would end up back in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's court. That's a prospect that PacifiCorp likely finds unappealing due to requirements for clean water permits and pricey, federally mandated fish ladders, Terence said.
At the top of the list of issues Riverkeeper hopes to leverage is a dam removal agreement that gets the job done no later than 2020.
"Activists in our communities are painting signs and making t-shirts that read "WILL NOT WAIT." Asking these people to live with dams for more than another ten years is unacceptable," said Klamath Riverkeeper Erica Terence.
Secondly, Klamath Riverkeeper said it will not endorse a legislative package that fails to adequately plan for drought problems in the basin. The parameters of the drought plan should be clearly written in legislation, and should protect fisheries, farmers and refuges.
Third, Klamath Riverkeeper said legislation must mandate all settlement parties to comply with the Clean Water Act and its TMDL standards.
"Opting out of pollution limits and load allocations is not an option. PacifiCorp and other water users upstream need to comply with the law just like the rest of us. They should pay what it takes to clean up the river, before and after dam removal," Terence said.
"Klamath River Tribes, fishermen and fisheries have paid the environmental costs of dams and other uses that degrade water quality for too long already," she added.
Fourth, Klamath Riverkeeper wants to ensure that language in authorizing legislation is cleaned up so that it does not undermine the integrity of the Endangered Species Act and mandates all parties to comply with species protection law and regulations.
Fifth, Klamath Riverkeeper is calling on California to come up with its share of the Klamath dam removal money by 2012, and to commit to explore funding sources other than a general obligation water bond. Bond proposals have included environmentally damaging projects further south in the state.
"Ecological gain on the Klamath does not justify ecological loss in the San Joaquin Delta or anywhere else in the state. We're not willing to compromise the health of another watershed or the chances that Klamath dam removal funding becomes a reality," she emphasized.
Riverkeeper wants to avoid a losing battle on the ballot over a contentious California water bond that voters in the state have rejected repeatedly in the past due to inclusion of environmentally damaging projects such as the Peripheral canal and new dam construction, Terence explained.
Sixth, the package of agreements and legislation cannot provide a sixty-day right of withdrawal for the states of Oregon and California.
"The states should take an active role in removing the Klamath dams, and this agreement should not enable them to back out on their obligations to restore fisheries and the cultures and economies that depend on them," Terence said.
Seventh, the federal government needs to accept responsibility for removing the dams.
Eighth, the feds should use the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) record built up during earlier stages of the relicensing process to determine whether the dams should stay or go. Their analysis should not be clouded by economic studies.
And finally, an overly broad immunity clause should be narrowed so that it simply shields PacifiCorp from the act of dam removal, and should still hold the company accountable for decades of impacts from dam operations on our communities.
###
Klamath Riverkeeper’s position on a final dam deal:
The package of Klamath agreements and legislation can win the support of Klamath Riverkeeper if it adequately addresses the following issues:
1. Four dams out by 2020 A final hydropower agreement that will remove the dams no later than 2020 must be publicly released and integrated into the KBRA.
2. Sufficient drought planning to prevent fish kills and protect refuges The parameters of a drought plan must be outlined clearly and specifically in the package and must protect fisheries and refuges.
3. Mandatory compliance with clean water laws The agreement must uphold state and federal clean water laws and require compliance with mainstem and tributary pollution limits (TMDLs) mandated by the Clean Water Act.
4. Mandatory compliance with the Endangered Species Act The agreement should not undermine the integrity of the ESA or provide loopholes for non-compliance by any party.
5. California funding for dam removal by 2012 California must secure its financial commitment toward the costs of dam removal by 2012. The state must consider funding mechanisms other than general obligation bonds that may include environmentally damaging projects like a peripheral canal.
6. The federal government as removal agent The U.S. Department of the Interior must take absolute and final responsibility for removing the four dams.
7. No 60-day right of withdrawal for states California and Oregon cannot back out of the agreement, and should take an active role in funding and supporting dam removal on the Klamath River as a necessary step toward river restoration.
8. A federal finding for dam removal based on FERC record The secretarial finding prescribed in the Agreement In Principle should rely on the existing FERC record. Additional studies should be limited to data gaps in the existing record and studies to ensure that removal is safe for downstream communities.
9. Limit PacifiCorp’s immunity to dam removal The agreements and legislation should limit immunity to the act of dam removal. PacifiCorp should still be accountable for decades of damages its dams have caused to public health and fisheries in the Klamath basin.
Background on these terms, the KBRA, the AIP and final dam removal agreements can be found on our website www.klamathriver.org
No comments:
Post a Comment