Critical Sucker Habitat: Another KBRA Pay-Out

On December 11, 2012 the US Fish & Wildlife Service published its final designation of Critical Habitat for Kuptu and Tsuam - two species of sucker fish found only in the Upper Klamath River Basin. Also known as the Shortnose and Lost River suckers, these fish have been listed as “endangered” under the US and California Endangered Species Acts since 1988. Critical Habitat for both species was first proposed by the federal government 18 years ago in 1994.  

While required by court order, the long-delayed designation of Critical Habitat in the Upper Klamath River Basin reflects the desire of the US Bureau of Reclamation and the irrigation interests it serves to be freed from restraints on their management of Klamath River water. The Bureau and irrigation interests want to maximize irrigation water delivery; that requires limiting Klamath River flows as well as the water provided for other fish and wildlife purposes. The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement or KBRA contains provisions designed to facilitate that objective. Through the KBRA the Bureau and its irrigators hopes to secure the “relief” they desire from the Endangered Species Act and other wildlife protection laws.

Tsuam (C'waam), aka Lost River Sucker, was listed as "endangered" in 1988

Media reports on the recent Critical Habitat designation fail to make the connection between the designation and the KBRA. In typical fashion, reporters and editors present the designation as an isolated act. Below KlamBlog lays out the connections and provides the context which mainstream reporters fail to provide.   

Wildlife management and the KBRA

One of the most insidious aspects of the KBRA is the manner in which the complex and controversial agreement treats wildlife protection laws including the US and California Endangered Species Acts (the ESA and C-ESA), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Bald Eagle Protection Act and California's fully protected species laws .  On the one hand, the KBRA affirms that the ESA and these other laws will be upheld throughout the Klamath River Basin; on the other hand, the deal contains provisions which undermine the integrity and effectiveness of these laws within a specific portion of the Klamath River Basin - the roughly 40% of the Basin located above Iron Gate Dam, including most of the Lost River Sub-Basin.

Bureaucratic Drought in the Upper Klamath....again!

While irrigation has turned vast portions of it green, the American West remains, for the most part, a summer dry region. Pervasive green fields and suburban lawns don't reflect the climate but rather the fact that most western rivers have been tapped for irrigation and municipal water. And while debate continues over how much water must remain in these rivers in order to sustain healthy aquatic ecosystems and meet other Public Trust obligations, it is accepted science that - in order to sustain aquatic ecosystems and fisheries - flows should be managed to mimic the natural hydrograph.

What this means is that flows in western rivers should be higher during winter and spring when flows are naturally higher, and lower during late summer and fall when flows are naturally low. While this pattern applies to all western rivers, each river has a unique hydrograph. Flows should be managed to rise and fall according to that unique pattern. Moreover, just as each river's natural hydrograph was different year to year, so too must managed flows be varied to simulate natural year-to-year flow variability.

While most attention has focused on minimum (i.e. late summer and fall) flows, river scientists have also discovered that high winter flows and  even periodic floods are needed to sustain healthy river ecosystems. High flows maintain channel structure and optimal riparian conditions.

River scientists have discovered that healthy rivers need flood flows.

This image shows flood flows at Klamath Glen in the Lower Klamath

Because we have a long record of flows in most western rivers, determining a rivers natural hydrograph is usually not difficult. The State of California, for example, uses flow records to calculate what river flows would be if no water was removed from California Rivers for irrigation and other purposes.

Managing to mimic the natural hydrograph, however, is often controversial. Irrigation interests, municipalities and industries always seem to want more water and they work hard to get it. Resisting those demands in order to mimic the natural hydrograph has proven problematic for the federal agencies which manage most western rivers. When politicians and interests demand more water, the managers of western rivers - typically the Army Corp of Engineers or US Bureau of Reclamation - tend to comply.

Irrigation Elite demands

While there is great controversy over the magnitude of the flows it prescribes, The Klamath River Basin's controversial water deal - the KBRA - does call for managing Klamath River flows to mimic the natural hydrograph.  But no sooner was the ink dry on that document than one of the signing "parties" - the Klamath Water Users Association - launched a campaign to make sure the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) did not follow the KBRA's flow prescriptions.

Coho Reprieve – Scott Valley streams finally flow!

In recent days heavy, sustained rain has been falling across Northern California. At 11 AM on December 2nd, forty-eight hour rainfall totals in the Scott River Valley were 2.38” at Fort Jones and 2.79” at Callahan. As a result of the heavy rain, streams draining into the Scott River Valley – including the East and South Forks of Scott River - finally connected to the main Scott River on December 1.

This means that most Coho seeking to spawn in streams draining into Scott River will be able to reach prime spawning ground. KlamBlog has previously reported that Chinook Salmon were denied access to these spawning grounds as a result of a relatively dry fall combined with stream dewatering by some irrigators, including those using the Farmers Ditch in the Upper Scott Valley below Callahan.

Judging from USGS streamflow data  Scott Valley tributaries to Scott River probably briefly connected to the main river on November 22nd at the end of the last sustained rainfall period. However, streamflow dropped quickly at the end of those storms to well below the long-term average and the streams once again disconnected from the main river. 

 

Scott River Flows - USGS Gage - Nov. 26 - Dec. 3, 2012

Much of the relatively large run of Chinook salmon which ascended the Scott River in October was not able to access the highest quality spawning grounds in streams entering Scott Valley including (from the lower end of Scott Valley to the top at Callahan) Shakleford Creek, Kidder Creek, Patterson Creek, Etna Creek, French Creek, Sugar Creek, Wildcat Creek, East Fork and South Fork.

This year the Scott River in Scott Valley below Etna Creek did not go completely dry although flows below Etna became very low. As KlamBlog reported, however, the River did go dry below the Farmers Ditch in what is known as the "tailings section" of Scott Valley below Callahan. In dryer years, however, Scott River often goes dry below Fort Jones. When the rains do not return early enough, Chinook salmon can not even access spawning grounds in the main part of Scott Valley – much less in the tributaries.

Why the disconnect?

Irrigation interest in the Scott River Valley – and their supporters on the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors – are fond of claiming that these streams disconnected from the River even before the coming of white Europeans and the onset of irrigation diversions.

There is some truth in that. The main streams enter Scott Valley from the western mountains. Past storms and floods have carried much sand, soil and gravel from these mountains and deposited the load in broad alluvial fans where the streams leave the mountains. It is probable that some of these streams went underground toward the end of the dry season in late summer and early fall when flows were lowest. However, it is clear from old journals and reports that the major streams – including Shakleford, Kidder, Etna and French Creeks as well as the East and South Forks - connected to Scott River year around. Even the smaller tributaries flowed for much longer periods during spring and early summer and returned sooner in the Fall.

So what factors account for the fact that Chinook salmon – which once spawned in all Scott River tributaries – now only make it to prime spawning grounds in the tributary creeks in wetter years?

Learning from Fire: The 2012 Fort Complex Fires on the Klamath National Forest

This KlamBlog features a report from a first time KlamBlog contributor. Luke Ruediger feels passionately about his home in the Upper Applegate River Valley near the Red Buttes Wilderness and Kangaroo Roadless Areas. But Luke goes beyond emotion. Operator of his own restoration company, Luke has studied the forests of the Klamath Mountains from the bottom up – applying on-the-ground experience and book knowledge – in order to gain a deep understanding.

When fire came to Luke’s “backyard” during the summer of 2012, he was concerned but also curious. Luke learned all he could from fire managers and – once the fire was contained – he ventured into the burned landscape to learn firsthand what the fire had done to the land and vegetation, as well as how the fire was fought, the consequences of the strategies and tactics employed by fire managers.

 View of the Goff Fire above Seiad Valley with Klamath River in the foreground.

Here is a link to Luke's Report. It is what I call the “natural history” of the Fort Complex Fires; since people are part of nature, the history of how the fire was fought is part of the story.

Unfortunately, fire histories like the one Luke has written about the Fort Complex are rare. Forest Service managers and firefighters do not like having the strategies and tactics they employed examined. The information that is shared by the Forest Service during a fire is of the public relations type; the details of how the fire was fought are obscured and difficult to obtain. Fire managers do not even map the areas they burn in backfires and burnouts’ making it difficult for anyone to study the manager’s discretionary suppression actions and the natural wildfires as distinct and different. As you will read below, however, wildfires and discretionary suppression fires often behave very differently in these Klamath Mountains and they have different impacts on land, vegetation and water.

Firefighters operating in wilderness and roadless backcountry are supposed to use Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics (MIST) in order to minimize impacts from suppression efforts. Links to several presentations of Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics are provided below.  Unfortunately, whether MIST is used or not is a local decision made by the forest supervisor and fire managers. In walking and studying every large fire which has burned in the Klamath Mountains since 1987, I've discovered that MIST was followed only in a few cases.

Typically firefighters have used the same strategies and tactics in wilderness and backcountry that they use where there are roads, homes and communities.  But, in spite of many miles of firelines, hot burnouts and massive backfires, firefighters have never successfully suppressed a Klamath Mountains wildfire which was burning in wilderness or roadless backcountry.  Since at least 1987 it has always been the coming of fall rain and snow which puts out the big backcountry fires.  

Because of the aggressive and destructive manner in which local Forest Service managers and firefighters have chosen to suppress fire in backcountry, I believe discretionary wildfire suppression is - along with livestock grazing -  the #1 factor degrading Klamath Mountains wilderness. Furthermore, aggressive wildfire suppression is inconsistent with the stated Forest Service goal of returning fire to a more natural role in the Klamath Mountains.

 Portion of the burnout along Portuguese Creek in the Kangaroo Roadless Area

Fire is a major force within the Klamath Mountains and throughout the American West; fire fighting and the impacts to land, water and vegetation that result from fire fighting are major and controversial. The natural histories of these wildfires make it possible for citizens and responsible officials to examine and learn from the wildfires and from efforts to manage and suppress them. Through open examination of fire fighting strategies and tactics at the community, agency, regional and (ultimately) national levels, we can learn how wildfire works and reform our approach to wildfire - including when, were and how we choose to "fight" them.

 <<<<<<<>>>>>>>

Follow this link to read Luke Ruediger's history of this year's Fort Complex Fires

Follow the links below to learn about Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics (MIST) 

• http://www.wildfirelessons.net/documents/GB_Mist_Guidelines.pdf
• http://archive.org/details/gov.nwcg.nfes.2916 
• http://www.nifc.gov/PUBLICATIONS/redbook/2003/AppendixU.pdf 
• http://www.wilderness.net/toolboxes/documents/fire/MIST_implementation.PDF

Klamath Dealmakers come to Humboldt County

It will come as no news to readers of KlamBlog that we do not like the Klamath Dam and Water Deals - the KHSA and KBRA.  We don't like these deals because they favor the 1%. The Dam Deal lets PacifiCorp's shareholders escape responsibility for removing a non-performing asset - the Klamath River Dams - from the Klamath River; The KBRA sacrifices the Klamath Wildlife Refuges and Klamath Salmon Recovery in order to maximize irrigation water deliveries to the Basin's Irrigation Elite, especially the eight very big growers who control most of the prime land within the BOR's Klamath Irrigation Project. The KBRA also puts management of the People's Klamath River - and its Public Trust water - into the hands of bureaucrats making decisions behind closed doors. KlamBlog thinks that is just wrong.

On Wednesday November 14th those governments and organizations which have signed onto these deals will  meet in Eureka in a public show meeting at which they will pass amendments to the KBRA. The meeting will be a show because the decision to approve the amendments (which make a bad deal worse) has already been made behind closed doors.

 Proposed KBRA Water Deal Amendments will facilitated dewatering key Upper Klamath 

River Basin National Wildlife Refuges in order to maximize irrigation water delivery

On Tuesday November 13th the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors - which has signed onto the deals - will consider whether to approve the amendments. The supervisors were forced to do that in public by crusading citizens - including Northcoast fisheries biologist and Humboldt Bay Commissioner Pat Higgins and citizen activist and rabblerouser Syvia De Rooy. Below is Sylvia's Call Out to the events. 

KlamBlog calls out too. We call on all Humboldt County citizens who don't like sweetheart deals for the 1% - and for those who think water for salmon should have a higher priority than water for irrigation - to come out and jam these meetings. Bring big signs telling the Humboldt County Supervisors and other dealmakers that they are on the wrong side. Come out for the Salmon and for open and democratic management of the People's Klamath River.

KlamBlog will be there and we'll be looking for you!

  

Urgent Call Out from Sylvia De Rooy

On Tuesday and Wednesday, the 13^th and 14^th, we need to make our presence felt. On Tuesday the Board of Sups need to hear us tell them to dump the KBRA. Consideration of the KBRA Water Deal is scheduled for 1:30 PM at the Humboldt County Courthouse in Eureka. 

The KBRA is scheduled to die on December 31. The KBCC (whose members are the signers of the KBRA) have decided they can’t let that happen, they have irrigator interests to protect. So, on Wednesday they will be holding a meeting at the Aquatic Center in Eureka to announce a 2 year extension for the KBRA. If even one signer says "no" to that it can’t be done.That meeting begins at 9 AM

On Tuesday the Board of Supervisors has agreed to put the KBRA on their agenda. They are holding firmly to their commitment to the KBRA.  They have hired Jill Duffy to be their representative and to report to them on all technical/scientific aspects of the KBRA as well as to provide technical assistance to working committees and to review the EIS/EIR and other plans and reports. She has absolutely no qualifications for that position but is getting $25,000 in grant money for that job. When she represented the county as a supervisor, she attended a total of ONE KBRA meeting in 18 months. The county signed on to the KBRA and KHSA at her recommendation. 

At least one supervisor seems to believe that if the county drops out they will lose “clout”. That this "clout" appear non-existent and that Humboldt County has made no attempt to use whatever "clout" they may have gained does not seem to matter. The bottom line is that there is no reason to believe that a single one of the supervisors has an in depth understanding of the KBRA although they have had ample opportunity to be informed on the issues by those who have that knowledge and understanding. 

There have been a number of activities tied into the KBRA that have been less than legal. Although a number of these illegalities have been pointed out to them, the Humboldt County supervisors continuing connection with the KBRA leaves the County vulnerable. The Supervisors seem to be oblivious to that. 

 Under the KBRA Water Deal decisions on the management and allocation 

of Klamath River water are made undemocratically and in secret.

It is critical right now to hold their feet to the fire. If the KBRA gets a two year extension either it will finally get Congressional approval, which would mean that nothing will happen to the dams until 2020, or it will not get approval and the players will keep pushing for extensions. Either way we will have lost another two years during which other solutions could have been worked for such as the FERC path to dam removal. 

On Tuesday there needs to be a huge turn out at the Bd of Sups with prepared statements asking them to justify the hiring of Jill Duffy, asking them to justify their stand on the KBRA, asking them to justify their qualifications to make the decisions they have been making by demonstrating an in depth knowledge of the issues. 

On Wednesday there needs to be an equally large turn out at the Aquatic Center. The KBCC has no governmental authority and has a track record of secret meetings. They need to see and hear that eyes and ears are upon them.

Let’s try for standing room only.

Call to Action: Activists will "welcome" Klamath Dealmakers to Humboldt County

It will come as no news to readers of KlamBlog that we do not like the Klamath Dam and Water Deals - the KHSA and KBRA.  We don't like these deals because they favor the 1%. The Dam Deal lets PacifiCorp's shareholders escape responsibility for removing a non-performing asset - the Klamath River Dams - from the Klamath River; The KBRA sacrifices the Klamath Wildlife Refuges and Klamath Salmon Recovery in order to maximize irrigation water deliveries to the Basin's Irrigation Elite, especially the eight very big growers who control most of the prime land within the BOR's Klamath Irrigation Project. The KBRA also puts management of the People's Klamath River - and its Public Trust water - into the hands of bureaucrats making decisions behind closed doors. KlamBlog thinks that is just wrong.

On Wednesday November 14th those governments and organizations which have signed onto these deals will  meet in Eureka in a public show meeting at which they will pass amendments to the KBRA. The meeting will be a show because the decision to approve the amendments (which make a bad deal worse) has already been made behind closed doors. 

 Proposed KBRA Water Deal Amendments will facilitated dewatering key Upper Klamath 

River Basin National Wildlife Refuges in order to maximize irrigation water delivery

On Tuesday November 13th the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors - which has signed onto the deals - will consider whether to approve the amendments. The supervisors were forced to do that in public by crusading citizens - including Northcoast fisheries biologist and Humboldt Bay Commissioner Pat Higgins and citizen activist and rabblerouser Syvia De Rooy. Below is Sylvia's Call Out to the events. 

KlamBlog calls out too. We call on all Humboldt County citizens who don't like sweetheart deals for the 1% - and for those who think water for salmon should have a higher priority than water for irrigation - to come out and jam these meetings. Bring big signs telling the Humboldt County Supervisors and other dealmakers that they are on the wrong side. Come out for the Salmon and for open and democratic management of the People's Klamath River. 

KlamBlog will be there and we'll be looking for you!

  

Urgent Call Out from Sylvia De Rooy

On Tuesday and Wednesday, the 13^th and 14^th, we need to make our presence felt. On Tuesday the Board of Sups need to hear us tell them to dump the KBRA. Consideration of the KBRA Water Deal is scheduled for 1:30 PM at the Humboldt County Courthouse in Eureka.

The KBRA is scheduled to die on December 31. The KBCC (whose members are the signers of the KBRA) have decided they can’t let that happen, they have irrigator interests to protect. So, on Wednesday they will be holding a meeting at the Aquatic Center in Eureka to announce a 2 year extension for the KBRA. If even one signer says "no" to that it can’t be done.That meeting begins at 9 AM

On Tuesday the Board of Supervisors has agreed to put the KBRA on their agenda. They are holding firmly to their commitment to the KBRA.  They have hired Jill Duffy to be their representative and to report to them on all technical/scientific aspects of the KBRA as well as to provide technical assistance to working committees and to review the EIS/EIR and other plans and reports. She has absolutely no qualifications for that position but is getting $25,000 in grant money for that job. When she represented the county as a supervisor, she attended a total of ONE KBRA meeting in 18 months. The county signed on to the KBRA and KHSA at her recommendation.

At least one supervisor seems to believe that if the county drops out they will lose “clout”. That this "clout" appear non-existent and that Humboldt County has made no attempt to use whatever "clout" they may have gained does not seem to matter. The bottom line is that there is no reason to believe that a single one of the supervisors has an in depth understanding of the KBRA although they have had ample opportunity to be informed on the issues by those who have that knowledge and understanding. 

There have been a number of activities tied into the KBRA that have been less than legal. Although a number of these illegalities have been pointed out to them, the Humboldt County supervisors continuing connection with the KBRA leaves the County vulnerable. The Supervisors seem to be oblivious to that.

 Under the KBRA Water Deal decisions on the management and allocation 

of Klamath River water are made undemocratically and in secret.

It is critical right now to hold their feet to the fire. If the KBRA gets a two year extension either it will finally get Congressional approval, which would mean that nothing will happen to the dams until 2020, or it will not get approval and the players will keep pushing for extensions. Either way we will have lost another two years during which other solutions could have been worked for such as the FERC path to dam removal.

On Tuesday there needs to be a huge turn out at the Bd of Sups with prepared statements asking them to justify the hiring of Jill Duffy, asking them to justify their stand on the KBRA, asking them to justify their qualifications to make the decisions they have been making by demonstrating an in depth knowledge of the issues. 

On Wednesday there needs to be an equally large turn out at the Aquatic Center. The KBCC has no governmental authority and has a track record of secret meetings. They need to see and hear that eyes and ears are upon them.

Let’s try for standing room only.

Hot Rhetoric: Scott River irrigator attacks KlamBlog's chief writer

KlamBlog has been getting quite a bit of feedback on our last post - the one titled -  Illegal Irrigation in the Scott River Valley is blocking salmon access - and not just in comments on our blog site. Readers will remember that our post features a letter to California Governor Jerry Brown from KlamBlog's editor and chief writer, Felice Pace. That letter stirred up a hornets nest in Siskiyou County. 

Our post - and Felice's letter to Governor Brown - allege illegal operation of the Farmers Ditch in the Upper Scott River Valley. We claim - and document with photos - that the Farmers Ditch is taking the entire flow of the Scott River, dewatering the river below. The dewatered section of Scott River below Farmers Ditch prevents Chinook Salmon from reaching prime spawning grounds in the upper Scott River Watershed.

Felice’s letter asks Governor Brown to intervene in order to stop the illegal dewatering of the Scott River.

Fowle flack  

One of the critiques of our claim - and Felice's letter to Governor Brown - is in a blog post on the website of Scott Valley rancher Jeff Fowle.  Fowle's post - and a longer letter to the governor which he drafted - make several statement about what Felice does and does not know. In the blog post Fowle calls Felice a liar, not once but several times. For example: "Mr. Pace is aware of this ability and is deliberately lying…despicable." 

In his blog post, Mr. Fowle also states with assurance that Felice trespassed on private property and that he is aware of local irrigation options that do not involve use of the Farmers Ditch. Both claims are made up. 

KlamBlog does not have time to debunk all this fellows "Felice claims" and frankly, so many folks in Strange (aka Siskiyou) County make up things about Felice and claim to know his motives that we find the whole topic terribly boring. We will, however, set the record straight on Mr. Fowle's claims about how Farmers Ditch is operated by himself and the other owners.

Illegal Irrigation in the Scott River Valley is blocking salmon access

Below is an emergency message to Governor Jerry Brown from KlamBlog editor and chief writer Felice Pace concerning the dewatering of the Scott River.  While many irrigators in the Scott and Shasta River Basins voluntarily stopped diverting water even for stock watering this year in order to help the largest recent run of migrating salmon reach their spawning grounds, some irrigators in the Scott Valley continue not only to divert stock water but also to irrigate pastures long after the irrigation season officially ended. 

One of the Siskiyou County irrigator groups which continues full diversion and wide-spread irrigation today is the Farmers Ditch in the Scott River Valley. As you will read below in Felice's letter to the governor, this ditch has a history of illegal and salmon killing operations. According to Felice, past inaction by state and federal officials in the face of lawbreaking by operators of the Farmers Ditch has encouraged continued lawlessness. Felice also points out that these irrigators are diverting the entire flow of Scott River - thereby dewatering the River and preventing salmon from reaching habitat that the State of California and the federal government spent many millions of dollars restoring. 

Farmers Ditch is not the only abuse of irrigation in the Scott River Valley which is hurting salmon; but it is the most egregious abuse. KlamBlog will publish a full report soon on how and why the largest run of salmon in recent history has been denied access to the best spawning and rearing habitat in the entire Scott River system. We will also focus in that report on the laws which state and federal officials refuse to enforce that could end persistent and flagrantly lawless water use by some Scott River agricultural operators.  At that time we will name names - identifying those in the agricultural community whose selfish, irresponsible and illegal actions are progressively extirpating Chinook Salmon from much of the Scott River Basin. 

Felice also supplied photos showing Farmers Ditch full of water, the illegal irrigation being done with that water and the dewatered Scott River below the diversion. Here are a few of those photos:

The Farmers Ditch running full on October 24th and the dewatered Scott River 

beyond. Irrigation was supposed to end in Scott Valley on October 15th. 

 One of a number of fields being illegally irrigated using Farmers Ditch

 Part of the Scott River which is being dewatered. Operators of 

the Farmers Ditch are diverting the entire flow of Scott River

 Salmon spawning habitat at the junction of Scott River's 

East Fork and South Fork. The entire flow of Scott River is 

being diverted into the Farmers Ditch below this point

Below is a copy of the web letter Felice sent to the governor:

October 25, 2012

Governor Jerry Brown

Via Web Form on Governor Brown’s Web Site

http://govnews.ca.gov/

Dear Governor Brown,

Your intervention is needed immediately to prevent a tragedy in the Scott River Valley. A large number of Chinook Salmon are in the Scott River waiting to get to their spawning grounds. However, because the Farmers Ditch is running full at an estimated 6-8 cubic feet per second 10 full days after irrigation was supposed to end under the Scott River Adjudication,the Scott River is dewatered and disconnected in the area below the Farmer's Ditch is diverting the full flow of Scott River. 

Unless this ditch is turned down or off soon, Chinook salmon will not be able to spawn in the Upper Scott River, the east Fork, the South Fork, Sugar Creek, Wildcat Creek and several other tributaries. Spawning and production fro the largest run in recent history will be lost. The benefit of millions of dollars the state and federal government has spent restoring habitat above the Farmer's Ditch will be rendered useless and ineffective. This is something you can and should stop.

Irrigators along the Farmers Ditch are using the pretext of a stock-watering right to continue irrigation far beyond the legal irrigation season. I have pictures showing that some of the fields being irrigated do not even have livestock in them. I also have pictures of the full ditch and the dewatered river below this diversion. I am going to send those to the press this morning along with a copy of this message to you. If you will supply me with an e-mail address that will get noticed, I'll send those pictures to you too.

For years I and others have been asking your Department of Water Resources, your Department of Fish & Game and the State Water Resources Control Board which you appoint to address this abusive and intentional lawbreaking. A few years ago, I presented a PowerPoint to the SWRCB which showed illegal, out of season irrigation being done from this very ditch.

A few years ago this ditch was turned on in the Spring in a manner that dewatered the Scott River below the diversion. Several hundred thousand Salmon and Steelhead died as a result, including listed Coho Salmon. While state officials knew about this and referred the ditch manager to the DA, only a slap on the wrist resulted and the matter was not reported to or by the press. In this way, state officials and the DA countenanced lawbreaking and thereby encouraged that lawbreaking - and the dewatering of the river - to continue.

In spite of numerous attempts over the past ten years to get responsible officials to do their sworn duties in order to stop the illegal irrigation and illegal use of this ditch in violation of several Water and Fish & Game Codes, these officials have done nothing.That is why I am contacting you in hopes that you will take action to help the Scott River Salmon and all the other water users who suffer bad publicity because of the illegal actions of this one irrigation district or private group of irrigators, i.e. those who control the Farmers Ditch in the Scott River Basin.

Please, please take action quick for the Salmon and the People.

Via Web Form

Felice Pace

Help Scott River Salmon reach their spawning grounds by joining Felice's call to Governor Brown. Ask the governor to end the lawless Farmers Ditch diversion and free the Scott River Salmon so that taxpayer restoration investments are not wasted.

Contact Governor Brown via web form at this link or call, fax or write to:

                                Governor Jerry Brown
                                c/o State Capitol, Suite 1173
                                Sacramento, CA 95814

                                Phone: (916) 445-2841
                                Fax: (916) 558-3160

Lessons from Klamath History: A tribute to Petey Brucker

On Saturday October 6th the Salmon River Restoration Council celebrated twenty years of work to sustain and restore the watersheds and communities of the Salmon River Basin, aka the Cal Salmon.Check out the excellent report on the event written by Two Rivers Tribune reporter Malcolm Terrance at this link.

A highlight of the event was a tribute to SRRC founder and long time executive director Petey Brucker. Three of Petey's closest compadres - Felice Pace, Ron Reed and Jennifer Silvera - spoke about the contributions which Petey has made over the years to the human and ecological communities of the Salmon River and Klamath River Basin.The staff then presented Petey with a plaque of appreciation. Dominating the plaque is a Spring Chinook Salmon in high relief.      

Reproduced below is the tribute to Petey which KlamBlog editor and chief writer Felice Pace produced for the event. Due to time constraints, Felice could only summarize the tribute at the celebration. KlamBlog presents it here because the tribute recounts important events in the People's History of Klamath Country. 

Our culture discourages historical memory. Perhaps that is part of why we seem to repeat the same mistakes over and over. KlamBlog believes it is only possible to truly understand current events if we view them within an accurate historical context. We hope you enjoy and learn not only from Petey's example but also portions of the People's History recounted by Felice in his tribute to Petey Brucker published for the very first time below.

                                     <<<<<<<>>>>>>>    

Community Man: A tribute to Petey Brucker 

by Felice Pace   

          When I was asked to speak here about my friend Petey it took me all of a second to accept the invitation. Not surprising really – older folks like to go on and on and I have never been accused of being shy or reticent when it comes to public speaking. The truth is, however, that there is very little that can give me more pleasure than to tell folks about my friend Petey and especially about the history we shared together.

Petey takes a rare break at Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge

A big part of that history is the founding of both the Klamath Forest Alliance (KFA) and the Salmon River Restoration Council (SRRC) and the events that led Petey, myself and several other folks – most from the Salmon River - to create those organizations. Some of you may not realize that it was KFA which provided the support Petey needed to create SRCC. Some probably don’t know that it was also KFA – in support of Cynthia Poten’s vision – which created Klamath Riverkeeper. That is KFA’s mission – to support progressive activists in going for and realizing their hopes and visions. Please understand that KFA is still there and still available to a new generation of activists to help you realize your hopes, dreams and visions in service to the community of all living beings.  

But let’s get back to the story.

For me the beginning was the herbicide wars. I suspect it is difficult if not impossible for those of you who did not live through it to understand and appreciate what it was like back then for those of us who lived in homesteads and communities surrounded by national forest land. We could hardly believe it ourselves. Many of us had fought hard to end the Vietnam War; we had decried the use of Agent Orange on the land and people of Vietnam. We won an end to that war only to find that the chemicals and helicopters – the war itself - had come home – the chemicals we decried when used in Vietnam were now being used against us!

Fragmentation and Commercialization on the Klamath: Why greed and self-aggrandizement are in the ascendancy

It was not too long ago that those seeking restoration of the Klamath River and Klamath Salmon acted with one purpose – if not with one voice. That unity of purpose and action was not an accident; it was the product of many years of hard work forging partnerships and trust, formal and informal coalitions.

Unity on behalf of Salmon and the River was the key ingredient leading to the first ever reallocation of water from agriculture to in-stream uses in Klamath Country. Unity also played a key role in securing an order for fish ladders on PacifiCorp’s Klamath River dams; it is that requirement which rendered the Klamath Hydroelectric Project an annual money loser if relicensed.  And that, in turn, led to PacifiCorp seeking a dam removal deal.

 In 2004 united tribes, enviros and fishermen lined Rt 101 in Eureka and packed 

a hearing to pressure FERC to order removal of PacifiCorp's Klamath River Dams

United action by those seeking river and salmon restoration exposed contradictions in the disparate mandates of federal agencies. For the Bureau of Reclamation the mission is simple and direct: to serve the irrigators to whom it supplies water; for National Marine Fisheries and the US Fish and Wildlife Services the mission is to protect fish – especially those species listed as threatened and endangered pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act. The coalition of tribes, enviros and fishermen, emphasized the contradictions in federal agency missions and mandates in strong challenges to federal management of Klamath water. 

Federal bureaucrats leading these agencies’ Klamath River Basin offices became desperate for a means to resolve the contradictions in mission and water management as they were playing out in Klamath Country.  Visionary leaders among those bureaucrats hatched a plan and sold it to their superiors. The feds proceeded to bring together various “interests” to resolve demands for Klamath water in a way which would also resolve the conflicting Klamath mandates of federal agencies.

After Condit Dam...and on the Klamath?

PacifiCorp's Condit Dam on Washington State's White Salmon River was breached on October 26, 2011. Removal of the dam was completed in August 2012. Here's what that stretch of the River looks like today:

Site of the former Condit Dam

Boaters are already navigating this stretch of the White Salmon River and restoration activities are underway. 

PacifiCorp's Condit Hydroelectric Project was removed by order of FERC - the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. PacifiCorp negotiated the removal order after fish ladders and other relicensing requirments rendered the aging hydroelectric project an annual money loser. 

This is exactly parallel to the situation on the Klamath. PacifiCorp's aging Klamath Hydroelectric Project could be relicensed. But relicensing requirements - including fish ladders and a change in "ramping rates" (turning the river on and off in order to generate electricity) - would render the Project an annual money loser.

The difference on the Klamath is that federal, state and tribal officials and PacifiCorp have conspired to allow PacifiCorp to walk away from the dams and powerhouses it owns in exchange for attaching a costly and controversial water deal - the KBRA - to the dam removal deal negotiated outside FERC. That's a sweetheart deal for the "one percent" if there ever was one!

One of the most controversial aspects of the KBRA Water Deal is that it seeks to "cap" the amount of water that is allowed to flow down the Klamath River. That would not be a problem if the capped amount was sufficient to support recovery of at-risk Coho and Chinook salmon. But that is not the case. KBRA Klamath River flows are calculated to prevent extinction but not sufficient for recovery. 

Of course KBRA promoters point to the "environmental water" which the KBRA seeks to "create" through voluntary sale and retirement of private water rights or through one of more new dams and reservoirs. It is this "new" water, they say, which will lead to salmon recovery. However, while promoters speak about this water as if it already existed, the track record nationally when water deals call for the creation of "environmental water" has not been good. As in other poorly negotiated environmental deals, we know of no instance where promised "environmental water"  has actually materialized as real (wet) water in a stream.  

Tom Schlosser: It’s time to move toward dam removal.

Editor's note: 

Soon after KlamBlog published our August 6th post - KHSA or FERC: Which offers the best path to dam removal? -we invited Glen Spain and other partisans deeply involved in Klamath dam, water and salmon issues to provide guest KlamBlogs responding to the question: What is the best path to dam removal?

Glen Spain responded first with his post -  Why the Klamath Settlement remains the best route to dam removal and salmon restoration - which KlamBlog published on August 21st. We now publish Tom Schlosser's guest post responding to Mr. Spain's post. 

Thomas B. Schlosser is a director at Morrisset, Schlosser, Jozwiak and Sommerville - Attorneys at Law. He is widely published on Indian Law and has several Klamath-related publications including "DEWATERING TRUST RESPONSIBILITY: THE NEW KLAMATH RIVER HYDROELECTRIC AND RESTORATION AGREEMENTS"

KlamBlog invites additional  dialogue on this blog concerning the best path to Klamath Dam removal. Comment on the posts or submit a post of your own. We hope dialogue here will be a precursor to face-to-face discussions and a reuniting of those who want to take down the dams, restore the Klamath River and  recover Klamath Salmon. 

The current impasse must end; the sooner the better.

Felice Pace
KlamBlog editor

______________________________


           Thanks for the opportunity to correct the claims about the Klamath Settlement Agreements put forward by Mr. Spain of PCFFA.  We must think beyond Mr. Spain’s false choices and consider revising the two Settlement Agreements and separating water rights issues from dam licensing.  It’s truly amazing that PacifiCorp has induced groups such as PCFFA to agree to defend operation of its obsolete hydroelectric projects indefinitely unless Congress passes hugely expensive legislation that allocates water poorly and authorizes the government to remove the dams.

          Big federal legislation is not the usual trigger for dam removal; instead, when dam owners find they can no longer economically operate dams under applicable law, they ask, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) directs, private removal of the dam.  That would happen on the Klamath had not PacifiCorp and other parties agreed to block the FERC process and condition dam removal upon lop-sided Upper Basin water deals.  The claim that “FERC has never in its entire history ordered dams to come down,” is entirely false.  For example, PacifiCorp exploded Condit Dam in 2011 pursuant to a FERC order, not an Act of Congress. 

The removal of Condit Dam on Washington's White Salmon River

was ordered by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

Section 401

          Mr. Spain discusses Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification, but misunderstands its significance.  A Section 401 Certification by California or Oregon is not needed for a FERC order that will cause dam removal.  The volitional fish passage and operational conditions, already prescribed by the National Marine Fisheries Service and by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (and upheld by Judge McKenna), make operation of the dams uneconomic under a FERC license.  PacifiCorp proved to the Public Utilities Commissions that removal of four dams is now the cost-effective solution. 

          The States, rather than fighting for cleaner water, have agreed with PacifiCorp to use the Section 401 certification process to block FERC licensing to achieve other objectives in the (Sacramento-San Joaquin) Delta and Upper Basin.  The States are not willing to fight with the utility.  (“We might get sued!”)

          While FERC cannot issue a license without a timely Section 401 Certification from the States, the Clean Water Act requires that such certifications be issued within one year of the application. That time lapsed in 2007.  PacifiCorp convinced Oregon and California to extend that one-year period indefinitely by allowing PacifiCorp to annually file letters withdrawing and “resubmitting” its application.  While FERC has not approved that trick, neither has it yet exercised its authority to rule that the States have waived their Section 401 permitting authority.  The Hoopa Valley Tribe has asked FERC to so rule, and to incorporate the fisheries conditions into a license immediately. 

Glen Spain: Why the Klamath Settlement Remains the best route to dam removal and salmon restoration

 Editor's note: 

Soon after KlamBlog published our August 6th post - KHSA or FERC: Which offers the best path to dam removal? -we invited Glen Spain and other partisans deeply involved in Klamath dam, water and salmon issues to provide guest KlamBlogs responding to the question: What is the best path to dam removal?

Glen Spain was the first to submit a guest blog; you will find it below. Glen has represented the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations (PCFFA) on Klamath River and salmon issues for many years. He represented PCFFA in Klamath Settlement Negotiations which led to the KHSA Dam Deal and the KBRA Water Deal. 

PCFFA signed the Deals and Glen Spain has emerged as one of the agreements' most ardent defenders. The KHSA and KBRA are separate unrelated agreements which have been politically joined. While, as Glen points out, many provisions of the KBRA and KHSA are already being implemented, others require Congressional approval. Senator Merkley's S.1851 and Representative Thompson's HR 3398 would provide those authorizations. 

It is my hope as KlamBlog editor that our August 6th post and Glen's submission below will advance understanding of options for removal of PacifiCorp's Klamath River dams. KlamBlog has invited other knowledgeable partisans to join the "conversation" by submitting related commentaries. We will not, however, invite opponents of dam removal to submit posts because we do not think relicensing the dams is a realistic option. Relicensed PacifiCorp dams would lose an estimated $24 million each year. No private, for-profit corporation (and no public entity in its right mind) will retain an asset which loses millions for shareholders (or taxpayers) each year.

You can join the "conversation" too by commenting on any KlamBlog post.

Felice Pace
KlamBlog editor
____________________________

  

WHY THE KLAMATH SETTLEMENT REMAINS THE BEST ROUTE TO FOUR-DAM REMOVAL AND SALMON RESTORATION IN THE KLAMATH

By Glen Spain, NW Regional Director
Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations (PCFFA)


     There is a raging debate within the Klamath Basin about how best to take out all four PacifiCorp hydropower dams (J.C. Boyle, Copco Dams 1 & 2 and the Iron Gate Dam).   Where one stands, however, depends mostly on how one believes the future will unfold -- and that debate is therefore all the more heated, since the future is inherently unknowable.   As the great Yogi Berra once said, “It is dangerous to make predictions -- especially about the future.” 

     However, since the current 50-year FERC license (issued in 1957) has now expired, and the Klamath Hydropower Project must limp along on automatic annual license renewals (as FERC allows while relicensing  is unresolved), opponents of the Klamath Hydropower Settlement Agreement (KHSA) believe there are now only two ultimate choices for these dams:  (1) move forward toward four-dam removal under the currently signed Klamath Hydropower Settlement Agreement (KHSA), which will push dam removal to 2020, or; (2) ditch the KHSA entirely and revert back to the standard FERC process where (they hope) FERC will unilaterally order four-dam removal sooner than another eight (8) years. 

     There is, unfortunately, a third alternative out of the FERC process -- i.e., partial relicensing, particularly of the J.C. Boyle Dams, which they fail to consider as a possible FERC outcome.  If this occurs we will have missed the chance for restoration of a free-flowing Klamath River for at least another 40 years -- i.e., until at least the year 2052.  This risk is rather high.

J.C. Boyle Dam is located in Oregon just north of the California border

     All available pathways – returning back to the FERC process or proceeding with the Klamath Hydropower Settlement Agreement (KHSA) -- have inherent uncertainties, to be sure.  But which is the fastest and most certain pathway?  On this even reasonable people of the best intentions disagree.  Here below is PCFFA’s reasoning, which also reflects the reasoning of the other 40+ Parties to the Settlement Agreement.

KHSA or FERC: Which offers the best path to dam removal?

The New York Times has embraced the Obama Administration’s interpretation of the conflict over PacifiCorp’s Klamath River Dams. In a July 19th feature, the Times accepted without question Interior Secretary Ken Salizar’s claim that the “Tea Party” is blocking plans to remove four Klamath River dams, restore the Klamath River and recover Klamath Salmon.

Salizar is promoting an us-v-them interpretation of conflict over the Klamath Dam and Water Deals. As was the case in 2001 when Dick Chaney got involved in Klamath River issues, the Obama Administration seeks to assure that its candidates carry Oregon this November.  

 The radical right was active in the Klamath River Basin long before the Tea Party.

This photo shows  a 2001 irrigation cut-off protest which attracted the Right's 
racist fringe. It is against federal law to fly the American Flag upside down. 

Klamath reality, however, is more complicated. While the Tea Party has embraced opposition to the Klamath Deals, they are also opposed by three of the Klamath River Basin’s six federal tribes as well as by those local and regional environmental groups which have worked on Klamath issues the longest. In addition to the Northcoast Environmental Center, Oregon Wild and Water Watch, the Sierra Club has advocated moving forward with state water quality certification for PacifiCorp’s Klamath River Dams – a move that would place the fate of the dams in the hands of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) rather than Congress.

A return to the normal FERC dam licensing process could scuttle not only the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA) but also the politically linked Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KHSA).

While the wider public’s attention is directed toward the Obama Administration-Tea Party conflict, a debate within the Basin’s environmental and tribal communities rages over the quickest, surest and best path to achieve removal of four Klamath River Dams owned by PacifiCorp. Partisans on both sides of the debate believe the dams will inevitably come down because – if they are relicensed with modern requirements – they will lose an estimated $24 million each year. No for-profit company will retain an asset which loses money each and every year.  For those who care the most about the Klamath River and Klamath Salmon, however, there is deep disagreement about the quickest, surest and best path to Klamath dam removal.

Two Paths

There are two paths which, along with variations, constitute options for removing PacifiCorp’s Klamath River Dams.  The dams can be removed as a result of the normal FERC dam relicensing process; or they can be removed under the KHSA Dam Deal.

California Trout’s Curtis Knight and Glen Spain of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations (PCFFA) have emerged as prominent defenders of the Klamath Dam and Water Deals – the KHSA and KBRA. Both gentlemen have published numerous pro-deal commentaries and opinions; most make the same points. Here are links to representative commentaries from Mr. Knight and Mr. Spain.

In the remainder of this post KlamBlog examines three key claims supporting promoter’s assertion that the KHSA Dam Deal is the quickest, surest and best path to removal of four of the five Klamath River dams owned by PacifiCorp.

As part of our mission to inform the public about complex issue, KlamBlog has previously examined and evaluated claims made by KHSA and KBRA promoters and opponents. The difference in this post is that here we do not rely primarily on our own analysis; this time we rely on a recent article on dam removal prospects published in the Seattle Journal of Environmental Law.  

Preventing another Klamath Salmon Kill - Are the feds doing enough?

A large run of Fall Chinook salmon is expected to enter the Klamath River beginning in August. The unusually large salmon run is expected at a time when Klamath River flows have been cut to the minimum in order to maximize water delivery to water users in the Upper Klamath River Basin - including a golf and country club.

 Reams Golf and Country Club just South of Klamath Falls, Oregon.

Under the KBRA Water Deal keeping fairways green is a higher 

water priority than keeping Klamath Salmon alive and healthy 

The situation is similar to conditions in August 2002 when over 60,000 adult salmon perished in the Lower Klamath River due to a disease epidemic caused by overcrowding, low flows and poor water quality.

The Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) is preparing an environmental assessment for release of water from Trinity Dam and Reservoir in order to help prevent another adult salmon fish kill in the Lower Klamath River. However, BOR refuses to even consider releasing more water down the Klamath mainstem where adult migrating salmon will also be at risk when the upriver migration begins in August.  

Management for the 1%

The refusal to do anything to prevent a fish kill on the Klamath side reflects the dominance of federal management in the Upper Klamath River Basin by the Klamath Irrigation Elite - the group of eight very large growers (not the folks themselves but their ag operations) who lease lots of public and private land at ridiculously low prices and who dominate the Klamath Water Users Association.


These wealthy and powerful growers refuse to allow downsizing of the BOR's Klamath Irrigation Project in order to balance supply of and demand for Klamath River water. The Irrigation Elite refuse to allow downsizing because that might raise the price they pay to lease land and therefore reduce their profit margins.  Higher lease prices would help small farmers in the Upper Klamath River Basin; many of them must lease their land because they can not make a profit on the small acreage they own. Many farmers in that situation are senior citizens; their situation is exploited by the Irrigation Elite. 

Telling the BOR to do more

Another defeat for Suction Dredge Mining

On June 29th the Sacramento Bee reported that the newly enacted California state budget extends indefinitely the ban on suction dredge mining within California rivers and streams. A previously enacted ban was due to expire in 2016; the new provision will remain indefinitely unless the in-stream mining program administered by the California Department of Fish & Game can be made "self-supporting" and "unless unavoidable environmental impacts are addressed." While mining advocates deny it, the preponderance of scientific information holds that suction dredge mining degrades salmon habitat and frees highly toxic mercury previously trapped in bottom sediments. 

The Bee article quoted mining advocate Rachel Dunn who called the legislature's new moratorium "a scam" and vowed to challenge the budget action in court. It is unlikely, however, that such a lawsuit - if it is filed - would be successful. Like earlier court decisions, the new moratorium rests on solid factual ground: the real risks to fish and humans which suction dredging entails.It has also long been established that governments can charge fees equal to the cost of administering programs serving distinct groups of "users". Similarly, the validity of requiring environmental review for activities with potential to damage water quality and public trust resources including fisheries is well established in both state and federal law.      

 Suction dredge on the Scott River

Once a common sight, gold dredging has been banned in California since 2009

Defeat and Retaliation

The recent budget action is the latest in a string of defeats for so-called recreational mining. Backed by key state legislators, opponents of dredging have prevented suction dredges from operating in California waters since December 2006. 

Prior to the 2006 court injunction and subsequent legislative bans, hundreds of suction dredge miners spent summers living for free on public lands along the Klamath, its tributaries and other California rivers. While camping at one location within national forests has long been limited to a maximum 14-day stay, recreational miners were allowed to camp on national forest land for the entire summer and longer under the supposition that the activity was sanctioned by the 1872 mining law.  

Hoopa Valley Tribe moves against salmon-killing dams: Tribe petitions FERC to reassert jurisdiction

Late last week the struggle over the future of four mainstem Klamath River dams entered a new phase. On May 25th attorneys representing the Hoopa Valley Tribe (HVT) filed a petition with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). In the petition the Tribe asks FERC to issue a Declaratory Order:
             “(a) finding that the license applicant, PacifiCorp, has failed to diligently pursue re-licensing of the Klamath Project; (b) ordering PacifiCorp’s re-license application dismissed; and (c) directing PacifiCorp to file a plan for decommissioning of Project facilities.”

The Petition comes in the wake of yet another delay by the State of California in processing PacifiCorp’s application for certification that the company’s Klamath Hydroelectric Project (Project) meets Klamath River water quality standards. Those standards were established by the State of California to protect beneficial uses of the River’s water. Beneficial uses include salmon and steelhead and tribal cultural uses as well as swimming and recreation.  The certification is necessary before FERC can issue a new license for operation of the Project. 

 The Hoopa Valley Tribe's Governing Council has led efforts to

scuttle the KHSA and return the fate of PacifiCorp's dams to FERC

California Water Board fails to act

Those who believe that the Klamath Dam Deal – the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement or KHSA– is not in the public interest and will substantially delay removal of PacifiCorp’s Klamath River Dams, had hoped the California’s Water Resources Board – the SWRCB - would end the charade in which PacifiCorp withdraws and refiles its application for clean water certification each year. That maneuver causes FERC to delay a relicensing decision and instead to issue a one-year license for operation of the Project. So far the application for clean water certification has been withdrawn and refiled four times. Since PacifiCorp’s prior license expired, a total of six annual operating licenses have been issued by FERC.  

The delay in processing PacifiCorp’s relicensing application has allowed the company to operate its Klamath dams and powerhouses for six years without making changes already ordered in the FERC relicensing proceedings. Those changes include installing fish ladders and curtailing “ramping” in areas between the four dams. HVT wants to end the delays; it wants FERC to either order removal of the dams or to relicense PacifiCorp's Klamath Hydroelectric Project with fish ladders, new "ramping rates" and other changes designed to aide Klamath Salmon.

“Ramping” refers to the practice of cutting Klamath River flows between the dams to a trickle in order to maximize electric generation during parts of the day when wholesale electric rates are marginally higher, then turning the River back on and cutting electric generation when the wholesale rate is marginally lower.  “Ramping” is the key to Klamath Hydroelectric Project profitability.

Six years ago, an administrative law judge issued binding rulings as part of the FERC relicensing process. Attention focused then on the judge’s order that fish ladders would need to be installed on the dams. Of greater ultimate impact, however, was the judge’s finding that “ramping” as practiced by PacifiCorp was damaging resident Red Band trout and would need to be dramatically curtailed under a new license.

The “ramping” order meant PacifiCorp would lose up to $24 million each year if its Klamath Hydroelectric Project were relicensed.  That is what motivated the company to seek the KHSA Dam Deal. Under that Deal, PacifiCorp gets to walk away from the dams and facilities it owns free from responsibility for dam removal and free from all liability for toxic legacies which are likely lurking around 100 year old powerhouses.  

Under the KHSA Dam Deal, PacifiCorp shareholders would pay nothing to decommission the dams and powerhouses they own; instead taxpayers would pick up the shareholders’ costs. KlamBlog believes the KHSA is at its heart a deal tailored for the “1%” paid for by the “99%”.

 Warren Buffett - one of the world's richest men - is PacifiCorp's dominant shareholder

Will FERC act?

As the HVT notes in their petition, only Congress can authorize federal agencies to take on responsibility for dams and powerhouses PacifiCorp owns and only Congress can make federal taxpayers assume liability for PacifiCorp’s toxic legacies.  Since the required legislation is stalled in Congress, HVT believes FERC should reassert jurisdiction and order the company to decommission the Project it owns.

The HVT also points out in their petition that, in order for the KHSA Deal to move forward, the State of California must pass a bond measure by which California taxpayers will pay $250 million to remove PacifiCorp’s obsolete dams. But like the needed federal legislation, the California bond measure has been delayed and may never reach the ballot. California’s dismal financial position as well as opposition to new Sacramento Valley dams and a new pipeline to carry Sacramento and Trinity River water to Southern California, makes passage of the so-called “California Water Bond” unlikely any time soon.         

The HVT argues that poor prospects for federal legislation and for the California Water Bond should motivate FERC to end the delays, reassert jurisdiction, and to either order PacifiCorp to file a plan for decommissioning the Project or to relicense it with new requirements including fish ladders and reduced “ramping”. 

How FERC will respond is unknown; this is new territory for the Commission – an unprecedented situation. Will FERC tire of the state certification charade and reassert jurisdiction? Or will appointed Commission members – like members of the SWRCB – bow to the desires of those who hold the power to reappoint them?  FERC commissioners are appointed by the President for five year terms.

In the service of the 1%

It is clear that the Obama Administration's Interior Department wants the KHSA to proceed. They need the Dam Deal in order to carry the most controversial provisions of the KBRA Water Deal. If FERC reasserts jurisdiction over the fate of PacifiCorp’s dams, the KBRA can proceed - but it will be unlikely to secure the Congressional mandates and funding its promoters desire. 

The two deals have been artificially joined for purely political purposes.  The only thing they have in common is that both are at their core special interest deals for the 1% at the expense of the 99%.

 

 Seven very well off irrigators control much of roughly 200,000

irrigated acres within the Bureau of Reclamation's Klamath Project 

KlamBlog has argued that the KBRA Water Deal is not in the interest of the Klamath River or Klamath Salmon. Among other features, in order to maintain an over-sized Klamath Irrigation Project, KBRA legislation pending in Congress would lock-in Klamath River flows which are the minimum needed for survival of Klamath River Salmon. Like the HVT, we believe Klamath River communities deserve river flows which will restore salmon to abundance…not just keep them from going extinct. Abundant Klamath River Salmon will provide benefits to all Klamath River communities; the KBRA Water Deal mostly benefits the small group of irrigators who dominate Klamath Project irrigation. 

Does the HVT hold a trump card?

Whether or not FERC grants the HVT’s petition, it is likely that the Tribe has other arrows in its quiver with which it can attempt to end the multi-year delay in dealing with PacifiCorp's Klamath dams. The Hoopa, for example, are the only Klamath River Basin tribe which has the status of a state when it comes to the Clean Water Act. HVT has established its own water quality standards for the Klamath River and presumably can take action when its standards are not being met to compel action by those who are in violation. PacifiCorp's dams are in violation of both HVT and State of California water quality standards. 

This fall a large run of Chinook salmon is expected to enter the Klamath River at a time when flow conditions are likely to approximate those seen in 2002 when up to 60,000 adult salmon perished as a result of low flows and overcrowding.  The low flows expected this fall are a product of the KBRA Water Deal which guarantees that those irrigators who receive federally subsidized water will get roughly the amount of water they received on average before the Endangered Species Act began to limit irrigation water delivery. Application of the ESA is now being tailored by federal bureaucrats to comply with the “regulatory relief” promised in the KBRA. This fall we may get to see how well or poorly that works when a large run of salmon enters the Klamath River.  

KlamBlog will be on the scene; unlike many of those who seek to determine the Klamath River’s future, we actually live in the Basin. We’ll report on what transpires this fall, debunk the spin put on those events by federal bureaucrats, politicians, interest groups and others and we’ll interpret what it all means for the Refuges, the River, Klamath Salmon and Klamath River Basin communities.
Stay tuned.  
_________________________________

At publication time, the Hoopa Valley Tribe’s Petition to FERC is not yet available on line. For that reason we provide a copy of the petition below. For the convenience of the reader, we have eliminated page numbers, omitted the proof of service and we have moved all footnotes to the end of the document.