Media fails to report the #1 reason Warren Buffett's Klamath River Dams are coming down

The recent formal decision by the Federal Energy Commission to order removal of four of Warren Buffett's Klamath River Dams has, predictably, resulted in a new raft of media reports about "the largest removal of dams ever."    

"Tribes celebrate plan to remove dams on Klamath" in Indian Time is the best of the lot which I've seen so far because it acknowledges that:

• Dam removal was at its core a business decision to off-load a money losing asset, that is, Warren Buffett's Klamath hydro dams. 

• It was Indigenous Native Activists and the Lower Klamath River Tribes, the Yurok, Hoopa and Karuk Tribes, which led the twenty year effort.

• Dam removal will not restore the River and Klamath Salmon; that much more is needed. As Hoopa Chair Joe Davis put it: “Now we must keep the momentum going and we are looking forward to working with all of our neighbors and partners in that effort.”

However, like all the other articles on dam removal, this one does not report the real reason the dams became uneconomical. The order for fish ladders did not doom the dams; like all capital costs that cost would have been passed on PacifiCopr's customers, the ratepayers, via the California and Oregon Public Utility Commissions. It was the prohibition on radically ramping River flows up and down between the dams which rendered the Hydro Project a money loser.

Ramping, which means turning flows up and down, is critical to the Klamath Hydro Project's profitability because power can be made when it is worth a bit more on the wholesale power market, for example, in the evening. The California Energy Commission estimated that restrictions on ramping meant a relicensed Klamath Hydro Project would generate an operating loss of $24 million each and every year. 

Map of the Upper Klamath River with dams to be removed and dams to remain

                                                

The prohibition on radical ramping that was ordered by the Administrative Law Judge durng FERC relicensing proceedings was the critical factor because it rendered the dams money looser each and every year if they were relicensed. Once the decision on ramping took place, the dams were doomed and the only question was who would pay for their removal.

 

As is usual in America, the corporate owner got bailed out; taxpayers and ratepayers only will pay for removal, not a penny from Warren Buffett and other stockholders. In addition, PacifiCorp and its investors got over ten extra years of profits without making any changes in operations to help salmon. 

 

Media's Reporting Failure

As explained above, while 20 years of tribal involvement and continuous activism by Lower Klamath River Indigenous Natives played a large part, it was not the critical factor that guaranteed dam removal. One would not know that, however, if one watches the short film American Rivers made about Klamath Dam removal or if one reads and listen too almost every other media report. The film and all the reports I've seen don't even mention the ramping issue. Most also mistakenly state or imply that PacifiCop's Klamath Dams control flows in the Klamath River. In reality, the US Bureau of Reclamation controls Klamath River flows, not the dam operators. 

The Klamath reporting failures of our media are, sadly, a consequence of radical cuts in reporting and editing staffs that have degraded reporting across the media landscape. But why did American Rivers, whose staff were closely involved with the Klamath Dams every step of the way, decide to make a film that fails to identify the key reason the dams are coming down? And why did Berkshire-Hathaway, owner of PacifiCorp and the dams, go to great expense to promote the role of Indigensous Native activists and to obscure the fact that dam removal was, at heart, a business decision? 

How will historians write about dam removal? With so many media reports obscuring the key economic factor, will historians also miss the crux?

Twenty years of thanks

There are many to thank for over 20 years of dam removal activism. I have been there for the whole time and know what was done and by whom. It was and is an amazing effort of heart that has spanned generations. But those who, in my opinion, deserve the most thanks are the unnamed biologists with Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Those biolgists championed better flows for Redband trout during the dam relicensing process. It was their science and their advocacy that resulted in ramping restrictions which made the Klamath Hydro Project a money looser and convinced PacifiCorp to get rid of the money loosing Klamath River dams.

 

Activists and allies protest poor water quality discharges to the River.

 

I sure wish reporters and editors would tell the whole story.

 

Why the recent "Big Win" for the Klamath River is actually a big loss

                                                         by

Felice Pace, KlamBlog editor 

 

The early September article in the Medford Mail Tribune was unequivocal:  

                          The federal government will invest $162 million over the next five years to restore the health of the Klamath Basin, including $26 million this year. Endangered suckers and salmon in the Klamath Basin have a greater shot at survival thanks to federal funds awarded this week.

Really?

We have been engaging in restoration within the Klamath River Basin since at least passage of the Klamath Act in 1980. Over several decades, hundreds of millions of dollars have been expended on projects to restore salmon in the lower Basin and suckers in the Upper Basin. Klamath River Basin restoration has now been institutionalized as an ongoing program of the US Bureau of Reclamation and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. 

And yet, in spite of so many "projects" and so many dollars expended, neither Shortnose and Lost River sucker fish in the Upper Basin, nor Coho and Chinook Salmon in the Lower Basin, have recovered. The two sucker species continue to fail to reproduce in Upper Klamath Lake and captive breeding, a last ditch effort to prevent extinction, is being employed.

In the Lower Basin extraordinary efforts in the Scott River Valley, Seiad Creek and elsewhere to build excellent Coho spawning and rearing habitat have been of limited success. Low flows in the Scott and Klamath Rivers and fish diseases related to poor water quality and inadequate flows continue to annihilate juvenile salmon before they can reach the Pacific Ocean and to prevent adults from reaching restored spawning habitat in some years. 

Off-Channel pond on Horse Creek constructed at great 

expense in order to expand & enhance Coho rearing habitat

In fact, even as habitat restoration has accelerated, Klamath River Spring Chinook Salmon were listed pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act (C-ESA) and qualified as a "candidate species" for federal ESA protection. Even the lamprey, known locally as eels, is now considered at risk.

Pacific Lamprey

Worse yet,  dozens of dead adult salmon recently showed up on the Lower Klamath River.

 Two of "dozens" of adult Chinook Salmon

found dead this Fall on the Lower Klamath

So what is going on? Why has over 40 years of restoration only resulted in more species qualifying for ESA and C-ESA protection?

The answer is that restoration has not been about recovery. If recovery had really been the goal, all those many millions would have been spent purchasing and retiring water rights from willing sellers. That would have been done to provide the Basin's at risk aquatic species with what they most need, that is, water. Without adequate streamflows none of the Basin's at risk aquatic species will recover. 

If recovery has not not really been the goal, what is and has been the real objective behind the expenditure of hundreds of million dollars on restoration projects? I think the real objective is to buy off those who are most connected to and most concerned about the endangered suckers and the threatened and at risk Klamath River Salmon. 

Restoration dependency

Over the course of the past 40 years, the Klamath River Basin's federal tribes have become dependent on keeping restoration dollars (rather than water in our streams) flowing. Those dollars support good jobs in communities where unemployment and underemployment are endemic. Like the tribes, the Basin's dozen or so watershed councils have become dependent on keeping restoration dollars flowing. 

Even some "environmental" organizations have become over-dependent on restoration funding. Sustainable Northwest is one such organization, but not the only one. 

The problem is not that those engaged in restoration have not been successful. In fact, over several decades federal and state funding has restored lots of habitat throughout the Basin. But that habitat is either not available to the species at risk, or the habitat is not effective. The lack of adequate flows in our streams and rivers has too often prevented adult salmon from reaching the restored habitat, or has annihilated juvenile salmon born in that habitat before they could reach the Pacific Ocean. 

The situation with the Shortnose and Lost River sucker fish is a bit different. In that case, federal bureaucrats excluded from Critical Habitat designation (and from restoration funding) the only place in the Basin where the fish were successfully reproducing, that is, Clear Lake and Willow Creek in the Lost River Basin. 

Figure showing the elimination of Critical Sucker Habitat 

from the Lost River Basin, accomplished on behalf of 

powerful federal irrigators. Map by Patrick Higgins.

The exclusion of good sucker habitat in the Lost River Basin from Critical Habitat designation was accomplished by an employee of the US Fish & Wildlife Service. After he retired from the service, Curt Mullis, the official responsible for the corrupt Critical Habitat designation, bought a ranch within the federal irrigation project and became, for a time, a board member of the Klamath Water Users Association, the organization which represents federal irrigators and which is dominated by wealthy Tule Lake growers. 

The Tule Lake growers wanted the watershed in which they operate, the Lost River Basin, excluded from Critical Habitat for endangered suckers. With the help of Curt Mullis, they got what they sought. You can learn more about that situation and about the Klamath's Irrigation Elite on KlamBlog. Restoration of endangered sucker habitat has since focused around Upper Klamath Lake. So far those efforts have not been successful.

What's needed now

If we are ever going to recover the Klamath's at-risk aquatic species, the situation described above will have to change. Instead of spending more to enhance habitat, recovery requires redirecting restoration funding to purchase and retire water rights from willing sellers. Such a program should be basin-wide, including the Scott and Shasta Watersheds as well as the Upper Basin. Only when we provide adequate flows year-around will the habitat we've been restoring for decades become effective. Adequate flows requires retiring water rights. 

In the Klamath River Basin we have relied on federal tribes to fix the River's problems and restore Klamath River Salmon. The tribes have carried the burden willingly and with their leadership much has been accomplished. At this point, however, the Klamath River Basin's tribes are too focused on keeping the restoration dollars, and the jobs those restoration dollars support, flowing. The tribes appear unwilling to jeopardize that funding and those jobs by aggressively seeking the flows we need in the Klamath River.

We can't count on the restoration and watershed councils to secure the flows needed either; they fear getting "political" would negatively impact their access to restoration dollars. Likewise, those environmental organizations currently involved in the Klamath River Basin, either get restoration dollars themselves or have limited the scope of their involvement to the needs and health of the Basin's wildlife refuges.  

Who can we count on?

Demanding the flows our rivers and streams need to be healthy will result in conflict. Adequate streamflows means less water for irrigation and any decrease in irrigated acres has and will be fiercely opposed by dominant irrigators. Only an organization that is ready to deal with opposition and conflict will be free to do what it takes to restore river and stream flows.  

So who can the Lost River and Shortnose Sucker Fish and the Coho and Spring Chinook Salmon count on to battle for the flows needed not just to restore habitat but to actually recover the aquatic ecosystems on which sucker fish and salmon depend?

There was a time when the Klamath Forest Alliance played that role. In recent years, however, that organization ended its river program and now works exclusively on forest management and related issues like wildfire. Back then Oregon Wild was more involved as well, as was Water Watch of Oregon. In recent years, however, those organizations have focused on the very dire conditions on the Basin's wildlife refuges and have not taken action to seek the river and stream flows needed for real aquatic and fisheries recovery to take place. 

Baring emergence of an environmental organization prepared to take on entrenched water interests, the Klamath River Basin's six federal tribes remain the best hope for action to secure the flows our rivers and streams need to be healthy. The tribes have the administrative capacity and scientists but appear to currently lack the solidarity and political will to take on entrenched irrigation interests and the politicians who support those irrigators.

But I believe change is coming. I envision the Basin's young people, a new generation, and in particular those Indigenous native youth who have become involved in River and Salmon issues, stepping forward to lead their tribes in the struggle for adequate flows in the Klamath, Shasta and Scott River Basins. I believe they will get the job done.

Native youth kayaked the Klamath River this July 

in preparation for the first post-dam removal  

descent of a free flowing Klamath River 

In conclusion

A new infusion of restoration funding is a big loss for the Klamath River because it keeps the Basin's federal tribes, watershed organizations and some environmental organizations dependent on those dollars and the jobs they support. While they are dedicated, hard working and well meaning, those entities are bought in to the current restoration paradigm. The funding will not be used to purchase water rights from willing irrigators and dedicate that water to instream use.  

Adequate flows are the only path to recovery. But, for reasons explained above, tribes and organizations involved in Klamath River Basin restoration appear reluctant to take on the conflict and opposition that will accompany aggressively seeking the river and stream flows fish need. That's why I look to Klamath River Basin youth leaders to step forward and demand that Klamath River Basin tribes and restoration organizations focus on what fish and the aquatic ecosystems on which they depend most need, that is, adequate guaranteed flows in our rivers and streams.

<<<<<<<>>>>>>> 

(Updated October 18, 2022 at 11:20 PM)

Same Old Sad and Selfish: Scott Valley Ag Folks don't want to do their part to help Coho survive

by Felice Pace

 

Drought Emergency Water Regulations, enacted in the midst of an historic drought and intended to give those Coho Salmon which spawn and rear in the Scott River Basin a chance to survive, are not needed by the Coho and will needlessly devastate Scott Valley farmers and ranchers if implemented. That is the message of the Scott Valley Agriculture Water Alliance, a new organization which, according to its website, formed to "be a unified voice communicating on behalf of local farmers and ranchers, spreading accurate information about Scott Valley’s agricultural producers, the Scott River, and its fish." Their vision is to "debunk the myths that are driving the state’s severe water regulations." 

 

So far the organization has published what it calls a "white paper" titled "WHY THE STATE WATER BOARD’S 2021-2022 FLOW REGULATION IS NOT NEEDED FOR COHO SALMON IN THE SCOTT RIVER." The organization's "mission' and "vision" are driven by the white paper's assertion that providing emergency flows to help Scott River Coho is an "existential threat" to farmers and ranchers in Scott Valley. 

 

The Scott River is a Klamath River watershed and, according to the consensus of fisheries biologists and restorations, the valley and canyon sections of the Scott are key to the survival and recovery of Klamath River Coho Salmon. Not so according to the Scott Valley Agriculture Water Alliance and its white paper.

 

 Klamath River Sub-basins with the Scott in pink

 

I lived in the Scott River Valley from 1976 until 2002. I still spend time there and I've been involved in water and fish issues there since the 1980s. When I decode the words of the new water alliance and read its white paper I see a determination to use selective information to support a preordained conclusion: that irrigated agriculture in the Scott River Valley has no impact on Coho or Chinook Salmon and is, in fact, the highest and best use of Scott River water.

 

The Scott Valley Agriculture Water Alliance  is the creation of three accomplished Scott Valley ladies: Theodora Johnson, Lauren Sweezy and Sari Sommarstrom. All three have lived in the Scott Valley most or all of their lives and all are part of families involved in irrigated agriculture as a major source of income. Below I look more closely at the new organization and its claims.

Carefully Selected Facts

 

"WHY THE STATE WATER BOARD’S 2021-2022 FLOW REGULATION IS NOT NEEDED FOR COHO SALMON IN THE SCOTT RIVER" (the caps are theirs) sets out to debunk the "myth" that Drought Emergency Water Regulations, enacted in the midst of an historic drought are needed to give Coho Salmon a chance to survive in the Scott River Basin. You can read the white paper at this link. You can also read the Department of Fish & Wildlife's rationale for requesting that the Water Board order the emergency flows at this link.

 

There are curious things about the white paper. For one, its authors did not put their names on it. I can easily understand why Sommarstrom, a recognized professional scientist, might not want to be associated with this particular white paper. It blatantly selects facts and omits those which do not support its forgone conclusions. Not exactly the scientific method on display.  

 

But scientists too can be advocates and no one can use all the data and cite all relevant studies. Nevertheless, even advocate scientists feel obliged to let readers know that theirs is not the only scientific view. The new alliance's white paper does not conform to that standard. Instead it discounts scientific and technical information on the needs of Coho and Chinook Salmon and omits key studies and reports, including studies and reports commissioned by the Karuk Tribe.   

 

As I see it, the white paper demonstrates once again that Scott River irrigators remain recalcitrant. They refuse to do their part to maintain Scott River aquatic ecosystems in order to prevent Scott River Coho and Chinook Salmon from continuing their long-term slide toward extinction. Scott Valley Ag folks think their water needs and uses are superior to all other needs and uses. 

 

Flood irrigation in Scott Valley on March 2, 2022. By law, irrigation is 

supposed to only take place "from about April 1 to about October 15 of each year."
 

The Restoration Dodge

 

Thirty five years of "restoration" in the Scott Valley has failed to result in the recovery of Scott River Salmon and most of the aquatic habitats on which they depend. Too many times "restoration" funding that was supposed to help salmon has instead been diverted to mainly benefit irrigators. Most importantly, "restoration" has failed to include restoration of the flows aquatic ecosystems and the salmon which depend on those ecosystems need to survive, much less to thrive. 

Rather than addressing the key need for adequate flows, voluntary "restoration" has been used to avoid providing the real, wet water that salmon and all fish need. That must change.

 

There's No Substitute for Recovery Flows

 

According to the best available scientific information, flows needed to recover salmon and restore salmon and related beneficial uses of Scott River are larger by month compared to the emergency drought flows requested by the Department of Fish and Wildlife and adopted by the Water Board. Once the drought is over, those who want Scott Valley Salmon restored should ask the State Water Board to adopt flow objectives for Scott River that are adequate for recovery.

 

State Water Board adoption of recovery flow objectives by month and water year type would provide certainty and resolve conflicts. Those who depend on water for irrigation and those who depend on water for salmon would know what they could expect and they could plan accordingly. Flow objectives adopted by the Water Board would be scientifically informed and socially balanced as required by law.

 

Robust Scott River Flow Objectives are urgently needed to restore not just Coho and Chinook but all the beneficial uses that are guaranteed in the California Constitution and Water Codes. Those "beneficial uses" include irrigation. The State Waters Board's adoption of flow objectives by water year type would help Scott Valley Agriculture make the transition to truly sustainable production. Real sustainable production is production which does not threaten other beneficial uses.  

 

The science exists to inform flow objectives by water year type. Water Board staff reservations not withstanding, that is what the Water Board should do.

Valley of Denial

  

The White Paper's authors refuse to recognize that the Scott River Basin could be producing many more Coho than it has been producing if only those consuming large amounts of surface and groundwater were giving back a little. But in the Scott Valley selfishness rules and has been redefined as virtue. 

In light of these social realities, only consistent and rigorous enforcement of California's Water and Wildlife laws can end the ongoing epidemic of selfishness and adequately protect the Scott River's water and fish. But rather than truly regulate, the State Water Board continues to accept "cooperative solutions" that may keep Coho from going extinct but will not restore Coho or Chinook Salmon as the vibrant and vital Public Trust Resources they once were and can again be. Cooperative solutions can play a role, but rigorous enforcement on bad actors is critical to successful recovery.

 

A key provision of the Water Board's orders for the Scott and Shasta Basins is a limitation on highly inefficient stockwatering methods. Abuse of stockwatering rights, including excessive diversions from streams and using stockwatering rights to irrigate pastures outside the irrigation season, has been one of the most blatant abuses of water law in Scott Valley. To put matters bluntly, many with stockwatering rights have been committing water theft. The new limitation still allows diversion of ten times the amount of water needed by a rancher's livestock. It is high time for the Water Board to eliminate hugely inefficient livestock watering, not just during the drought but once and for all.  

 

Those who care about Klamath River Salmon should actively support the State Water Board's emergency regulations and stockwatering limitations for the Shasta and Scott Basins. We must also continue to be vigilant. Political pressure on the Water Board to "compromise" what salmon needed is intense. Those who care about salmon and our rivers must continue to insist that Water Board staff not compromise California's Water and Wildlife Codes. 

 

If you think enforcement rather than "cooperative solutions" is what is most needed now, let the State Water Board know at this address: ScottShastaDrought@waterboards.ca.gov and let Cal DFW know at this address: R2Info@wildlife.ca.gov. If you see Scott Valley irrigation outside of the April 1 to October 31 irrigation season, or any other abuse of the environment, please file a confidential online complaint with Cal EPA.

 

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

Digging Deeper

I see the white paper as an accurate expression of dominant beliefs and positions shared by most members of the Scott Valley's agricultural community. For those interested in learning more about Scott Valley society and politics and how they impact salmon and all beneficial uses of water, below I dig a deeper into what I believe are errors and intentional omissions contained in the Ag white paper.

The white paper uses public information on the size of the Scott River's adult Coho run and information on Coho out-migration from the Scott to argue that the Coho are not really in danger of extirpation from the Scott River Basin and that, even if they were in danger, the emergency flows called for by DFW and being ordered by the State Water Board are not needed in summer because there are no Coho in Scott River at that time.

In making those assertions the white paper's authors ignore the following relevant factors:

#1 Coho Population Size

500 spawning adults is considered the absolute minimum population of a salmon stock needed to maintain sufficient genetic diversity within that stock or population group. Because not all migrating adults get to spawn, a run size significantly in excess of 500 individuals is needed to assure that at least 500 adults get to reproduce. Reduced genetic diversity means reduced resilience and increased risk of extirpation/extinction.

As noted in the white paper, in the Scott River Basin "average coho run size since 2007 is now 732 adults." Since not all migrating adults are able to spawn, 732 migrating adults is dangerously close to the 500 minimum spawning adults scientists believe are needed to maintain genetic diversity. Significant loss of genetic diversity vastly increases the chances that a fish or wildlife species or population will go extinct. But even before a critical threshold is reached, fewer spawners means reduced genetic diversity and increased vulnerability to changing environmental conditions. 

A low genetic population combined with significant year to year variability in the number of spawners and now three rather than just two "weak" Coho "cohorts" is not the robust Coho population that the white paper's authors claim. The threat of extirpation from the Scott, which would be the extinction of the Scott River Coho, is not some risk manufactured in order to punish Scott Valley irrigators; it is, rather, a clear and present danger well documented by scientific experts. What is it about those experts that the three authors question? It can only be either their competence or their integrity.

#2 Where Coho Are Found

The authors claim that the emergency flows are not needed during the irrigation season because "CDFW’s annual salmon reports clearly show that coho do not occupy the mainstem of the river during July through early October." The authors fail to mention that the reason there are no Coho in the River during summer and early fall is that conditions there are rendered lethal to salmon and most other fish.  

Removal of stream shade in order to maximize agricultural production in Scott Valley is one reason Scott River becomes too hot for salmon during the summer and early fall. Coho, and Chinook and Steelhead as well, flee into those cold tributaries which flow from wilderness and are not dewatered by irrigation diversions before they reach Scott River. 

 

Scott River below Scott Valley on October 6th, 2019.  

The Chinook Salmon run is flow-delayed nearly every year.

A stream's water temperature is also flow related: more flow means lower stream temperature and less flow means higher stream temperature. The dewatering of the Scott via irrigation and stockwatering are another reason the Scott River below Scott Valley is too hot for Coho and almost every other fish species to survive. If you doubt this just swim the Scott River below Scott Valley in August. I've done it and seen an eerie underwater wasteland devoid of all salmon and most other fishes.

According to the Clean Water Act as expressed in the North Coast Regional Basin Plan, Scott Valley Ag folks are supposed to maintain natural shade along streams that pass through the land they control so that stream water temperatures remain cool. Most Scott Valley Ag operators ignore this legal requirement. They plow and plant right down to the streambanks or allow their livestock to trample the banks, thereby removing shade vegetation which allows the water to grow hot while adding sediment that fills pools and renders spawning gravel unusable. 

The photo below shows plowing this spring right up to the streambank break along Moffett Creek in Scott Valley and the photo below that is of a feed lot located along lower Kidder Creek where a group of bulls is allowed to continually trample several hundred feet of streambank.

 

 

 

I've been filing complaints for years about these and other sites in the Scott Valley where streambanks are trampled, sediment is delivered to streams and stream shade is removed or prevented. Unfortunately, and in spite of the fact that the Scott is officially recognized as sediment and temperature impaired, the North Coast Water Board refuses to enforce the Clean Water Act when it comes to agricultural operations and operators.

The reason there are no Coho in Scott River below Scott Valley in summer is because the irresponsible Ag operators whose actions the white paper defends decrease flows and increase the river's temperature to the point where Coho can't survive in the River in and below Scott Valley and must flee to the free-flowing tributaries.

#3 The Ag Safety Net is Ironclad

The white paper's authors claim that maintaining the emergency flows for Coho threatens to put farmers and ranchers out of business. It is a false claim for several reasons, below are two:

          1. Since 1977 almost all agricultural operations and operators in the Scott Valley have developed the ability to irrigate with groundwater. Many of those irrigation wells and center pivot irrigation systems were paid for by federal taxpayers via the Klamath EQIP Program. When surface water is not available, the irrigators just use groundwater. This cuts into their profit margins but it is still profitable to farm using groundwater for irrigation.The Water Board's emergency regulations allows for some use of groundwater for irrigation.

          2. Some Scott Valley Ag producers receive taxpayer subsidies every year. In addition, whenever as a result of drought or other disasters Ag producers can't make a profit, the federal government steps in with Disaster and Farm Bill Payments to make those farmers and ranchers whole. For example, from 1995 to 2019 Ag producers in the 96027 (Etna) zip code (just one part of Scott Valley) received $6,010,299 in payments from the federal government (source: EWG Database). Those payments are financed by taxpayers. Payments made every year are augmented regularly when a disaster is declared. 

Ag producers have an excellent government safety net that guarantees their incomes. The safety net has many aspects, not just the two described above. For example, taxpayers pay part of the premium whenever an Ag operator decides to purchase crop insurance. I'm not against these income supports. It is just too bad that the poor and disadvantaged don't enjoy similar income support.

The levels of taxpayer support enjoyed by Scott Valley Ag producers individually and collectively are readily available from a public database at this link. The authors of the White Paper surely know about the ongoing crop, disaster and conservation payments because their family Ag businesses receive them. Why do you suppose they failed to mention them? 

#4 Key Information Excluded and Ignored

The authors' use and misuse of selective information is evident to those familiar with the relevant scientific information. The omissions are reflected in the white paper's bibliography. The only document from the Karuk Tribe included is the Emergency Petition itself. The Karuk Tribe commissioned and paid for several scientific studies and assessments that are relevant to the status and recovery of Coho and Chinook Salmon in the Scott River Basin. Those studies are well known and readily available in several locations, including the Karuk Tribe's website. Why were the Karuk Tribe's Scott scientific studies and assessments omitted? 

Denial of Reality Present and Past

Were these errors and omissions intentional or unintentional? Who knows and does it really matter? The fact is that the authors deny that Scott River Coho are at risk of extinction and totally ignore what experts have identified as the main risks to their continued existence. They also ignore what is called for in the Coho Recovery Plan.

The authors apparently believe that the need of Scott Valley ranchers and alfalfa growers to maximize profits trumps the needs of other species to survive. Why else would they publish such a mean spirited white paper which cherry picks the scientific information, failing to mention key facts that do not comport with their objective?

The white paper is one more confirmation that in the Scott River Valley we have a landed aristocracy which insists that their use of the land is the highest and best use; Coho and all else that depends on healthy stream ecosystems be damned.

This should not surprise us. The Scott River Basin's landed aristocracy got the land by expropriation, while eliminating its previous owners, the indigenous Shasta of Scott Valley. They continue to believe that they are entitled, not only to the land but also to the water. 

While the degradation of the Scott River by agricultural operations has been a long term process, the details have changed over time. In the 1970s, Scott Valley native Jim Denny wrote an article chronicling the destruction he had seen up until that point. You can read Jim Denny's Death of a Lady at this link. 

The Ag white paper demonstrates why we need to get rid of the Scott Valley Aristocracy. Aristocracies take care of themselves at the expense of all others, including less advantaged members of their own and other species. Aristocracies are antithetical to real democracy and, in the case of Scott Valley, to acknowledgement and redress for the historic genocide by which the Scott Valley aristocracy got "ownership" of the land and (until recently) control of the water.

We should not be surprised that the aristocracy is upset about losing control of the water. They refuse to take responsibility for the fact that it is their own greed, resulting in the dewatering of Scott River and the endangerment of Scott River Salmon, that created the current situation.

This is the way all aristocracies act and it is the main reason freedom loving folks came to the USA, that is, to escape aristocracy and its excesses. And that is why the Scott River Aristocracy should fall: it is not only unjust to the Scott River, its aquatic ecosystems and those who depend on them, it is not in keeping with American ideals.

What's Needed Now

What we need now is law and order in the form of rigorous enforcement of our water and wildlife laws which Scott Valley irrigation interests have so often and so callously violated. We need real and significant consequences for those who violate lawful Water Board orders. We need respect for all the beneficial uses of water, not just irrigated agriculture.

 

These matters need to be brought out in the open and discussed because that is the path to justice and social harmony. So I encourage all those reading this who have related thoughts and opinions to share them with neighbors and friends, including by leaving a comment on this post at this blog.  

 

The Scott Valley is a beautiful place but the lack of water justice is an ugly stain on its society. We can build a society whose beauty corresponds to the natural beauty of the Scott River Basin. All that is required is honesty and equity. It remains unclear whether we are up to the task. 

 

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

 

Postscript: You Too Can Weigh-In 

 

The Scott Valley Agriculture Water Alliance is using the "existential threat" it falsely claims is facing Scott Valley farmers and ranchers to build pressure on the State Water Board to rescind Drought Emergency Regulations enactment on behalf of Scott River Coho. You can weigh in on this issue too. The State Water Board is accepting comments at any time. Please email comments to ScottShastaDrought@waterboards.ca.gov. Wherever you stand, let your voice be heard! That's democracy in action.

Negotiating a Klamath Water Settlement based on what the River needs: Analysis and Commentary by Felice Pace

Will the Biden Administration soon bring parties together to seek settlement of the Klamath River Basin's #1 water conflict? These repeated water conflicts are debilitating. Dam removal is good but won't alone restore the Klamath River and Klamath Salmon. That's why we ought to give settlement our best shot while the Biden Administration is in office. 

I've been encouraging Biden Administration officials to take on Klamath water settlement. You can too. Contact information for the Administration's lead officials on Klamath River issues can be found at the end of this post. 

A desire for settlement does not mean abandoning the objective of securing for Klamath River the flows that the River needs. Settlement must assure not just the survival of Klamath Salmon but also their recovery to levels that support, at minimum, tribal subsistence fishing. Any viable settlement will deliver the flows and water quality needed to restore and maintain the healthy river ecosystems on which healthy salmon depend.

 

Collections of algae on the Klamath River near Fort Goff and Beaver Creek.

Algal Mats are an indicator of seriously degraded aquatic ecosystems.

But there is a problem. We don't really know what flow levels are needed and when they are needed. The only Klamath River flow study was limited to start with and is now obsolete; it alone cannot indicate the flows which the River needs to support healthy stream ecosystems and the robust fisheries that depend on those ecosystems. 

I've suggested to Biden Administration leaders at the Interior Department that they immediately allocate the funds needed for a basin-wide flow assessment. Alternately, Congress could take the initiative by appropriating the funding and directing the Administration to complete a fairly rapid basin-wide flow assessment, including recommendations for coordinated flows from the Upper Basin, Shasta and Scott. That would be a strong step toward the One Basin Management that has long been a goal for River Advocates, including a few who are no longer with us.

A rapid basin-wide flow assessment will consider and integrate flow studies from the Shasta, Scott, Upper Basin and Lower Klamath and use that integrated information to recommend interim integrated flows not only for the Klamath, but also for the Shasta and Scott River. The assessment would look toward coordinated, state and federal flow management. It would also define a path to final Klamath River flow recommendations based on the best available science and information. 

A basin-wide flow assessment could also look upslope and define management actions likely to maximize the water holding potential of our upland forests and headwater wet meadow systems.  

Balancing an over-allocated water supply

While we don't yet know the precise flows needed post dam removal to restore Klamath River aquatic ecosystems and fisheries, it is crystal clear that in most years there is not enough Klamath River water to satisfy all needs. Furthermore, climate change is expected to further reduce the amount of water available to meet flows, irrigation and domestic water demand. 

Irrigation amounts to about 80% of total demand for Klamath River water, while water supply for homes and businesses is about 20% of demand. Because it is only 20% of water demand and because providing water for family drinking and domestic use by law must be our highest priority, balancing water demand and supply can only be achieved by reducing the amount of water diverted for irrigation from the Klamath and its tributaries. Many millions of taxpayer dollars have already been invested in projects to increase on-farm irrigation efficiency; no more water can be saved in that way.

Under these conditions there is only one solution. In order to overcome conflicts that will just keep getting worse if not addressed, we must reduce the amount of water taken from our rivers for irrigation. The equitable way to do that is for the federal and state governments to purchase and retire water rights from willing sellers. Just as flows from the Upper Basin, Shasta and Scott should be integrated, so too reducing irrigation demand should include federal and state-regulated irrigators in the Upper Basin, Shasta and Scott.

Federal taxpayers provided $50 million dollars for improvement of on-farm 

irrigation efficiency in the Upper Basin, Shasta and Scott Sub-basins, including 

providing numerous irrigators with new wells and center pivot irrigation systems.

Integrating and coordinating flows from the Upper Basin, Shasta and Scott will spread the impact of reduced irrigation among all irrigators and not place the burden only on the Klamath Irrigation Project's federal irrigators. Spreading the pain of reduce irrigation equitably is not only the right thing to do, it will make settlement more attractive to federal irrigators who wield considerable political influence. 

Know how to negotiate

Those joining negotiations on behalf of the River must not enter negotiations unprepared. They must know going in both their initial position and where their bottom lines lie. And they must insist that Klamath River flows be negotiated first. Unless there is agreement on flows, it makes no sense to negotiate other items. 

Above all else those negotiating on behalf of the River must not make the mistake of accepting inadequate flows as we saw with the KBRA Water Deal. Flows the KBRA would have locked in via federal legislation subsequently resulted in the death of over 90% of juvenile salmon migrating down the Klamath River before they could reach the Pacific Ocean. Clearly, KBRA flows were not adequate for salmon recovery.

 Who should be at the table?

Interests which were represented in KBRA water negotiation include the Klamath Tribes, Yurok Tribe, Karuk Tribe and Hoopa Valley Tribe, the Klamath Water Users Association (KWUA) represented federal irrigation interests, PCFFA representing commercial salmon fishers, as well as Trout Unlimited, Cal Trout and American Rivers representing sport fishing and other river recreation interests. 

I think the list of interests participating must be expanded. For example, Trout Unlimited, Cal Trout and American River are conservation organizations with specialized interests. Negotiations should include at least one environmental organizations that champions a broad array of environmental concerns. Also, two of the Basin's six federal tribes were excluded from KBRA negotiations. The Quartz Valley Tribe and the Resighini Rancheria should be included this time.

During May of 2019 the Yurok Tribal Government formally recognized the Klamath River's personhood. As a person, the River deserves to be in the negotiations. But, as the KBRA demonstrated, tribal and specialized environmental organizations have a variety of interests and, as a result, can not be relied upon to adequately represent the River's interest. But who can represent the Klamath River's interest? 

There should be a team of people in any future negotiations whose sole focus is the River's interest. Because it was the Yurok Tribe which endorsed the Klamath River's personhood, perhaps the Yurok Court would be the proper body to select and empower a team of individuals to represent the River herself. 

 

A few of the many long-time River Defenders who should be  

considered as representatives for the Klamath Rivers's personhood interest

Bottom lines

Any successful negotiation involves give and take. All interests must get at least some of what they want and need. But there must also be bottom lines. Here are a few thoughts on bottom lines for the Klamath River.

• As noted already, we need a basin-wide flow assessment to inform decisions about Klamath River flows and define options for integrated flows from the Upper Basin, Shasta and Scott.
  

• The Basin-wide flow assessment must include an assessment of how climate change has already impacted water supplies and streamflows and additional impacts we should expect going forward. 

• Water is already over-allocated and climate change will make that worse. In addition, taxpayers have already financed hundreds of millions of grants to irrigators to improve irrigation efficiency; there are no more gains to be made via irrigation efficiency. Therefore, to balance water supply and demand we must reduce irrigation demand, which amounts to 80% of total Klamath River basin water demand. In order to reduce the impacts of those reductions on any one community, demand reduction should be basin-wide and must all be from willing sellers. Spreading the pain of reduced irrigation water among irrigators in the Upper Basin, Shasta and Scott is the just way to reduce water demand.

• "Restoration" must not be used as a substitute for the flows streams need to be healthy and support healthy fisheries. Allowing that to continue is a death sentence for Klamath River Salmon. It won't happen next year, but the slow decline will continue toward extinction if we allow the desire for restoration projects and jobs to mute or silence calls for adequate flows.   
  

• Assistance to communities must not involve a quid pro quo of reduced River flows. If communities need the help of federal taxpayers or want money for restoration, it should be given based on need and without the unwritten requirement that those receiving grants shut up about inadequate river and stream flows. 

In conclusion

If the Klamath is a person then it is a person beset by disease and desperately in need of treatment. The only therapy that will work is allowing adequate flows that meet water quality standards to pass down from numerous sources, through our agricultural valleys and on to the river canyons below and, ultimately, the ocean.

                        For Klamath restoration to succeed, stream dewatering must end.                                 In the Scott River, as in most of our basins, that requires reduced irrigation. 

Some irrigation interests claim that any water allowed to flow to the ocean is wasted. They are wrong. Every one of our River's ecosystems, from the headwater wet meadows where they begin down to the estuary and the ocean, needs to be healthy for our River and Klamath Salmon to be healthy. Healthy stream ecosystems depend on adequate flows and water quality that meets standards.

Settlement is needed. Let's get it done during the Biden Administration. Please join me in urging Interior Secretary Deb Haaland to make Klamath Settlement negotiations a priority. Here's the contact information for Secretary Haaland and her Klamath lead, Liz Kline: 

 Deb Haaland, Secretary 

                                        Department of the Interior

                                        1849 C Street, N.W.

                                        Washington DC 20240

                                        202-208-3100, press 3

                                        Attention: Liz Kline <liz_kline@ios.doi.gov>