Tales from two meetings

The team of federal and state officials charged with hearing testimony on the Klamath Facilities Removal Draft environmental report wrapped up their assignment last Thursday evening in Klamath, California near the mouth of the River. The Klamath Public Hearing followed others held in Klamath Falls, Yreka, Orleans and Arcata and upon a teach-in on the environmental report in Eureka sponsored by the North Group Redwood Chapter Sierra Club and other organizations.  Links to media reports on hearings in Klamath Falls, Yreka and Arcata are included at the end of this post.

 Members of the Hoopa Tribe express their sentiment

The Klamath Public Hearing

Located near the mouth of the Klamath River, Klamath is an diverse community and that was reflected at the hearing. The event was held at the Yurok Tribe’s administrative facility which is right across the River from another of the six federally-recognized tribes located within the Klamath River Basin. The members of the Resighini Rancheria are all Yurok Indians and The Rancheria's government predates the Yurok Tribal Government. Officials and members of both tribes – the Yurok Tribe and the Resighini Rancheria – dominated the hearing.

To give folks a sense of the hearing we present below quotes and paraphrases from those testifying at the Klamath hearing. Here’s what individuals and those representing organizations had to say about the environmental report and about the Dam and Water Deals – the KHSA and KBRA – which the report claims to assess.


Thomas O’Rourke, Chairman, Yurok Tribe:

•   Native people have been caretakers of the River for uncounted generations.
•   Water Quality is the River’s most significant problem.
•   Working together we can be successful at restoring the River.

David Gensaw, Council Member, Yurok Tribe:

•    He reminded folks that Klamath River Indigenous Natives had to fight the attempted termination of their fishing rights. In the 1970s those fishing traditionally faced arrests and beatings.
•    We need the dams out to restore the salmon. We’ll fight for that and won’t settle for less.
•    Our salmon refugia have been destroyed by irresponsible logging and irrigation/farming.

Sunshine Watkins, Treasurer, Resighini Rancheria:

•    We were excluded from Klamath negotiations; if the KBRA is endorsed by Congress our rights will be terminated. Under the KBRA we will be on the outside for 50 years.
•    The dams should come out before the 2020 date proposed in the KHSA.
•    The best way to get the dams out is to return to the FERC process; the State of California 401 Clean Water Act certification process will result in timely dam removal.
•    We need Ecological Restoration which the KBRA does not provide.

Ray Mattz:

•    When he was young in the days of massive logging the eddies in the river were filled with bark.
•    The Candlefish – a mainstay of traditional Yurok diet – are gone. The Trinity Dam was built and within 7 years the Candlefish were gone.  
•    “We should be proud that (unlike other rivers) we still have wild fish."

Sammy Gensaw , member, Yurok Tribe:

•    “I come here to represent the youth of the reservation.”
•    We’re living in a food dessert; we need a thriving river in order to maintain our culture.
•    We’re part of the ecosystem.

Mike Belchik, fish biologist in the employ of the Yurok Tribe:

•    Supports the KBRA and KHSA which will provide salmon with access to refugia above the dams that have stable sources of cold groundwater.
•    He believes dam removal and the KBRA are the keys to restoring Spring Chinook Salmon.

Josh Norris, member of the Yurok Tribe:

• “I’ll be here for the long haul.”

Josh Norris: "I'll be here for the long haul."

Georgianna Myers:

• “Our river is sick and we feel its pain.”

Josh Strange, fisheries biologist who has worked for the Yurok Tribe:

•    Risk associated with the ‘no action’ alternative are not properly appreciated or addressed in the environmental document.
•    Klamath River fish disease problems cannot be fixed if the dams are not removed.
•    Global warming is a new threat that has not been assessed.

Patrick Higgins, fish biologist in the employ of Resighini Rancheria:

•    The environmental document does not analyze the impacts of the KBRA; this sort of deferral of environmental analysis violates NEPA and CEQA.
•    The environmental document lacks an ecologically based alternative; ecological restoration is the only way to restore the River.
•    Because the KBRA will not employ ecological restoration in the Upper Basin terrible water quality due to agricultural pollution will continue. The fish diseases will simply migrate upstream once the dams are removed.
•    The environmental document fails to address pesticide use in the Upper Basin. Commercial agriculture on the Tule Lake and Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuges has the largest rate of pesticide use in all of Siskiyou County.

James Dunlap, Yurok Indian and manager of www.YurokVoices.com

•    As a Yurok I have an innate distrust of the federal government.
•    Waiving of tribal rights in any manner is not acceptable. We don’t endorse any agreement that  gives away or waives any of our rights.

Merk Oliver, member, Yurok Tribe

• The dams are no good for anyone; they are poisoning the fish and the people.

Felice Pace, KlamBlog

•    The issue is not dam removal – the dams will come down because if relicensed they would lose money. It is not in the interest of the owner – PacifiCorp – to keep operating them therefore – one way or another – they will come out.
•    What remains to be decided is: 1. when the dams will come down, 2. who will pay for removal, and 3. what other provisions for good or ill will catch a ride on the dam removal train.
•    The environmental document makes numerous unsubstantiated claims not backed up by data or analysis. For example, the environmental document claims the KBRA will achieve water pollution clean-up goals more quickly than if it was not implemented. Yet there is no analysis in the environmental document or elsewhere to back up that claim.
•    The proposed alternative would relieve PacifiCorp of responsibility for toxic legacies which may be lurking around100 year old powerhouses. The taxpayers should not be saddled with cleaning up PacifiCorp’s toxic legacies.

Robert Jackson, Yurok

•    We need to focus on having water for the fish; we need water too.
•    It is disgusting how they waste water up there (in the Upper Klamath River Basin).
•    We need to manage the nutrients (coming from agriculture)
•    In no way should we relinquish any of our water rights.

Klamath Teach-In

On October 19th a group of North Coast environmental organizations that strongly support dam removal but do not support or have reservations about aspects of the KBRA Water Deal, presented a teach-in on the draft environmental document intended to inform the Secretary of Interior’s decision on whether or not to implement the Klamath Dam and Water Deals in Eureka.

The teach-in was well covered in the press; a video of the event is available for viewing on Access Humboldt.

One member of the audience challenged the presentations. Peter Pennycamp said he had come to hear all sides of the issues but was disappointed that promoters of the Dam and Water Deals were not on the agenda. One of the presenters – fisheries biologist Pat Higgins – pointed out to Peter that the government is making the case for the Dam and Water Deals in 6 sessions around the region and that the teach-in is intended to provide a forum for those whose views are not being promoted by federal and state government officials and agencies.

Higgins represents the Resighini Rancheria - one of the three federal tribes located in the Basin which were excluded from negotiations that resulted in the Dam and Water Deals. He offered to debate promoters of the Deals anytime and anywhere.

This small controversy mirrors a debate going on in society generally: Are media outlets obligated to provide “balance” by providing all sides of an issue with equal time? Alternatively, is there a place for advocacy journalism, i.e. journalism which comes from a certain position other than feigned  “neutrality” and/or which seeks to balance voices in the public arena by giving voice to those interests and individuals who are marginalized or not considered at all by major media outlets?

One of the promoters of the Dam and Water Deals – Craig Tucker who works for the Karuk Tribe – was very active at the teach-in even though he was not a presenter. Tucker repeatedly interrupted and challenged both the presenters and those members of the public commenting after the presentations. Tucker has been known to “lose his cool” before; on this particular night he was in rare form, suggesting among other things that everything that had been presented was wrong or misinformed.

Tucker also took credit personally and organizationally for getting PacifiCorp to agree to the Dam Deal. He ignored the efforts of many tribal biologists and environmental activists who painstakingly built the case for dam removal for years before Tucker came to the basin. In KlamBlog’s view it is those biologists and activists who sealed the fate of the dams by getting an administrative law judge to order that fish ladders must be installed if the dams were to be relicensed. The cost of those fish ladders alone – not to mention the cost of mitigating the dams’ water quality violations – is what really doomed the dams.

In spite of the irascible Tucker, the presenters and audience for the most part remained calm and maintained an atmosphere of respect for the opinions of others.

Once it was clear that the relicensed dams would lose money annually, their fate was sealed. Dam owner PacifiCorp has since that time negotiated to get the best deal for shareholders. The KHSA or Dam Deal represents their complete success. If the Dam Deal is endorsed by Congress, PacifiCorp shareholders will be able to walk away from the Klamath Hydroelectric Project which they own and will be absolved from all liability not just for dam removal but also for all toxic legacies which may be lurking around the company’s 100 year old powerhouses.

Here are links to media coverage that reported what people said at Klamath Facilities Removal Draft EIS/EIR hearings:

• the Klamath Falls Hearing
• the Yreka Hearing
• the Arcata Hearing

The Two Rivers Tribune had excellent coverage of several of the hearings as well but at the time of this posting they were not available on the TRT web site.

 

Klamath Justice Coalition Pro Dam Removal protest outside the Yreka Hearing

(photo courtesy of the Two Rivers Tribune) 

Forum to Discuss Federal Dam Removal Process on Klamath River

source: http://www.wildcalifornia.org/blog/forum-to-discuss-federal-dam-removal-process-on-klamath-river/

ARCATA, CA -- Environmental organizations from Northwest California and Oregon are organizing a panel presentation to discuss the federal and State environmental impact reports on the proposed Klamath Hydroelectric Project dam removal. The event will be held at the Wharfinger Building in Eureka from 6:30-8:30 PM on Wednesday, October 19. Four speakers will present on various aspects of the draft environmental impact documents and explain their origins and relationship to the Klamath Basin Hydropower Agreement (KHSA) and the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA).






Keno Dam: Uppermost of 5 Klamath River dams owned by PacifiCorp. Four dams are proposed for removal; ownership of this one is proposed for transfer to the federal Bureau of Reclamation. Come to the panel presentation and find out why! 


The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for Facilities Removal on the Klamath River was released on Sept 22, 2011. The 60-day public comment period began with the release of the DEIR, and will close in mid-November. A series of public hearings to describe the DEIR and receive public comments will be hosted by the United States Department of the Interior, including a hearing in Arcata from 4:30 – 8:30 on October 26 at the Arcata Community Center. See the documents that are currently available for public review as well as information about the public hearings at the government website www.klamathrestoration.gov.

The Klamath In The Balance forum at the Wharfinger Building on October 19 is intended to motivate the public to make informed comments and to actively engage on this globally relevant environmental issue.

The panel will feature Bob Hunter, a representative of Water Watch of Oregon who has studied the Upper Klamath Basin for over 30 years. He will briefly characterize the historic hydrology of the Klamath Basin and then describe water allocation under the agreement and implications for the National Wildlife Refuges. Also speaking on the panel is Andrew Orahoske, the conservation director for the Environmental Protection Information Center, who will discuss the legal framework for dam removal, and the requirements for recovering salmon and other native species in the basin.

Patrick Higgins is a fisheries biologist with an intimate knowledge of the Klamath River who will describe the need for ecological restoration to solve water quality problems. Higgins will also discuss the ecological imperative to recover endangered suckerfish of the Upper Basin, as well as salmon. Hayley Hutt, a Hoopa Valley Tribal Council member, will elaborate on concerns about the ramifications of the federal process for Indian Tribes that did not sign the KHSA and KBRA; Hutt will also discuss Hoopa perspectives on the federal legislation that would authorize and fund the agreements. A trained facilitator will moderate a question and answer period with the presenters assembled as a panel.

Co-sponsors of the forum include the Northcoast Environmental Center (NEC), the Environmental Protection Information Center (EPIC), the North Group and the Redwood Chapter of the Sierra Club, Redwood Region Audubon Society, Water Watch of Oregon, and Ancient Forest International (AFI). The event will run from 6:30 PM to 8:30 PM, Wednesday, October 19. The Wharfinger Building is located at 1 Marina Way along the waterfront in Eureka. There is no cost for admission, and refreshments will be served. For more information about the event, call the NEC at 707-822-6918, or EPIC at 707-822-7711.

Background websites:

Water Watch of Oregon-- http://waterwatch.org/programs/restoring-the-klamath/klamathprogram/

Official Federal and State Government website-- http://www.klamathrestoration.gov/

Karuk, Yurok, and Klamath Tribes website-- http://www.klamathrestoration.org/

Resighini Rancheria-- http://resighin.ipower.com/

Independent perspective on Klamath Issues-- http://www.klamblog.blogspot.com/

The Facilities Removal EIS/EIR: Key Issues, Proposed Actions, Realistic Alternatives

The most important thing to understand about the EIS/EIR, the decision of Interior Secretary Salazar it is meant to inform and the federal legislation needed to implement the Interior Department’s proposed Klamath Dam and Water Settlements is that it is not about whether or not 4 dams will be removed. That decision has already been made. Four dams owned by PacifiCorp – Iron Gate, Copco 1, Copco 2 and J.C.Boyle – will come down and a fifth dam - Keno - will be transferred to the Bureau of Reclamation because required fisheries and water quality mitigation requirements render them uneconomical. If PacifiCorp’s Klamath Hydroelectric Project were relicensed, the company would lose an estimated $20 million each year.

For PacifiCorp’s electric customers and shareholders the obvious decision is to decommission the project and remove the dams. When the political noise is stripped away the dams will come down for economic reasons. The only real questions which remain are:

• Who will pay for removing PacifiCorp’s aging dams and powerhouses? and

• What other decisions and provisions will catch a ride on the popular dam removal train?

 Copco Dam: The Klamath Dams are old, obsolete and will loose money if relicensed

War of Words #1: Congressman McClintock and the Karuk Tribe on the "Klamath Facilities Removal Draft EIS/EIR"

This is the first in a series. In the weeks ahead we will publish statements about the Dam and Water Deal EIS/EIR from a wide variety of sources and perspectives. KlamBlog invites you to submit an opinion as well. Submissions should be sent to Unofelice@gmail.com. 

 

Map of the Klamath River Basin showing location of dams slated for removal; a fifth PacifiCorp dam - Keno - (not labeled) would not be removed. Under the proposed Secretarial Decision, Keno would be transferred to the US Bureau of Reclamation and operated to serve irrigation interests.  

from RedState ~

House Floor Remarks

Congressman Tom McClintock

September 22, 2011

Mr. Speaker:

  This generation is facing spiraling electricity prices and increasingly scarce supplies.  Californians have had to cut back to the point that their per capita electricity consumption is now lower than that of Guam, Luxembourg and Aruba. 

What is the administration’s solution?

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced yesterday that the administration is moving forward with a plan to destroy four perfectly good hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River capable of producing 155,000 megawatts of the cleanest and cheapest electricity on the planet – enough for 155,000 homes.
Why would the administration pursue such a ludicrous policy?

They say it’s is necessary to help increase the salmon population.  We did that a long time ago by building the Iron Gate Fish Hatchery.  The Iron Gate Fish Hatchery produces five million salmon smolts each year – 17,000 of which return annually as fully grown adults to spawn.  The problem is, they don’t include them in the population count!

And to add insult to insanity, when they tear down the Iron Gate Dam, we will lose the Iron Gate Fish Hatchery and the five million salmon smolts it produces every year.

Declining salmon runs are not unique to the Klamath.  We have seen them up and down the Northwest Pacific Coast over the last ten years as the result of the naturally occurring Pacific Decadal Oscillation – cold water currents that fluctuate over a ten year cycle between the Pacific Northwest and Alaska.  During the same decade that salmon runs have declined in the Pacific Northwest, they have exploded in Alaska.  We’re at the end of that cycle.

The cost of this madness is currently pegged at a staggering $290 million – all at the expense of ratepayers and taxpayers.  But that’s just the cost of removing the dams.  Consumers will face permanently higher prices for replacement power, which, we’re told, will be wind and solar.
Not only are wind and solar some three times more expensive, but wind and solar require equal amounts of reliable stand-by power – which is precisely what the dams provide.

We’re told that yes, this is expensive, but it will cost less than retro-fitting the dams to meet cost-prohibitive environmental requirements.  If that is the case, then maybe we should re-think those requirements, not squander more than a quarter billion dollars to destroy existing hydro-electric dams.  Or here’s a modest suggestion to address the salmon population: count the hatchery fish!

We’re told this is the result of a local agreement between farmers and other stakeholders.  Mr. Speaker, everybody knows that the Klamath Agreement was the result of local farmers succumbing to extortion by environmental groups that threatened lawsuits to shut off their water.  And obviously the so-called stakeholders don’t include the ratepayers and taxpayers who would pay dearly for the loss of these dams.  Indeed, local voters have repeatedly and overwhelmingly repudiated the agreement and the politicians responsible it.  The locally-elected Siskiyou Board of Supervisors vigorously opposes it.

Finally, the administration boasts of 1,400 short-term jobs that will be created to tear down these dams.  Just imagine how many jobs we could create if we tore down the Hoover Dam.  Or Duluth, Minnesota.  

Mr. Speaker, amidst a spending spree that threatens to bankrupt this nation, amidst spiraling electricity prices and chronic electricity shortages – to tear down four perfectly good hydro-electric dams at enormous cost is insane.  And to claim that this is good for the economy gives us chilling insight into the breathtakingly bad judgment that is misguiding our nation from the White House.

The President was right about one thing when he spoke here several weeks ago.  Fourteen months is a long time to wait to correct the problem.

Fortunately, the President will need congressional approval to move forward with this lunacy, and that will require action by this House.  Earlier this year, the House voted to put a stop to this nonsense.  I trust it will exercise that same good judgment as this administration proceeds with its folly.

# # #

 

Iron Gate - one of four PacifiCorp dams slated for removal

from YubaNet ~

Klamath Stakeholders Seize Momentum on Heels of Salazar Comments, Study Results
Restoration plans jumpstarts major economic benefits adding 4600 jobs to regional economy
Published on Sep 22, 2011 - 7:34:23 AM

       

By: Karuk Tribe

SACRAMENTO, Sept. 21, 2011 - Today, a diverse group of organizations working to balance water use in the Klamath River basin reacted to the positive findings in a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) released by the Department of Interior, and to comments made earlier this week by Interior Secretary Salazar. The Secretary will use this DEIS to make his final determination in March of 2012 as to whether or not removal of four Klamath River dams in accordance with the Klamath Restoration Agreements are in the public interest.

"This news comes on top of recent official findings by both the Oregon and California Public Utility Commissions (PUCs) that dam removal under the Klamath Settlement Agreement is not only in the public interest but far less costly for utility customers than relicensing. Implementing the Settlement Agreement is the obvious next step in building a sound recovery for both the Klamath agricultural and fisheries based economies and restoring thousands of regional jobs," said Glen Spain of Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations (PCFFA).

In a thorough review comparing the impacts of river restoration to current conditions, the DEIS shows that implementation of the Agreements would provide significant economic, environmental, social and cultural benefits to Northern California and Southern Oregon. One of the key findings stakeholders applauded is that the projected cost of removing four dams on the Klamath River falls well within the range of the budget agreed to by Tribes, irrigators, fishermen, and dam owner PacifiCorp.

"It's important to understand that this is about more than dam removal. This effort will restore fisheries while creating and protecting thousands of jobs in both fishing and agricultural communities. We have the diverse grassroots support that should spur congress to act," said Jeff Mitchell, Councilman for the Klamath Tribes.

The Klamath Agreements were signed in February 2010 by over 40 stakeholder organizations from a broad-based coalition that includes irrigators, Tribes, fishermen, conservation groups, state and local governments – all groups seek to get beyond the endless litigation and fighting that preceded the Settlement Agreements.

Key features of the Agreements include reintroducing salmon to over 400 miles of historic habitat, increasing water storage and flood control by expanding Upper Klamath Lake, and improved water security for 1400 farm families on the Klamath Irrigation Project.

"What interests us most is that Basin agriculture will receive increased certainty of water deliveries, which helps protect an industry that is vital to all of the local communities in the Klamath Basin, " said Klamath basin farmer Steve Kandra. "We believe that implementing these Agreements will benefit agriculture even more than the federal studies indicate. Our research shows that agricultural production in Klamath County and Tulelake Irrigation District contributes more than $600 million to the Klamath economy annually and 4,890 direct and indirect jobs are supported each year in Oregon and California. These jobs will be at risk if the Agreements fall through."

The DEIS makes several key findings that proponents of the Agreements hope will prompt Congress to pass the legislation necessary for implementation. Stakeholders emphasize the economic and health benefits, cost savings, and jobs creation that the restoration plan includes:

The most probable estimate for dam removal and associated mitigations is $290 million (in 2020 dollars). Partial removal would cost $247 million, this assumes leaving some structures in place such as old powerhouses and selected abutment structures. Note that $200 million would come from ratepayers (who would otherwise foot the $500 million plus price tag for dam relicensing) and the balance would come from California.

The one-year dam removal project is estimated to result in 1,400 jobs during the year of construction.

Commercial fishing jobs were estimated in five Management Zones. Estimated jobs stemming from improved fishing conditions range from 11 average annual jobs in the KMZ-OR Management Area to 218 average annual jobs in the San Francisco Management Area.

- Dam removal would immediately alleviate massive blooms of toxic algae that plague the river each summer and pose health risks

Salmon dependent Tribes would benefit from increased abundance of salmon and improved water quality.

Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuges would receive additional water and for the first time in more than 100 years, receive a certainty of water delivery. This water supply could improve hunting and wildlife viewing, which could attract more visitors to the refuges. There would be an estimated additional 193,830 fall waterfowl and 3,634 hunting trips over the 50-year period of analysis.

Combined, the Settlement Agreements invest over $700 million in the Klamath Basin over the next 15 years, and proponents stress that the restoration plan protects and enhance a regional natural resources economy that is worth over $750 million each year when healthy.

Notes:

For more on the most recent federal and state dam removal environmental analysis and federal and state decision-making process, see: www.klamathrestoration.gov

All the four Klamath hydropower dams combined have generated only a very small amount of power – only about 82 Megawatts (MW) on average over the past fifty years. According to estimates by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the federal agency that licenses dams, after expensive retrofitting to meet modern standards, these dams would then only generate about 62 MW of power on average, or about 27% less than they do today. FERC itself estimated in its 2007 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) on relicensing that even if fully FERC relicensed, the required retrofitting would be so expensive that these dams would then operate at more than a $20 million/year net loss (see FERC FEIS, Table 4-3 on pg. 4-2). The November 2007 FERC Final EIS is available online at:

http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/File_list.asp?document_id=13555784

It can also be found by a FERC docket search at www.ferc.gov through their eLibrary, Docket No. P-2082-027 posted November 16, 2007, Doc. No. 20071116-4001.

# # # 

Who's being robbed? - The proposed Secretarial Decision will place private irrigators who get subsidized water courtesy of US Taxpayers first in line for Klamath River water ahead of salmon and the majority of Klamath River Basin irrigators who get shafted in the proposed Secretarial Decision. 

KlamBlog's Comments:

KlamBlog agrees that relicensed PacifiCorp dams would be money losers: "FERC itself estimated in its 2007 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) on relicensing that even if fully FERC relicensed, the required retrofitting would be so expensive that these dams would then operate at more than a $20 million/year net loss (see FERC FEIS, Table 4-3 on pg. 4-2)." That means the dams will be removed one way or another; that's a done thing . The two big questions which will be answered in the weeks and months ahead are:

•  Who will pay for dam removal? We don;t agree with the Karuk Tribe that the ratepayers (PacifiCorp electricity customers) would bear the full cost if dam removal were pursued through FERC. We think it is likely that the PUC would order that PacifiCorp shareholders would have to come up with some of the facilities removal funds. After all, those shareholders have been pocketing profits from operating those facilities for many, many years.  

• What other subsidies, benefits and other provisions will get a ride on a dam removal train that will lead to dam removal? Federal Agencies, the Irrigation Elite and those federal tribes which have signed the agreement - the Yurok, Karuk and Klamath Tribes - all stand to gain if the KBRA Water Deal is included - as is - in Klamath Dam Removal Legislation and the Secretarial Decision. Those who stand to stand to lose include the majority of private Klamath River Basin irrigators, the Hoopa, Quartz Valley and Resighini Tribes and - we would argue - prospects for restoration of the Klamath River and the recovery of Klamath Salmon.