KBRA “cultural shift” leaves birds dead, basin communities more divided than ever

For those who follow news reports issuing from both the Upper and Lower portions of Klamath River Basin, recent news provides two distinctly different pictures of Klamath River Basin society and natural resources.  This post examines those news reports and analyses what they tell us about society and water management in Klamath Country under the KBRA Water Deal.

The Oregon-California border defines the Upper and Lower Basins which, for water management purposes, were for many years treated as if they were two rather than one river basin

Celebrating Victory

On March 29th the Upper Basin’s Herald and News reported on a celebratory meeting of the Klamath Water Users Association (KWUA) – the organization which represents Upper Basin interests receiving irrigation and landscaping water from the US Bureau of Reclamation’s Klamath Irrigation Project. Those water users – including those who own or lease 200,000 acres of farms and ranches, a golf and country club, hunting lodge and wood products plant – annually consume about 40% of the total water diverted from the Klamath River and major tributaries. Because they receive subsidized water and other advantages over non-federal water diverters, KlamBlog refers to these federal water users as the Irrigation Elite.

At their late March annual meeting, the Irrigation Elite feted Jason Phillips, Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) Klamath Project manager, and Irma Lagomarcino, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) manager responsible for the protection and recovery of  Klamath River Coho Salmon. Klamath River Coho are listed as “threatened” under the California and federal Endangered Species Acts.

Speakers at the event praised the two Interior Department employees for prioritizing filling Upper Klamath Lake which – in spite of low inflows in this drought year – has already been filled even before the snowmelt season begins. Doing that required Phillips and Lagomarcino to agree to cut winter flows in the Klamath River below what is required in the 2010 Biological Opinion for Klamath Coho.

Getting federal managers to prioritizing filling Klamath Lake over all other fall/winter water uses has been a priority for the Irrigation Elite and another organization they dominate – the Klamath County Chamber of Commerce.  In its 2011 annual report, KWUA President Gary Wright acknowledged that the Irrigation Elite organized a campaign to pressure Philips and Lagomarcino to prioritize irrigation needs over the needs of fish and wildlife:                                                                     
       “That work started last fall as we pushed hard to prevent excessive releases (from Upper Klamath Lake) in order to fill Upper Klamath Lake through the winter months. We received great cooperation from Jason Phillips and Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and appreciate their efforts.” 

The Big Policy Picture: Is the KHSA a good model for other rivers with obsolete hydro dams?

Beginning early in the 20th century and continuing through the 1960s thousands of hydroelectric dams were constructed on hundreds of US rivers and streams. Now portions of that vast infrastructure are reaching the end of their useful livers and will be shut down; the dams will be breached, removed or left in place. Thus, over the next decade, the current dam removal trickle is likely to become a flood.
How the US deals with this vast undertaking has implications not only for the rivers and streams on which these projects are located but also for American Taxpayers.

Removal of  Glines Canyon Dam on the Olympic Peninsula

Whether removing PacifiCorp's Klamath River dams is in the public interest continues to be publicly debated. However, broader policy implications of how Klamath dam removal would be accomplished under the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement - the KHSA - have not been discussed.

Members of Congress and taxpaying citizens should consider what sort of precedent the KHSA would set and whether it is a good and a fair approach to dam removal not just on the Klamath but nation-wide.Those questions are discussed below.

Underreported: PacifiCorp gets permit to kill Coho; the Klamath’s traditional “salmon defenders” are as silent as church mice

While press attention was focused on peer review of Interior’s “Overview Report” on effects of the KHSA and KBRA, one of the “promises” granted to PacifiCorp in the KHSA Dam Deal was quietly delivered in early March.

As promised in KHSA section 6.2.2, the National Marine Fisheries Service delivered a permit which will allows PacifiCorp’s Klamath River Dams to continue killing Coho Salmon with impunity in exchange for – you guessed it - money. The permit will remain in effect until PacifiCorp’s Klamath River dams come down – subject to another agency review in ten years.

How long will PacifiCorp's Klamath River Dams be allowed to continue to kill salmon?

Section 6.2.2 of the KHSA states:  
        The Services shall review PacifiCorp’s application to incorporate the Interim Conservation Plan measures into an incidental take permit pursuant to ESA  Section 10 and applicable implementing regulations” and that “each Party (signing the KHSA) shall support PacifiCorp’s request for a license amendment or incidental take permit to incorporate the Interim Conservation Plan measures.”

In other words, those former defenders of Klamath Salmon who signed the KHSA are now obligated to actively support issuance of the permit allowing PacifiCorp to kill Coho. Whether the new permit is actually in the interest of or detrimental to Klamath River Salmon is now irrelevant for those organizations and tribal governments. This is just one of several ways those signing the KHSA and KBRA have been co-opted and controlled.

At the current rate of progress - and if KHSA/KBRA promoters continue to stubbornly cling to their deal fantasies instead of returning to the normal FERC process – the ten year permit review is likely to come around with PacifiCorp’s salmon-killing dams still in place.

Truth and Illusion: Klamath Deal promoters misrepresent Klamath dam options

Promoters of the Klamath dam and water deals – the KHSA and the KBRA – have a new talking point. In recent guest editorials and news stories influenced by promoter organizations they are telling us that there are only two choices for PacifiCorp’s Klamath Hydroelectric Project. In the words of California Trout’s Curtis Knight:
           “There are two legal options for the dams: 1) fix them up and relicense them to modern standards at a cost exceeding $450 million, which is passed on to ratepayers; or 2) decommission and remove the dams under the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA) at a cost capped at $200 million to PacifiCorp and its ratepayers. Dam removal is cheaper. Much cheaper.”

It is true that the dams must either be relicensed to meet current requirements or they must be removed. It is not true, however, that there are only two options - relicensing under modern requirements or the KHSA/KBRA. A third option is to return to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) process where decommissioning and removal of the privately owned Klamath Hydroelectric Project will be accomplished via the process designed by Congress for that purpose.

Removing the dams via the normal FERC process would save taxpayers roughly three quarters of a billion dollars - the cost to taxpayers of the KBRA. The best and the least expensive course for ratepayers and taxpayers is to decide the fate of the dams within the normal FERC process – not via special interest KHSA- KBRA legislation introduced in Congress by Senator Merkley and Congressman Thompson.

PacifiCorp's Condit Dam in Washington State is being removed using the FERC process