The Upper Basin-Lower Basin divide - Contemporary expression and historical roots

One of the persistent problems in the Klamath River Basin is the yawning divide between the “Upper” and the “Lower” Basin. There are historical reasons for that divide which we explore below. But first we will address one of the most important aspects of the divide - the fact that Lower Basin media news outlets rarely report on what is going on in the Upper Basin and vice versa. Furthermore, while in the Upper Basin the web site Klamath Basin Crisis does a good job collecting and publishing press clips from throughout the Basin and beyond, no Lower Basin organization performs this service for Lower Basin residents. This is a need that one of the Lower Basin’s environmental organizations could address. But so far none of these organizations has stepped forward to provide a Basin-wide news clip service.

Late Fall brought many examples of important information on Klamath water issues which were reported in the Upper Basin but not reported in the Lower Basin. A few of those stories are summarized below along with links to the original news reports and comments on the significance of events reported. Unfortunately, many of these reports come from Klamath Falls based Herald and News. Unlike most news outlets, the H&N charges for access to its archives; articles are only available without charge for 14 days. Therefore no links are provided for those reports.The Pioneer Press is a weekly published out of Fort Jones. It does not have a web site.

Late Fall 2008 in the Klamath River Basin

• On November 19^th the Herald & News reported on the breeching of levees above Upper Klamath Lake which will create 2200 acres of restored wetlands. The project was lead by The Nature Conservancy which owns the Williamson River Delta Preserve established on what was previously Tulane Farms. TNC paid $7.5 million for the properties with funding from federal, state and private sources. The current project is part of an ongoing effort by TNC, the Bureau of Land Management and others to restore previously diked and drained wetlands around Upper Klamath Lake to improve water quality and to provide habitat for endangered Kuptu and Tshuam (sucker species). You can learn more about restoration efforts around Upper Klamath Lake on TNC’s web site. (http://www.nature.org/success/klamath.html)
  

Commentary:

One of the “selling points” often cited by proponents of the proposed Klamath Water Deal (AKA the Klamath River Basin Restoration Agreement) is that it will establish a restoration program. However, a lot of the restoration work which is included in the Deal is already going on (see example above) and appear to have no problem securing funding. In fact, by legislating how restoration funds would be used the Water Deal (if it ever is enacted into law) will tie the hands of restorationists, preventing allocation of restoration funding based on “most benefit for the buck.” Instead restoration projects favored by those interests which have dominated Klamath negotiations (the Klamath Water Users Association, Klamath Tribes and Yurok Tribe) would be mandated while other projects which would provide more benefit to salmon – including projects in the Shasta and Scott and to address Keno Reservoir water quality – would have a difficult time finding funding.

• Siskiyou County Supervisor Marcia Armstrong writes the column “Ridin’ Point” for the Pioneer Press published in Scott Valley. In her 11/19 column, Armstrong revealed for the first time one of the reasons Siskiyou County does not support the Water Deal. According to Armstrong the Deal’s governance structure “includes no representation for agriculture in the Scott and Shasta Valleys, timber and mining.”

Commentary:

The proposed Water Deal not only does not provide “representation” for Shasta and Scott Ag interests it all but ignores these Basin’s altogether. This is one of the main weaknesses of the Deal and reveals its explicitly political and anti-scientific approach. The Water Deal’s disdain for science includes ignoring the recommendations of the two independent Klamath science evaluations completed by the National Research Council. The first NRC Report pointed out that the Shasta and Scott provide the best opportunities to help Coho salmon and are key to recovery of Coho in the Klamath River Basin. The second NRC report singled out the Klamath River Flow Assessment conducted by Dr. Thomas Hardy under contract to the Interior Department for its harshest criticism. The NRC pointed out that the Flow Assessment treated the Klamath River Basin as if it were “the Upper Basin and a gutter to the sea.” Instead the NRC strongly recommended that a basin-wide flow assessment be conducted in order to properly determine flows from the Upper Basin, Trinity, Shasta, Scott and other tributaries which are needed to provide for restoration of the River and recovery of Klamath Salmon.

The Water Deal’s most controversial provision – the water allocations and river flow regime it seeks to lock in via federal legislation – is based on the flow assessments which the NRC identified as the wrong approach. How will this abandonment of good science be viewed by the incoming Obama Administration? Obama has emphasized that decisions in his Administration will be based on solid science as opposed to the Bush Administration where politics routinely trumped science. The Klamath Water Deal may be among the first issues where that Obama promises will be tested.

The conservation groups who have most strongly promoted the Water Deal are American Rivers and Trout Unlimited. Both groups have been critical of the Bush Administration for basing resource and environmental decisions on politics rather than science. Both organizations also claim that they are committed to basing water and other resource decisions on solid science. Both are open to criticism for not practicing what they preach when it comes to the Klamath, i.e. when they promote a Water Deal that ignores the best independent scientific judgment about what is needed to restore the Klamath River and Klamath Salmon.

• On November 25^th the Herald and News reported that the Siskiyou County Supervisors have produced a document titled “Solutions and Alternatives for the Klamath River” which includes alternatives to dam removal. One of those alternatives (“Hart Bypass”) would develop a salmon migration channel from below Iron Gate Dam to the upper end of Copco Reservoir.
  

Commentary:

You can request a copy of Siskiyou County’s “Solutions and Alternatives for the Klamath River” from the county’s natural resource specialist Ric Costales (rcostales@co.siskiyou.ca.us ).

• On November 28^th the Herald and News reported that the “Off-Project Water Users” – those who do not receive water via the federal Bureau of Reclamation managed Klamath Project – have again asked the Klamath County Commissioners to arrange a meeting with the “On Project Water Users” and the Klamath Tribes. The Commissioners agreed to bring up the issue with its Natural Resources Advisory Committee in January.

Commentary:

The Klamath County Commissioners are in a tough place. Traditionally they have backed the “On Project Water Users” (the Irrigation Elite) who have more money, are better organized and enjoy much greater political influence as compared to the “Off Project Water Users”. However, in this case the elected state senator and assemblyman for the area both oppose the Water Deal and the congressman – Greg Walden – has not endorsed it. Furthermore, some members of the Commission appear to have ideological problems with the Water Deal which they see as a big government approach. They are also hesitant to support dam removal. Look to them to continue to sit on the fence neither endorsing nor opposing the Water and Dam Deals.

• On December 10^th the Herald and News reported that the Klamath County Commissioners would not send a representative to the meeting of the self-styled Klamath Settlement Group which met in Sacramento in mid-December. Reportedly two of the three commissioners considered attending the meeting but decided not to “on advice of legal counsel.” County Counsel Dan Bunch said he was concerned about “how an elected official can be held to a confidentiality agreement.”

Commentary:

Where was this county counsel during the past two years? Over that period, one of Klamath County Commissioners attended numerous “confidential” meetings of the Klamath Settlement Group. Humboldt County Supervisor Jill Geist also attended many of the secret meetings as did Siskiyou County’s legal counsel.

Why is the issue of the legality (and appropriateness) of discussing public resources, government policy and exemptions from state and federal law in meetings covered by a written and legally binding “confidentiality agreement” only being raised now? And why have none of the groups which oppose the secret deal making not filed suit under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)? FACA prohibits federal officials from “taking advice” from private entities in closed door meetings; it was passed specifically to prevent the sort of process the Klamath Settlement Group has followed – making public policy while excluding the American Public from the process.

By going along with “confidentiality agreements” that prevent public participation and oversight, our elected officials have failed to champion the right of the public to participate in the making of public policy. It now appears clear that the tribes, conservation and fishing groups, government agency reps as well as the local elected officials who participate in the Klamath Settlement Group have no interest in upholding FACA! Secrecy breeds mischief. Perhaps what we need more than anything else in the Klamath River Basin is a democracy watch dog group which will look out for the interests of the all the people!

• On December 10^th the Pioneer Press reported on dissent within the Karuk Tribe over the Tribe’s support for dam removal. Allegedly a group of “angry Karuk and Klamath River residents fired off an angry letter and petition to the county (of Siskiyou) against dam removal and the Karuk Tribal Council.” The petition reads in part: “All tribal members and community members should be able to have a voice, not a select few.”

Commentary:

The Karuk Tribe has for many years had two main political factions which have competed for control of the tribal government. While the current tribal council has championed causes like dam removal and limits on “recreational” mining, the other faction has opposed these causes. The current tribal council has often been in conflict with Siskiyou County which has supported recreational mining and opposed dam removal.

• On December 18^th the Herald & News published a report with the headline “Water meetings: Mum’s the word.” The article asserts that “Stakeholders who want to participate in talks about Klamath River dam removal will have to sign confidentiality and protocol agreements in order to attend future meetings on the issue.”

Commentary:

It appears to KlamBlog that “confidentiality agreements” are being used in the Klamath River Basin to exclude not only the public but also those interests which do not agree with the dominant (and controlling) stakeholders. In this case we need to ask why a “protocol agreement” as well as a “confidentiality agreement” and why the substance of those two agreements have not been released to the public?

Given past behavior of the Bush Administration and the Klamath Settlement Group’s dominant players, we suspect that what is behind this behavior is control and manipulation. On the Klamath as elsewhere the Bush Administration is attempting to tie the hands of the new Obama Administration by locking in the Agreement in Principle (AIP) on PacifiCorp’s dams. As we have pointed out previously (see December 3rd post), the AIP changes the standard for deciding whether or not the dams should come out and thereby makes dam removal less rather than more likely. The AIP also unnecessarily delays the earliest commencement of dam removal until 2020. Tribal governments and state agencies have been given incentives to go along with the delay: under the AIP they will divide up $500,000 per year in “mitigation” funds from PacifiCorp for every year of delay in commencing dam removal.

______________________

The Upper Basin/Lower Basin divide: Historical Roots and Political Realities

In 1905 when the federal government chose the Upper Klamath River Basin for its second big project under the Reclamation Act, the Klamath River Basin was a backwater, far from the minds of state officials in Salem and Sacramento. So it is not surprising that the Oregon and California state governments went along with the proposal that the feds take over all water rights between Upper Klamath Lake and the Cascade Canyon. Neither state had the funds to develop Klamath water resources and local interests which were primarily involved in agriculture favored the cession of all water rights to the feds.

It seems amazing to us now but the federal Bureau of Reclamation was allowed to take rights to the entire flow of the river. Just as they had dewatered Lower Klamath Lake the feds planned to completely dewater the Upper Klamath. Allowing any water to flow into the Cascade Canyon and Lower Basin was considered waste.

It was only development of hydropower in the Klamath’s Cascade Canyon which persuaded the Bureau of Reclamation to allow water to flow in the Klamath during the summer. This is the origin of the Irrigation Elite’s claim that they deserve subsidized power from what are now PacifiCorp’s Klamath dams. That claim has been rejected by both the Oregon and California Public Utilities Commissions.

With the exception of water allowed to flow to PacifiCorp’s dams, the Upper Basin was managed as if it was completely separate from the Lower Basin. The separation is revealed in language: the term “Klamath Basin” meant the Upper Basin; the term Klamath River meant the Lower Basin. That portion of the Klamath River above the Cascade Canyon was renamed. No longer would there be a Klamath River in the Upper Basin. The new name assigned was Lake Ewana. Today school children in Klamath Falls, Malin and Tulelake remain ignorant of the fact that the Klamath River begins at the outlet of Upper Klamath Lake. The historical record is silent on whether there was any protest from the Lower River when the Basin was redefined so that it could comfortably be treated as two rather than a single river basin.

This changed a bit in the 1960’s when Iron Gate Dam was built. By that time the Federal Power Act had been passed and the California Department of Fish & Game was able to file arguments for “mitigation” for the loss of habitat blocked by the dam and for dam bypass flows sufficient to support salmon and other fisheries in the Lower River. As for the mitigation, that was and is the Iron Gate Hatchery. While it is run by California Department of Fish & Game, the cost is born by PacifiCorp, the owner of Iron Gate Dam.

The next change affecting the separation of Upper and Lower Basins occurred with the listing of Coho salmon in the 1990s as threatened pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act. As a result, the Bureau of Reclamation had to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service on the Klamath Project’s impacts to Coho salmon in the Klamath River. When that consultation did not result in enough water in the Lower River for salmon, environmental and fishing groups sued. These groups have subsequently won consecutive lawsuits and each time that has resulted in more water being allocated to the Lower Klamath. It is this trend which the Irrigation Elite seeks to roll back. More water in the Lower Klamath means less water in the Upper Basin for diversion to farms, ranches and golf courses. The Coho listing and the Endangered Species Act remain the only way that more water has been obtained for salmon and the Lower Klamath River. While there has been much talk about tribal rights to flows for salmon, the one tribe that clearly has those rights – the Yurok Tribe – has not asserted them on behalf of salmon or the river. On the Klamath it is the ESA – not tribal rights – which has done the heavy lifting on behalf of salmon and water for the Lower Klamath River.

Seen within this historical context, the proposed Klamath Water Deal is an attempt to re-separate management of the Upper and Lower Klamath River Basin. If the amount of water which is allowed to flow to the Lower Klamath River is locked-in via federal legislation, Upper Basin interests can go about managing what is left without concern for future needs and future demands from the Lower Basin. This is what Upper Basin water interests refer to as “certainty”.

Locking in the amount of water which flows from the Upper Basin through legislation will mean that any future flow needs above that amount would need to come from other sources or be purchased from Upper Basin water interests. Since Trinity River flows are also set by legislation that leaves the Shasta and Scott as the only remaining sources where a substantial amount of water is consumed by agriculture and therefore where water can be reallocated for fish and flows. Let’s say, for example, that Klamath Chinook salmon are listed at some point in the future and biologists subsequently determine that to survive and recover Chinook need more water in the Klamath River in September. If the proposed Klamath Water Deal is enshrined in federal legislation that water will have to come from the Shasta and the Scott. No wonder Siskiyou County opposes the Water Deal!

Does no Dam Removal Agreement mean no Water Deal?

The Yurok Tribe, Karuk Tribe, Trout Unlimited and the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermens Associations (PCFFA) are among those who have most loudly insisted that if there is no deal to remove four PacifiCorp Klamath River dams the proposed Water Deal also known as the Klamath River Basin Restoration Agreement will not be completed. Do they mean what they say? If the press asks the right questions, we may soon know.

At this point the answer to the question is unclear. All four of these organizations joined the Bush Administration, Governor Kulongoski and Governor Schwarzenegger in a joint press release praising the Agreement in Principle on the dams. But does that Agreement constitute a commitment to remove the four dams? Not if you believe PacifiCorp.

On December 12th the Siskiyou Daily News reported on a presentation by Dean Brockbank, PacifiCorp’s vice president and general counsel, to the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors. The Siskiyou County Supervisors – who govern the county where three of PacifiCorp’s five dams are located - have been among the loudest opponents of both dam removal and the Water Deal that irrigators who get water from the federal Klamath Project, three federal tribes as well as some environmental and fishing groups have promoted. Mr. Brockbank was unequivocal: “The AIP is not a dam removal agreement," Brockbank asserted. "There are many conditions that have to be met before we can arrive at a Final Agreement."

While some press releases have muddied the water, the language of the Agreement In Principle (AIP) is quite clear: it says that a decision whether or not to remove the dams will be made by the federal Interior Department in 2012. The AIP also says that decision will be based not on the dams’ environmental performance but rather on a “Cost Benefit Analysis” or CBA.

CBA has been used by the Bush Administration to avoid actions to protect and restore the environment. In a CBA the future benefits of salmon restoration will be deeply discounted and may not equal the power benefits which the dams produce in the present. CBA is notoriously subject to political manipulation. For example, the Bush Administration recently lowered the dollar value of a human life in order to produce CBAs that favor industrial interests like coal fired power plants which produce pollution that kills people.

Will the promoters of the Water Deal be willing to wait until 2012? Or will they interpret the Agreement in Principle as sufficient and move to finalize the Water Deal, draft federal legislation to implement it and get Congress to appropriate the billion dollars in subsidies and other payouts which would be necessary to implement the Deal?

We should soon know the answer. If the priority is dam removal, organizations will not endorse the Agreement In Principle because it not only is not an agreement to remove the dams but actually makes dam removal less likely. If the priority, however, is the Water Deal organizations will call the AIP “a sufficient step forward” and will move to finalize the Water Deal and draft federal legislation.

Where will the members of the Klamath Settlement Group come down? Is dam removal only a flagship for the Water Deal or is dam removal their top priority? We should soon know although it may be necessary to debunk the spin that will be woven around the decisions these groups make. KlamBlog will attempt to do just that.

Meanwhile an Ag Alert issued by the California Farm Bureau in late November revealed one likely reason the Siskiyou County Supervisors oppose the Water Deal. Siskiyou County Farm Bureau Past-President Mike Luiz was quoted in the Alert: "Siskiyou County Farm Bureau is concerned that in dry years, such as this year and last year, the Klamath will dry up in spots and the government will be looking to the Scott and Shasta rivers to make up those flows."

This aspect of the Water Deal debate has not been covered by the press in spite of the fact that KlamBlog identified the issue when the proposed Water Deal was first announced last January. The Deal would give first priority for water to irrigators within the federal Klamath Project solidifying their standing as the Basin’s Irrigation Elite. It would also set Klamath River flows. The Deal is silent on flows from other rivers and streams including the Shasta, Scott and Trinity Rivers which are also heavily used by agriculture. Instead it relies on a flow needs assessment which independent scientists with the National Research Council have identified as deeply flawed because it treats the Klamath “like the Upper Basin and a gutter to the sea.”

The independent scientists called for a basin-wide flow assessment to determine flows needed from tributaries – including the Shasta and Scott – as well as from the Upper Klamath. In the absence of such an assessment, the Shasta and Scott will be the first place regulators, tribes and fishermen look for more water in drought years. Pressure on the Shasta and Scott will be particularly strong if federal funds are not available to lease water for fish from the Irrigation Elite whose massive taxpayer-financed pumps mine water from the California portion of the Lost River Basin. That groundwater has been utilized by the Bureau of Reclamation’s Klamath Water Bank to meet ESA mandated flows and lake levels while maintaining full irrigation deliveries. The US Geological Service has called the pumping and the water bank “unsustainable”.

Klamath Dams Agreement in Principle: Is it a “step forward” or a step back?

The Agreement in Principle (AIP) reached by the Bush, Schwarzenegger and Kulongoski Administrations with PacifiCorp has now been out for a couple of weeks and most of the players have weighed in with press statements and releases. Even KlamBlog’s principle author got into the act at the request of the Siskiyou Daily News.

As expected, those organizations which have been pushing a parallel Water Deal (official title: Klamath River Basin Restoration Agreement) praised the move while those who have been skeptical found new support for their positions. One organization – The Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Association – made conflicting press statements. While Executive Director Zeke Grader voiced concern and skepticism, PCFFA’s Klamath negotiator Glen Spain joined a press release praising the deal and signed a letter (also signed by several federal officials, the Klamath, Yurok and Karuk Tribes, Trout Unlimited and American Rivers) requesting that the California Water Resources Board indefinitely delay a decision on whether the dams can meet water quality standards. It is widely believed that water quality is the dams’ Achilles Heal. If the water quality hearings went forward, some say, dam removal proponents would emerge with a much stronger hand in dam removal negotiations.

One organization that has been generally (but quietly) supporting the Water Deal – Friends of the River – voiced concerns about the AIP. FOR may have been influenced by the linkage of Klamath dam removal with new dams, reservoirs and a new canal to bring Northern California water south. Governor Schwarzenegger made the connection explicit during the press conference announcing the Klamath Dams Deal. Long-time salmon advocate Dan Backer spelled out the connection in an article published on Bay Area Indy Media and by KlamBlog (see November 17th KlamBlog post).

The ink was scarcely dry on the Agreement in Principle when the very organizations which had campaigned for years to brand PacifiCorp and principle owner Warren Buffett as an outside corporate heavyweight with its foot on the neck of Klamath River communities were positively gushing over the company’s civic mindedness. One wonders whether the rank and file who took off work to journey to protests in Portland and Omaha are confused by the about face.

But while the dominant message that came through media reports was that the AIP is a positive step toward dam removal, careful analysis of the Agreement reveals that it actually makes dam removal farther off and more difficult to achieve, Here’s why:

The AIP calls for 12 years of “studies” before a decision is made on whether or not to take out the dams. And when that decision comes it will not be made by the California Water Quality Control Board or even the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission but by the federal Administration which is in office in 2020. In the meantime PacifiCorp will continue to operate the dams and the dams – through their impact on water quality – will continue to contribute significantly to the fish disease epidemic in the Klamath River which is claiming thousands (and perhaps millions) of juvenile salmon and steelhead each year on their way to the ocean.

But that is not the worst part.

According to the AIP the decision on whether to take out the dams will be based on Cost Benefit Analysis. Cost Benefit Analysis is notorious among environmentalists because it has been a principle tool the Bush Administration has used to avoid environmental protection. In fact, a case was argued before the Supreme Court just this week in which environmental groups criticized Cost Benefit Analysis because it is subject to political manipulation. In the case before the high court, public utilities seek reinstatement of a Bush Administration regulation that environmentalists had successfully overturned in lower courts. The Bush regulation gutted the Clean Water Act mandate stating that when utilities upgrade or refurbish power plants they must put in new technology which eliminates water and air pollution. Utilities could avoid the clean technology mandate under the Bush regulation if the cost of the new cleaner technology failed cost-benefit analysis. All Things Considered reported on the case yesterday.

Basing a decision on whether or not to remove the dams on Cost Benefit Analysis makes dam removal less likely – or at least more remote. This is so not only because Cost Benefit Analysis is subject to manipulation but also because using it changes the standard which the dams must meet to remain in place.

It is now widely recognized that PacifiCorp’s Klamath River dams can not meet water quality standards established pursuant to the Clean Water Act. Therefore, the dams must install new technology to clean the water or they can not be legally relicensed and must be removed. That new clean water technology – coupled with the fish passage requirements already ordered - would cost more than the aging plants are worth. Removing the dams would then be the best business decision for the company.

The AIP avoids this result. It puts the Clean Water Act on the shelf for 12 years and substitutes Cost Benefit Analysis for Water Quality as the standard by which the dams will be judged. And if Cost Benefit Analysis makes it into legislation to implement a dam and water deal there is the possibility that the Klamath dams could be exempted entirely from the Clean Water Act. That would clear the way for them to be legally relicensed.

But why would the Karuk Tribe and the Yurok Tribe which have been among the staunchest defenders of the Klamath River and Klamath Salmon agree to such a deal? That is a question which increasing numbers of these tribes’ members are also asking.

In such cases it is prudent to head ancient wisdom and "follow the money". In this case the AIP itself provides part of the answer. Under the AIP PacifiCorp would devote at least $500,000 per year for 12 years to water quality, engineering and other studies. With water quality and fisheries departments in place, the tribes are well positioned to receive some of these contracts. And these departments are in a bind because they are dependent on federal and state grants which have dwindled in recent years.

The rest of the $5 million or more that will be dispensed over 12 years will be picked up by state agencies – a fact which also helps explain their support. Essentially, PacifiCorp is paying half a million dollars a year so that its dams can avoid complying with the Clean Water Act for 12 years. If the Cost-Benefit Analysis says dam decommissioning is not economical, the whole process of relicensing the dams begins again. That process has already taken up the better part of a decade.

The question which is not being faced is this: Can Klamath Salmon survive 12 to 20 more years with the Klamath River dams in place? A new study released by CalTrout appears to suggest that - while the dams are only one among several factors - wild Klamath River Coho Salmon may be only a memory when the dams come down (if they ever do).

Klamath Deal dissenters – the Northcoast Environmental Center, Water Watch and Oregon Wild – have done a good job pointing out problems with the AIP and the previous Water Deal. But these organizations have yet to clearly articulate an alternative path to dam removal. This lack of a well articulated alternative strategy that leads to dam removal remains the main argument which supporters are using to promote both the Dam Deal and the Water Deal which they will seek to join together before taking the whole package to Congress. Until opponents of what can now be called the Dam and Water Deal clearly articulate an alternative path, that argument will remain potent.

Klamath Dam Deal - Is there a linkage to more dam building?

Since it was announced late last week, dozens of articles and press releases have appeared about the "Agreement in Principle" to remove four of the five dams on the Klamath River which are owned by Warren Buffett's PacifiCorp. But only one of those articles (as far as we can tell) has linked the Klamath dam deal to plans by the Schwarzenegger Administration to build two new dams and reservoirs in the Sacramento Valley as well as a "discrete conveyance" to carry Northern California (including Trinity River) water around the Sacramento Delta and to corporate farms and cities in Southern California. That one article is by Dan Backer and it appeared on the Bay Area Indy Media web site. The article is reprinted below as well as a comment on it by Klamath River Advocate Felice Pace which also appeared on the BAIM web site. Felice Pace is KlamBlog's principle author.
_________________________


Saturday Nov 15th, 2008 12:44 PM

Is Schwarzenegger Trading Klamath Dam Removal for the Destruction of the Delta?


by Dan Bacher

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger never misses an opportunity to push his environmentally destructive and enormously costly $ 9.3 billion water bond proposal to build two new reservoirs and "improved conveyance" - the peripheral canal.

True to his role as the "Fish Terminator," the Governor used a press conference that he appeared at with Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne and Mike Chrisman, California Secretary of Resources, in Los Angeles Friday to promote building new dams in California the day after an agreement in principle was reached between Oregon, California, PacifiCorp and the Bush administration over Klamath Dam removal.

"We are here today to celebrate something really big, which is a great victory for the environment of California," Schwarzenegger gushed. "With the Klamath River Agreement we are making actual history, because this will be the biggest dam removal project ever in the history and the biggest one in the United States. So this is great for California and this is really great also for Oregon."

He then touted the tentative pact as a consensus-style, win-win situation for the Klamath Basin. "And I'm very proud that everyone here worked together, because something like this cannot be done if not everyone is cooperating and working together, if it is environmentalists, if it is the farmers, the Native American tribes, salmon fishermen, the state and the federal agencies, the PacifiCorp, everyone, and I want to thank them all for their great cooperation. Everyone cares so much about the magnificent river and also the water quality and the fish population, and that is why this came about," Schwarzenegger gushed.

After making that statement, of course, Schwarzenegger just had to promote building new dams and sub-surface water storage, although he didn't specifically mention "improved conveyance" - the peripheral canal. In numerous press conferences and photo opportunities over the past two years, Schwarzenegger and Senator Dianne Feinstein have campaigned for a water bond measure that would two new unneeded reservoirs, Temperance Flats on the San Joaquin River and Sites on the west side of the Sacramento Valley, in spite of the fact that water in both watersheds is dramatically over-appropriated already and the chances are that these dams would never fill anyway.

"Now, let me just say that we all know that we have a very serious water problem in California and, of course, we want to make sure that we build more water storage, above-the-ground and below-the-ground water storage, but they have to be strategically located," stated Schwarzenegger, changing from his role as the "Green Governor" to "Arnold the Dam Builder."

"So this is why it is important that we continue building those, even though we want to take four down," Scharzenegger claimed. "I've been worried, of course, about our declining salmon population, and with this agreement here we are setting the stage for the return of the historic salmon runs on the Klamath River."

Missed in most media reports of the agreement is Schwarzenegger's expectation that this agreement could become a "quid pro quo" to sacrifice the California Delta fish and Central Valley chinook salmon species, now in an unpredented state of collapse, for removing dams on the Klamath.

A coalition of recreational anglers, commercial fishermen, Indian Tribes, conservationists and Delta farmers is strongly opposing Schwarzenegger's campaign to put a water bond including a peripheral canal and more dams on the ballot this coming year. Although massive opposition to dams and the canal prevented the Governor and allies from putting the proposal on the November ballot, dam and canal opponents fear that he and his corporate agribusiness backers will try to get the water bond on the June ballot.

Supporters of fish restoration in the Central Valley and the Delta fear that the water bond will result in building the infrastructure to increase water exports out of the Delta to Southern California and drainage-impaired land on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley. Central Valley chinook salmon, Delta smelt, longfin smelt, threadfin shad, striped bass and other fish populations have crashed in recent years, due to record increases in water exports, declining water quality and other factors. More dams and a peripheral canal would only exacerbate the deplorable condition of Delta fish and Central Valley chinook salmon, fish advocates point out.

After Schwarzenegger spoke, Kempthorne and Chrisman lauded the Klamath agreement also and praised Schwarzenegger for his environmental "leadership."

"If the data collected during the next four years shows that removal is environmentally prudent, the target for removing all four of the dams is the year 2020," said Kempthorne. "I appreciate the great leadership of Governor Schwarzenegger not only for staying at the table for these negotiations, but also for providing a platform by which Californians and Oregonians will have a future in the Klamath Basin through the restoration agreement."

I love it - here we have Kempthorne, the Secretary of the Interior for the worst-ever administration for fish and the environment in U.S. history, praising Schwarzenegger, the worst-ever Governor for fish and the environment in California history, for the Governor's "great leadership" on the environment!

The Yurok, Karuk and Klamath Tribes, California Trout, Trout Unlimited, the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, American Rivers, two farming organizations and other conservation groups are touting the pact, after several long years of negotiations in the parallel Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement process, as being an important first step toward dam removal and the restoration of the declining salmon runs of the Klamath River.

The Hoopa Valley Tribe, North Coast Environmental Center and Oregon Wild are opposing the agreement for a variety of reasons, most notably because the agreement is non-binding and unenforceable and could become a bailout for Klamath Basin agriculture.

Friends of the River Questions Pact

Friends of the River, a statewide conservation organization based in Sacramento, is critical of the agreement for a multitude of reasons, including the timing of the agreement's release as well as its controversial content, including the linking of Klamath Restoration to Schwarzenegger's water bond proposal.

"The actual agreement did not become available to all Klamath settlement stakeholders until the afternoon of November 12 when members of the Klamath Settlement Group received a briefing from state and federal officials and PacifiCorp," said Steven Evans and Kelly Catlett of Friends of the River (FOR) in a statement Friday. "The agreement has not been approved by numerous other stakeholders, including Friends of the River, that have been involved in the federal relicensing of the Klamath River hydro dams for several years. It remains purely a product produced and endorsed by a sub-set of parties."

The organization is also wary of the many conditions that need to be met for dam removal to take place. These conditions include:

• Full protection for PacifiCorp from all liability.

• Placing a $200 million cap on dam removal costs to be recovered from Oregon and California ratepayers.

• A commitment from the State of California to provide $250 million in dam removal costs through a water bond to be approved by state voters.

• A commitment to attempt federal legislation to authorize and fund the controversial $1 billion Klamath Basin Settlement deal, which would provide water and power guarantees to Klamath Basin farmers.

• Agreement by the states to forego exercising their 401 permitting authority under the Clean Water Act to reduce polluted discharge from the dams.

• State legislation bypassing the authority of the respective state utility commissions concerning ratepayer cost recovery.

• Putting the FERC relicensing process on hold until a federal study is completed by 2012 that will determine whether the benefits of dam removal justify the cost.

"Although Friends of the River believes that a concession in writing from PacifiCorp to remove the dams is a step in the right direction, we have significant concerns about the workability of the agreement in principle," Evans and Catlett said. "Foremost, the agreement has so many prerequisites that MUST occur before dam removal can happen that it would likely never result in the removal of any dams."

Echoing my concerns that Schwarzenegger is trying to link Klamath Dam removal to the building of new dams in the Central Valley, Evans and Catlett noted that California will likely rely on a proposed water bond to be approved by the voters in 2009 to provide the $250 million for river restoration outlined in the agreement.

"Conservationists will oppose this water bond if it also includes billions of dollars to build new or enlarge existing dams in California," they stated. "Coupled with the fact that voters may be leery of approving a multi-billion bond as the state economy continues to melt down, the prospect of the state to meet its obligation under the agreement seems dubious."

They also said the agreement in principle does not spell out who will be responsible for dam removal costs above and beyond the $450 million that would supposedly be covered by ratepayers and the State of California.

"The assumption that the federal government will produce the legislation and authorizations needed to implement the Klamath Basin Settlement is also questionable," they contended. "Opposition has delayed by more than two years the congressional approval of similar legislation to implement the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement. With a price tag that is four times larger than the San Joaquin Settlement and given the declining state of the economy, it seems likely that any Klamath Basin Settlement legislation would be subject to similar attacks, particularly since many groups in Oregon and California oppose the Basin Settlement."

The federal and state agencies hope to come to a final agreement with PacifiCorp in June 2009. The process will include other stakeholders moving forward, but in what capacity is still undetermined at this time, according to Evans and Catlett.

They are also concerned that interim measures adopted until dam removal takes place will be not sufficient to protect salmon and steelhead populations hammered by low, warm water conditions nor protect people, fish, animals from the toxic algae blooms created by PacifiCorp's Iron Gate and Copco reservoirs on the Klamath. While recreational and commercial salmon fishing this year was closed in ocean waters off California and Oregon, due to the collapse of Central Valley fall run chinook salmon, in 2006 commercial salmon fishing was severely restricted because of the Klamath River salmon decline spurred by the Bush administration-engineered fish kills of 2002.

"It is unclear whether interim operations measures adopted after the final agreement is signed in June 2009 will be sufficient to reduce pollution in the Klamath River and adequately protect salmon and steelhead," they concluded. "But these are the measures that will be in place until the dams are actually removed."

I have worked closely on both the Klamath and California Delta restoration battles with recreational anglers, commercial fishermen, California Indian Tribes, farmers and environmentalists -and I greatly respect and support all of the stakeholders for the enormous time, money and effort that they have put into the battle to bring down Warren Buffett's Klamath River dams.

I agree with FOR that the unprecedented concession in writing from PacifiCorp to remove the dams on Thursday is a step in the right direction. I also agree with Evans and Catlett in their critical assessment of the Klamath agreement, particularly in regard to the apparent trade off between Klamath dam removal and the construction of new dams that Schwarzenegger and the Bush administration are pushing.

The final agreement is set to be signed by the states, federal government and PacifiCorp in June 2009. This gives us time to put intense and unrelenting political pressure on the incoming Obama administration to remove any connection to a canal/dam water bond in this agreement, as well strike out other troubling provisions of the tentative agreement.

This is a non binding agreement only and hopefully a more fish-friendly and environmentally-proactive administration in Washington willl craft an improved final agreement that doesn't trade dam removal for new dams and a peripheral canal - that doesn't restore the Klamath River at the expense of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, the largest and most significant estuary on the West Coast. We must restore both the Delta and Klamath River at the same time - and must emphasize to the incoming Obama administration the urgent need to restore the declining salmon and other fish populations in both watersheds!

© 2000–2008 San Francisco Bay Area Independent Media Center. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by the SF Bay Area IMC. Disclaimer | Privacy | Contact
___________________________

Comment by Felice Pace on 11/16/08:

It is difficult to understand why the Pacific Federation of Fishermen's Associations (PCFFA) has joined the Bush Administration and Governor Schwarzenegger in pushing a Klamath River deal that on balance does not appear to be in the interest of salmon and salmon fishermen. Not only is there the linkage to dam building and the peripheral canal in the Central Valley but the Klamath Deal would put farmers ahead of fish in Klamath River water allocation and require leasing water from irrigation interests in order to provide the flows needed by salmon during drought years.

PCFFA and the environmental groups which have signaled support for the Klamath Deal (American Rivers, Trout Unlimited and Cal Trout) are throwing away an opportunity to do something much better for the Klamath River and its salmon. PacifiCorp's Klamath dams can not be legally relicensed because they can not be certified as meeting water quality standards. By pursuing that angle, getting PacifiCorp into court and then pursuing a settlement those who want the dams out could strike a much better deal and avoid providing Governor Schwarzenegger with cover for his Central Valley dam building ambitions.
______________________

Here's a link to the original article at Bay Area Indy Media: http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/11/15/18551300.php

Your comments about the Klamath Dam Deal are welcome and encouraged