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.
