Klamath River Pact Out
John Driscoll, Eureka Times-Standard
January 16, 2008

A diverse group of fishermen, farmers, tribes, agencies and environmental groups have announced a tentative agreement to remove dams on the Klamath River, restore salmon and settle agonizing conflicts that have for years split the basin.

It would be the biggest dam removal project in history and one of the most ambitious fisheries restoration efforts ever. The pact calls for removing four dams on the Klamath, securing water and power for farms, and restoring salmon runs.

The deal struck by 26 groups and aired Tuesday has yet to be endorsed by their governing bodies, and negotiations are needed with dam owner Pacificorp regarding the removal of the dams.

While huge hurdles remain, notably finding hundreds of millions of dollars to put the agreement in place, the negotiations represent a watershed in compromise between once-bitter opponents.

On a conference call with the groups, Craig Tucker with the Karuk Tribe said that the parties agreed to civil talks when it was clear that the resources of the river would have to be shared. He called the settlement a means to do that.

”I call it the fish and chips settlement,” Tucker said, referring to potato farming in the basin. “We can have both.”

The plan calls for support of a separate agreement to remove Iron Gate, J.C. Boyle, Copco 1 and Copco 2 dams, which cut off about 300 miles of salmon spawning habitat in the upper Klamath River. It also proposes reintroducing fish like chinook and coho salmon, steelhead and lamprey to those areas and managing them with an eye toward making them self-sustaining populations.

The announcement comes nearly seven years after the federal government cut off water to many farms around Upper Klamath Lake to spare coho salmon in the river and suckers in the lake. The next year, water was crimped to fish to provide full water supplies to irrigators. The events were lightning rods for already simmering conflicts, and sparked a bitter water war.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is currently considering Pacificorp's request for a new license for the dams, which could last 30 to 50 years. Commission staff have recommended keeping the dams in place, and trucking fish around the dams in a effort to restore fisheries. The settlement could supplant the commission process.

Pacificorp has reached settlement agreements in other watersheds, and has said it is interested in settling on the Klamath if it's feasible and economical. A proposal has been pitched to Pacificorp, said Chuck Bonham with Trout Unlimited, but its contents are confidential.

The proposal looks for $985 million over the next decade, not including another $150 million expected to be needed for dam removal. Some of that money can be found be reallocating funds from existing state and federal programs, according to the settlement group. Dam removal may need to be covered by Pacificorp's ratepayers and could be cheaper than putting fish passage provisions in place on the existing dams, Bonham said.

A permanent increase in the amount of water available to fish would be secured as part of a long-term plan drafted by a group of irrigation districts in the Upper Klamath Basin. Some of that water would be made available by reducing irrigation use, retiring water rights on upper tributaries and improving storage by breaching levees in the Williamson River delta, reconnecting the Barnes and Agency Lake ranches and reconnecting Wood River Wetlands to Agency Lake. The agreement also lays out obligatory allocations for wildlife refuges in the upper basin -- rich havens for waterfowl and bald eagles.

A drought plan and an investigation into how climate change will affect fish and communities in the river basin would be authorized, as well as a monitoring effort to track populations of fish. The groups agreed to a permanent limitation on the amount of water taken from Upper Klamath Lake, and crafted assurances to irrigators using a variety of approaches including increased efficiency, land and water acquisitions and water storage projects.

Greg Addington with the Klamath Water Users Association, which represents farmers that use the federal irrigation project in the upper basin, said the settlement stakes out a huge amount of middle ground and has provided an opportunity to gain some certainty. The status quo is a frightening place to be for irrigators in the Upper Klamath Basin, Addington said.

”We live here, we live with the results, with the resource,” Addington said. “We're dependent on it -- we want healthy communities.”

Substantial details need to be worked out, said Erica Terence with the Northcoast Environmental Center in a separate phone interview. The plan represents an enormous shift, she said, but does not promise to be able to fully restore the watershed.

”It represents an incremental step in the right direction,” Terence said.

Costs are enormous, she said, and until the separate but integral hydropower agreement is solidified, it would be premature for the center to sign off on the plan.

Water supply and regulatory certainty that would be provided to farmers in the upper basin are critical areas that Terence said would require the center to conduct a thorough legal review.

Other environmental groups no longer part of the talks criticized the agreement as lacking guarantees for dam removal and water for fish, and for securing farming on wildlife refuges in the upper basin.

”While the package has important fisheries restoration components that are needed in the basin, the total package is so loaded up with special interest giveaways to agribusiness that it is hard to see how it could credibly move through congress,” said Bob Hunter with the group WaterWatch in a statement.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regional director Steve Thompson said that while the Bush administration hasn't reviewed the details of the plan, it has been supportive of his efforts in the basin talks.

The groups vowed to turn over every stone to find the political and financial support needed to make the deal happen. Troy Fletcher, a policy analyst for the Yurok Tribe, said the settlement has the potential to manage the watershed holistically and provide more than the minimum needs of fish on a year-to-year basis. The agreement only works if the four dams are removed, he said.

”We're prepared to do our part, roll our sleeves up and get to work on restoring fish in the basin,” Fletcher said.

California Sen. Patricia Wiggins, D-Santa Rosa -- “I want to congratulate the members of the Klamath Settlement Group. This agreement represents their hard work and best efforts to put aside one of the most contentious and bitter wars over water.”

Luther Horsley, president, Klamath Water Users Association -- “We look forward to working together with the entire watershed.”

Rep. Mike Thompson, D-St. Helena -- “I'm especially pleased that their solution includes taking down all the dams. I've said since the beginning that it's both the best thing for the river and the most cost-effective solution. But we can't move forward until Pacificorp comes to the table and is ready to do what's best for the environment and our local economy by taking down the dams.”

Hoopa Valley Tribe Chairman Clifford Lyle Marshall -- “What began as dam removal negotiations got turned into a water deal. Pacificorp left the room two years ago and negotiations with the company have since been separated from this negotiation. The terms of this so-called restoration agreement make the right to divert water for irrigation the top priority, trumping salmon water needs and the best available science on the river.”

Steve Rothert, American Rivers -- “We applaud the hard work and commitment of all the partners in hammering out this agreement. It proves that when people with very different interests work together in good faith, real solutions are possible.”

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, and as defined under the provisions of "fair use", any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment for non-profit research and for educational use by our membership.

Deal Afoot to Alter Klamath for Users
By Peter Sleeth, Oregonian
January 16, 2008

A unique gathering of government agencies, Native Americans, farmers and fishermen Tuesday proposed removing four dams on the Klamath River, with a cornucopia of benefits running to river users ranging from $80 million to tribes to guaranteed irrigation water for farmers.

Yet the linchpin of the historic deal -- an agreement from Portland-based PacifiCorp to remove its four dams -- is missing.

Also absent are agreements from Oregon, California and Congress to pay nearly $1 billion in costs.

Without the utility's agreement, the proposal is only so much paper. A spokesman for PacifiCorp said Tuesday it was largely in the dark, having been kept out of the two-yearlong negotiations. PacifiCorp is owned by Warren Buffett's Mid American Holdings.

"We were a little surprised they decided to release this given that it is predicated on an agreement with us," said Toby Freeman, a spokesman for the utility in Klamath Falls.

A spokesman for the Klamath Settlement Group said the proposal would now go to PacifiCorp to be included in confidential talks over dam removal. If an agreement is reached, the dams could come out as soon as 2015, the group said.

In the past, the utility has said it would consider dam removal only if it did not mean charging the costs to its ratepayers.

"Calling something a comprehensive, basinwide settlement of all the issues without renewable hydro in the discussion is just a tad irresponsible," said Paul Vogel, a PacifiCorp spokesman in Portland. "What really needs to be restored is the presence of the license holder and hundreds of thousands of customers in the room."

The discussions began in 2004 when PacifiCorp applied for a new license to operate its dams for the next 30 to 50 years. Part of the relicensing is expected to cost the utility $300 million to build fish ladders.

PacifiCorp brought dozens of interest groups together in private settlement negotiations to discuss the relicensing -- discussions that would grow to include a possible deal for taking out some dams. PacifiCorp was asked to leave negotiations by the other groups while they crafted their own solution. Until Tuesday, a deal eluded negotiators as each group made more demands.

"It hasn't been easy; it was a tough several years putting this proposal together, but I've got new-found respect for all the communities involved from tribal to environmental and farming," said Chuck Bonham of Trout Unlimited. "I am also hopeful we can develop a good business deal that works for PacifiCorp and for the river too. We can and should do both."

Looking for money

The estimated cost to re-invigorate the Klamath Basin from its headwaters to the Pacific Ocean would be $985 million over 10 years.

Oregon would be asked to contribute lottery funds to help pay for the deal, according to the agreement. California and the U.S. Congress would have to chip in as much as $500 million in "new money" to the deal, with the remainder coming from money already being spent by the states and federal government on the basin.

Included in the agreement is a new 90,000-acre reservation for the Klamath Tribe in Klamath County, where the tribe once had ancestral lands. The tribe, like many other participants in the agreement, sought its own benefits in exchange for agreeing to the overall settlement.

Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski likes the settlement, a spokeswoman said, but no commitment of money will be made until after a deal to remove the dams has been struck. A summit between Oregon and California governors would follow any agreement, where budgets and timing would be discussed.

"The governor supports this agreement," said his spokeswoman, Anna Richter Taylor. "He is pleased the 26 parties have come together after many, many years of conflict. It's a solid first step towards a long-term solution."

Mike Carrier, natural resources adviser to Kulongoski, said staff members have been updating individual Oregon lawmakers on the agreement. "Our sense is the Legislature is very interested in partnering . . . in coming up with a solution for the Klamath Basin," he said.

If the agreement is eventually accepted by PacifiCorp and the federal government, it would be the largest dam removal and river restoration in the nation's history, and would bring an unlikely peace to the warring factions on the river. Once the third largest producer of salmon on the West Coast, the Klamath River now produces more environmental crises than fish.

Opposition to the deal is centered around the Hoopa Tribe of Northern California, Oregon Wild, a Portland-based conservation group and WaterWatch of Oregon. All three dropped out of settlement talks.

Steve Pedery of Oregon Wild said he doubted the deal could work for either fish or people.

"The Bush administration's settlement agreement is a billion dollar Christmas tree with money in it for every special interest in the Klamath Basin," said Pedery. "What began as an effort to help salmon and remove dams has turned into a plan to farm American taxpayers."

Steve Thompson of the U.S. Department of the Interior said the federal government is already spending $50 million to $60 million a year in the Klamath Basin. That money could help pay for new initiatives, he said.

The Bush Administration has not reviewed the new agreement, he said, but has supported the settlement talks as a way of finding answers for the Klamath.

Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., and Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., applauded the agreement.

"I have long encouraged a locally developed solution that doesn't create winners and losers and doesn't leave out anyone who depends on water to make a living," Smith said. "I applaud all parties for their efforts. This is a complex and multifaceted plan and I look forward to feedback from farmers, tribes, fishermen and all stakeholders involved."

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, and as defined under the provisions of "fair use", any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment for non-profit research and for educational use by our membership.

Deal Would Scrap Klamath Dams
By Jeff Barnard, Associated Press
January 16, 2008

GRANTS PASS — More than 300 miles of struggling salmon runs would be restored along the Klamath River as part of a landmark $1 billion proposal that represents the largest dam removal project in the nation’s history.

The plan, announced Tuesday, followed two years of closed-door negotiations between farmers, Indian tribes, fishermen, conservation groups and government agencies battling over the fate of scarce water and fish protected by the Endangered Species Act.

“What we’ve come up with is a blueprint for how to solve the Klamath crisis,” said Craig Tucker, a coordinator for the Karuk Tribe, which has been working for years to restore dwindling salmon catches that were once key to members’ diet and culture.

The proposal calls for the scrapping of four aging hydroelectric dams that have stood on the river for nearly a century — providing electricity for 70,000 customers, but also blocking salmon from reaching their spawning grounds.

The agreement faces significant hurdles. It must be reviewed by federal agencies, including the U.S. Justice Department, and the dams’ owner, PacifiCorp, which must agree to their removal, perhaps as soon as 2015.

In addition to money already being spent to mitigate the impact of the dams, the deal also calls for some $400 million in new spending on salmon restoration, primarily from Congress, for a total of $1 billion over 10 years.

The plan contains no provision for paying the estimated $180 million to remove the dams, leaving that to PacifiCorp, a unit of MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co., which is controlled by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc.

PacifiCorp has previously said it would be willing to remove the dams if its ratepayers don’t have to pay. But it has also been pursuing a new 30- or 50-year operating license, which would require it to spend about $300 million to build fish ladders.

“It’s worth taking a pretty serious look at it,” said PacifiCorp spokesman Paul Vogel, who noted his company wasn’t part of the negotiations. “We don’t know whether anyone has seriously represented our customers on our behalf, because our customers have to be protected in this.”

Steve Thompson, director of the California-Nevada office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Sacramento, Calif., said the Bush administration has supported the settlement process, but the plan must be reviewed by federal agencies.

Thompson added that he knew of no dam removal project in the country that has restored more habitat or would generate more fish, and characterized the new spending as a better investment than past disaster relief to farmers and fishermen.

Opposition to the agreement is coming from the Hoopa Valley Tribe, based on the Trinity River, which flows into the Klamath below the dams; some farmers who are not part of the Klamath Reclamation Project; and two conservation groups tossed out of the talks last spring, Oregon Wild and WaterWatch.

Hoopa Chairman Clifford Marshall said the agreement gives irrigation water priority over the needs of salmon and requires the tribe to waive its water rights on behalf of fish, without any hard assurances the dams would come out.

“Dangling a carrot like this will not work for Hoopa,” he said.

Luther Horsley, president of the Klamath Water Users Association, which represents the 1,000 farms on the project, said farmers would achieve their goals of predictable irrigation deliveries, affordable power for irrigation pumps, and freedom from future lawsuits involving endangered species.

Steve Pedery of Oregon Wild and Robert Hunter of WaterWatch said they were skeptical that the deal could actually produce the extra water that salmon need to thrive, or that Congress could come up with the money. They characterized the agreement as a sweetheart deal for the Bush administration to give farmers what they want.

The Klamath, straddling the Oregon-California line, was once the third most productive salmon river system on the West Coast, but it has declined because of misguided hatchery practices, overfishing, development and the loss of habitat to dams, mining, and logging.

Fish returns have become so small that in 2006 commercial salmon fishing had to be nearly shut down off most of Oregon and California, causing a federal disaster declaration.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, and as defined under the provisions of "fair use", any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment for non-profit research and for educational use by our membership.