A Klamath Settlement That Isn't
Oregonian Editorial
January 17, 2008

Don't break out the champagne just yet to celebrate the sweeping settlement announced Tuesday for restoring Klamath River salmon runs.

It's not really a settlement. It's more like a real estate agent declaring he's got a great deal on a house for you, but the current owner doesn't know about it yet.

In the Klamath case, the current owner is PacifiCorp, the Portland-based utility. It owns four Klamath River hydroelectric dams that a coalition of farmers, fishermen, tribes, conservation groups and government agencies decided should be removed to help endangered salmon.

Trouble is, PacifiCorp was left out of the months of talks leading up to Tuesday's announcement. And there'll be no deal on Klamath dam removal without PacifiCorp on board, a decidedly remote prospect at this point.

The coalition's plan has other gaping holes. It hinges on Oregon, California and Congress agreeing to pay nearly $1 billion in costs, and it contains no provision for paying for dam removal, leaving that $180 million tab for PacifiCorp.

Understandably, utility executives called the planning process irresponsible for freezing out the hundreds of thousands of ratepayers who would be affected by dam removal. PacifiCorp, a unit of MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co., controlled by Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc., initiated the discussions in 2004 when it applied for a new license to operate its Klamath dams for up to 50 more years.

The relicensing talks bogged down in 2006 and were dissolved. In 2007, a coalition of 28 interest groups began new discussions, excluding PacifiCorp and eventually giving the boot to two conservation groups that complained the plan protected irrigators more than salmon.

Nonetheless, it is heartening to see so many former opponents come together to resolve bitter differences over how to share Klamath Basin water between irrigators and fish protected by the Endangered Species Act. Less impressive is the public relations campaign trumpeting a faux settlement reached without involvement of the biggest player of all.

PacifiCorp has not closed the door to removal of the dams, but it doesn't want its customers to have to absorb the cost.

Now, of course, the utility will be invited back to the table, where fish-recovery proponents have some strong arguments for dam removal.

One of these arguments is economic. A new operating license for the dams would require PacifiCorp to spend about $300 million to build fish ladders, while recent state and federal reports conclude that dam removal would be less expensive.

The next round of talks must address another reality: The four dams produce enough power for a city the size of Eugene. Where would the replacement power come from, what would it cost and who would pay for it?

The Klamath debate isn't just about fish and irrigation. It's also about precious clean energy.

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.

No Dam Deal In Klamath Settlement Talks
Oregon Wild Press Release
January 15, 2008

The Bush administration is expected to release today one piece of a “Klamath Dam Settlement Agreement,” the product of three years of secret negotiations over the future of PacifiCorp dams on the Klamath River. Despite a $1 billion dollar price tag, the agreement does not include any provisions for dam removal. Additionally, the agreement fails to stipulate river flow levels for salmon consistent with what the best available science calls for, and contains language aimed at locking in commercial agricultural development on Tule Lake and Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuges for the next 50 years.

“The Bush administration’s settlement agreement is a billion dollar Christmas tree with money in it for every special interest in the Klamath Basin,” observed Steve Pedery, Conservation Director for Oregon Wild, a non-profit fish and wildlife conservation organization. “What began as an effort to help salmon and remove dams has turned into a plan to farm American taxpayers.”

The Klamath settlement talks began over three years ago as part of a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) process to re-license four PacifiCorp-owned dams on the Klamath River. While PacifiCorp initiated the talks, in 2007 the Bush administration and Klamath agribusiness interests disbanded the original settlement group and started a new process, excluding the only two state-based Oregon conservation organizations Oregon Wild and WaterWatch. The deal that these Bush-backed talks have produced is contingent upon dam removal, but that deal is nowhere in sight.

The talks have instead centered on Bush administration guarantees to politically powerful agribusiness interests in the Klamath Basin. Included in the deal are generous water guarantees for the Klamath irrigation project, with no guaranteed flows for fish. Even if met, the predicted flow levels in the Klamath River under the agreement would fall well below the levels the National Research Council (NRC) has endorsed to aid the recovery of salmon, particularly during the critically important late summer and early fall months. The risk of insufficient water is again being placed on salmon, most likely in violation of the Endangered Species Act.

“In September of 2002, the Klamath River suffered one of the worst fish kills in US history because too much water was diverted by irrigation interests in a drought year,” said Bob Hunter, Senior Staff Attorney of WaterWatch. “Instead of learning a lesson from that tragedy, the Bush administration has produced a sweetheart deal that continues to favor a handful of politically powerful agribusiness interests over the health of the Klamath River.”

The Klamath Basin once had the third largest salmon run on the Pacific coast. Today, salmon populations have dwindled to a fraction of their size as a result of irrigation development, dams, and water pollution. In 2005 and 2006, commercial fishing communities in Northern California and along the Oregon Coast suffered devastating closures in an effort to protect what remains of the once mighty Klamath Chinook run. The 2002 Klamath River fish kill, an event that the California Department of Fish and Game has linked to low river flows and excessive irrigation diversions, claimed as many as 70,000 fall Chinook before they could spawn and brought national attention to the plight of the river.

The new settlement agreement does little to permanently reduce the demand for water in the Klamath Irrigation Project, and may lead to extensive groundwater pumping—a scheme which would likely make matters worse. Included in the $1 billion price tag is a $92 million allotment for the Klamath Water Users Association—a commercial agricultural organization—to use federal tax dollars to establish their own plan for water management in the basin.

“Giving agribusiness interests almost $100 million dollars to develop their own water plan is like putting the fox in charge of coming up with a plan to manage the hen house,” noted Pedery. “Water allocation should be determined by scientists, not agribusiness.”

“The claim that the agreement will 'resolve long standing disputes' is just not credible when the agreement does not include a dam removal deal, does not guarantee river flows for fish in the lower river, and institutionalizes large-scale commercial agriculture on 22,000 acres of the nation’s premier National Wildlife Refuges,” stated Hunter. “Why the rush before there is even a dam removal deal? We believe that is because time is running out on the Bush administration’s ability to deliver special interest giveaways to its political allies.”

The $1 billion settlement deal comes at a time of tight federal budgets and a worsening economy. Oregon’s Congressional delegation has been struggling to secure $400 million to support rural schools and law enforcement through the renewal of the popular “county payments” program. Given this fiscal reality, the billion-dollar price tag of the settlement agreement seems far-fetched at best. In addition, while the basin is in need of public funding for restoration and water demand reduction, unfortunately a significant portion of the billion dollars would go to private agribusiness interests and not to solving the basin’s problems.

“The Bush administration and agribusiness have come up with a deal that costs a billion dollars, fails to provide enough water for endangered salmon, continues to harm National Wildlife Refuges and doesn’t contain any provision for dam removal,” said Steve Pedery, Conservation Director with Oregon Wild. “They are putting forward an impossible plan and when it fails they are going to try and blame the Oregon and California Congressional delegations for not passing it.”

“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,” stated Hunter of WaterWatch.

The Klamath debate isn't just about fish and irrigation. It's also about precious clean energy.

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.

Hoopa Tribe Rejects Water Deal
Hoopa Valley Tribe Press Release
January 15, 2008

Hoopa, Calif. – The Hoopa Valley Tribe of northern California will not endorse the latest draft of the Klamath River Basin Restoration Agreement (KRBRA) because the agreement lacks adequate water assurances for fish. Despite being in the minority among the negotiators, Tribal Chairman Clifford Lyle Marshall said Hoopa would never waive its fishery-based water rights, as demanded by federal and other negotiators, in a deal providing no assurances for fisheries restoration.

"What began as dam removal negotiations got tuned into a water deal. PacifiCorp left the room two years ago and negotiations with the company have since been separate 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," Marshall said. "Such an upside down deal threatens the goal of restoration and the Hoopa Tribe's fishing rights," Hoopa Councilman Joe LeMieux said. "We cannot waive the rights of generations to come. Dangling a carrot like this will not work for Hoopa."

The Hoopa objections come after three years of negotiations with farm irrigators, environmental and fishing groups, government agencies, counties, and other tribes. The Tribe has been a leading advocate to protect water rights and fish habitat in the Klamath and Trinity rivers that run through their reservation. "We have worked for years with all the parties to forge an agreement that genuinely restores Klamath River salmon habitat. Unfortunately, this deal locks away too much water for irrigators with no recourse for salmon when the fish need more water. Salmon need enough water, plain and simple," he said.

Marshall said the proposed billion dollar deal altogether ignores the National Academy of Science's recommendations in its November 2007 report on the U.S. - contracted Hardy Phase II Instream Flow Assessment in the Klamath River. Congressional members have urged the use of the Hardy Report to protect coho salmon from jeopardy. Marshall said the deal also dismisses the only independent scientific reviews of the agreement itself. "This latest draft is not a modern science-based river restoration plan. It looks more like an old West irrigation deal, guarantees for irrigators, empty promises for the Indians."

The Tribal Chairman also said that agreement proponents talk about helping the river's fish, but no real fisheries restoration objectives, standards, or assurances are in the agreement. "Some parties seem to think there's no other way to remove the dams. The declining fish population tells us the river is being compromised to death. Hoopa will retain its rights to defend the Klamath. We will work with any and all parties to remove the dams and assure a restored healthy river."

The Klamath debate isn't just about fish and irrigation. It's also about precious clean energy.

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.