Siskiyou Supervisor Misrepresents Dam Issue
By Craig Tucker, Siskiyou Daily News Editorial
July 02, 2009

Despite steady progress toward realizing a pair of agreements aimed at resolving contentious Klamath Basin water issues, Supervisor Marcia Armstrong continues to purposefully misrepresent the issue.

For more than a decade Klamath Project Irrigators, coastal fishermen and basin tribes have been locked in a battle over the Klamath’s water. This prolonged fight did little more than create large legal bills and economic uncertainty for everyone as the issues were not resolved through litigation or legislation. Thus, leaders from the communities decided to do something radical – sit down and talk to one another.

At the same time, Pacific Power’s Klamath Dams were going through a federally-mandated relicensing process. Given the excessive costs associated with bringing the antiquated dams into compliance with modern environmental standards and the modest amount of power the dams generate, Pacific Power is willing to discuss terms for dam removal.

These two issues – dams and river flows – have led to the development of two proposed agreements, the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement and the Klamath Hydropower Agreement. The two agreements are intrinsically linked as neither agreement alone provides the balanced solutions necessary to forge a lasting peace on the Klamath. In an effort to be fair and meet the needs of the Klamath’s diverse communities, the agreements seek to address the needs of fish and agriculture. The agreements enjoy support from a multitude of tribes, irrigators, conservation groups and fishermen. In fact, Siskiyou County has been part of the negotiations that produced these agreements for over three years!

Supervisor Armstrong appears ideologically opposed to the solutions developed by her own constituents. She is so opposed that she has gone to great lengths to misrepresent the details of the agreements and the reality of the current state of the Klamath River.

Mrs. Armstrong likes to cite two studies, one on the toxicity of the sediment behind the dams and another on the volume of sediment. Mrs. Armstrong lifts passages out of context but neglects to include the studies’ conclusions: “The studies from outside of the Klamath Basin show that the levels found in the sediments behind the Klamath dams do not appear to be problematic…..the toxic equivalents are generally in the lower range of those noted from elsewhere and are below levels expected to cause any significant effects to fishery resource.”

Furthermore the report reads: “Dioxin levels in these sediments are not alarming and since the sediments are expected to rapidly pass the Klamath system to the ocean, noticeable effects to fishery resources should not be expected from exposure to dioxins in the sediments if these dams are removed.”

All of this information is detailed in an April 8, 2008 memo from NOAA’s water quality programs coordinator. I have submitted the entire memo to the editor.

The California Coastal Conservancy filed a sediment study with FERC in 2006 that says: “the toxicity of the sediment in the four lowermost dams is very low and will not affect method or cost of decommissioning.” The document goes on to state that “sediment transport…would be unlikely to cause flooding.” The latter conclusion was confirmed by the county’s own consultants at a public meeting on March 25, 2008.

As we move closer to removal, it is important to note that more comprehensive studies will be performed and publicly reviewed in compliance with state and federal laws.

It is also notable that while Armstrong raises the specter of a toxic disaster if dams are removed, the reservoirs behind the dam have just been posted for blooms of toxic blue green algae – as they are each summer. The toxic disaster is occurring now, but she neglects to acknowledge it or demand that it be addressed.

Fish and algae blooms aside, the two pending agreements would together bring nearly a billion dollars into the area – much of that to Siskiyou County – to fund dam removal, restore the recovered reservoir beds, implement a new irrigation plan, restore fish habitat, and develop alternative power sources. This represents an injection of capital into the area that has not been seen since Interstate 5 was built. At a time when unemployment in the county hovers around 20 percent, you would think an elected official would put job development and economic prosperity ahead of their own ideology. Not so with Armstrong and the dam huggers.

At the very least, Armstrong should respect a local business’ right to make decisions about its own private property. Pacific Power is entering into these discussions willingly and out of self interest – local government should not interfere.

Armstrong and her coalition of “NO” have failed to produce solutions to these problems or bring economic development dollars home to Siskiyou County. She should not stand in the way of those of us who have.

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.