The owner of six dams on the Klamath River is hoping to have settlement talks under way as early as the fall, and has repeated its stance that no options -- including dam removal -- are off the table.

Portland, Ore.,-based PacifiCorp's application for the relicensing of the dams has been accepted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Now the power company wants to open settlement negotiations with tribes, environmentalists and others, whose final terms would be adopted by federal regulators.

Such a process has been used throughout the West to allow for more flexibility than is provided for in the onerous relicensing process. But how many groups -- and who will represent them -- will be allowed at the table is up in the air.

"I think we've been clear that we haven't drawn a line in the sand," said PacifiCorp spokesman Jon Coney. "We haven't prejudged the outcome."

Klamath Indian tribes, fishermen and environmentalists are just coming off a trip to Scotland, where they met with PacifiCorp parent company ScottishPower executives and attended its shareholders meeting. ScottishPower pledged that its subsidiary would talk with the groups. Last month, PacifiCorp CEO Judi Johanson met with several Klamath tribes.

Yurok Tribe Executive Director Troy Fletcher said the Yuroks have told PacifiCorp they want to negotiate with the understanding that their goal is to see the dams removed. But the tribe also wants to see the full effects of such an effort studied, something the company has left out of its federal license application.

"We believe PacifiCorp is poised to do the right thing and the Yurok Tribe is going to do everything we can to help restore fish to the Upper Klamath Basin," Fletcher said.

Salmon once ran far up the Klamath, maybe well into the Sprague and Williamson rivers that feed Upper Klamath Lake. As the dams went up, salmon were cut off from their historic spawning grounds.

A lawsuit from tribes on the upper Klamath asks for $1 billion in compensation for treaty rights to fish for salmon in the upper watershed. Coney said that lawsuit could complicate settlement talks.

The hydroelectric project today produces about 151 megawatts, enough to serve 77,500 homes. Coney said it's a source of cheap power that doesn't pollute -- an assertion questioned by many who hold that its reservoirs degrade water quality.

Coney could not say what removal of the project might mean to its ratepayers. The California Energy Commission has stated that new, larger power projects coming on line regionally would more than supplant the power PacifiCorp generates.

And ScottishPower bills itself as an environmentally minded company, and could face a public relations backlash if PacifiCorp isn't willing to consider eliminating some of its impacts.

In fact, the tribes and groups that traveled to Scotland were the source of a minor media frenzy in a country whose residents were largely unfamiliar with ScottishPower's interests in the Klamath River.

One of the key elements likely to come up during settlement talks is the cost of dam removal. Some preliminary estimates have been thrown around, but the price is likely to be in the tens of millions of dollars, and PacifiCorp would probably expect federal assistance in bearing the burden.

"I think it's inevitable that federal funding of dam removal is going to come up," Coney said.

How many dams might come out would obviously affect the cost, and different groups might advocate different approaches. Craig Tucker of the Sacramento-based Friends of the River said Keno Dam could be left, and the other dams are fair game, but Iron Gate Dam, in his opinion, has to go.

The National Research Council and the California Energy Commission have advocated that removal of at least Iron Gate Dam be considered.

The differing opinions mean as many groups that are committed to the process should be allowed at the table, Tucker said. But instead of following other successful models, PacifiCorp seems intent on dictating the shape of the negotiations, he said, something that might only lead to lawsuits once the settlement terms are clear.

"The last thing the Klamath needs is another lawsuit," Tucker said.

__________________________________________________________

Addendum by Barb Hall, Klamath Bucket Brigade

The Storms

The Floods

Flooding was unusually rapid due to saturated soils and snowmelt. Large rivers, rather than small streams, caused the most damage. The foothills of the Sierra Nevada and areas downstream of the foothills were particularly hard hit, especially in the communities of Wilton, Olivehurst, and Modesto. Flooding on large rivers was partially controlled by large flood-control reservoirs that had only moderate storage capacity available due to prior runoff. Levee failure on the Cosumnes, Mokelumne, Tuolumne, and Feather rivers caused wide-spread damage. Small streams and rivers in the coastal areas also caused wide-spread flooding. The highest peak flows in the region occurred December 30 through January 2 .