Klamath Dam Demolition places "...the ENTIRE burden of public/private loss, cost, and environmental devastation upon the most affected unrepresented ratepayers, taxpayers, and regional residents…”

Rex Cozzalio, 3^rd generation Hornbrook rancher by Irongate Dam, comments on article, Where Our Energy Comes From, Klamath River, by CUB/Oregon Citizen's Utility Board (CUB)
Cozzalio: “…the most knowledgeable and affected Counties encompassing 100% of the Project and over 75% of the ENTIRE Klamath watershed officially voting in SUPERMAJORITY AGAINST Project destruction… the benefitting special interest entities orchestrating this destruction specifically bear NO personal consequence for the losses and damages they are forcibly imposing upon the environment and residents, instead 'agreeing' to place the ENTIRE burden of public/private loss, cost, and environmental devastation upon the most affected unrepresented ratepayers, taxpayers, and regional residents…”

Followed by: Where Our Energy Comes From: Klamath River, by Oregon Citizens’ Utility Board (CUB)  

Rex Cozzalio Commentary: As seen in this 'CUB' repeated or constructed version of 'truth', we continue to see benefitting Executive directed Agencies and profiting agenda proponents constantly 'adaptively managing' and 'solidifying' regional 'history' through unsupported media repetition.  Statements attributing the Klamath Project to 'dwindling salmon'; claimed destruction 'benefits' to ratepayers/taxpayers/residents; and purported 'regionally supported agreements' fly in the face of regional experience, historical documentation, return statistics, and regionally applied empirical studies.  Minor annoyances of actual facts apparently present little concern in CUB's self-promoting rhetoric regarding such things as the most knowledgeable and affected Counties encompassing 100% of the Project and over 75% of the ENTIRE Klamath watershed officially voting in SUPERMAJORITY AGAINST Project destruction; actual statistics and historical documentation which CONTRADICTS claimed 'detrimental' impacts attributed to the Project; and the last DECADE of peer reviewed empirical studies expressly ignored (by them) directly REFUTING the prior agenda-created 'modeled science' claimed 'benefits of destruction'.  Easy to do when the benefitting special interest entities orchestrating this destruction specifically bear NO personal consequence for the losses and damages they are forcibly imposing upon the environment and residents, instead 'agreeing' to place the ENTIRE burden of public/private loss, cost, and environmental devastation upon the most affected unrepresented ratepayers, taxpayers, and regional residents. 

Already FULLY AWARE of the now known CERTAIN failure of their prior promised 'rewilding benefits' it nonetheless appears irrelevant to them since, under their 'agreement' terms, the WORSE the actual consequential environmental devastation, the MORE they will personally benefit in the future.  That fact suggests the primary current priority is simply to REVERSE their previous public 'cure-all' claims in the media used to 'justify' destruction, instead now preemptively publicly placing the projected fault of future environmental FAILURE upon the very residents suffering the greatest imposed losses.  'Never mind' that what in ALL pertinent aspects is now effectively a 'Public Project' is in direct violation of both the U.S. and California Constitutional REQUIREMENTS regarding compensated loss of property values.  The Signatories apparently 'agreed' to ignore any need for compliance given their intent to create a 'precedent' for even greater planned future agenda effective confiscation without compensation, imposed devastation, and unaccountable 'rewilding' special interest profit 'moving forward'.  Sadly for our country and future, that will very likely work, since under their 'agreement' the 'Signatories' are held harmless and will be protected from ANY personal losses through the full governmental weight and legal resources of the 'Signatories' using unending time and ratepayer/taxpayer funds to defend THEMSELVES against the damages they are imposing upon the very public whom the signatory 'States' are supposed to 'represent'.  It seems they are not worried about public blowback, since they have managed the cooperative media to effectively diminish or repress every evidenced and documented instance of regionally witnessed manipulation, deception, and overt corruption to date, and there appears little hope to the most affected supermajorities in opposition that anything will change in the foreseeable future.

.......................... ...................................................................

Where Our Energy Comes From: Klamath River, Posted on November 19, 2021 by Will Gehrke
John C Boyle Dam on the Klamath River, slated for removal in 2023

Where does our energy come from? Here at CUB, much of our work is predicated on the belief that shedding light on this question for utility customers is good for their interests. Most readers are probably aware that a large portion of the power generated in the Pacific Northwest is from hydroelectric sources. If you are a customer of Pacific Power, you might be surprised to learn that some of your electricity comes from hydroelectric power stations on the Klamath River.

The Klamath River is a 257-mile river that flows southwest from Klamath Falls, Oregon through the Cascade and Klamath Mountains and the Yurok Reservation on the Pacific coast. It has an extensive watershed of 16,000 square miles, stretching from Southern Oregon to Northern California. The Klamath River is a major recreation area and a source of irrigation water for both states.

The Klamath River has several major tributaries such as the Williamson, Sprague, Lost, and Shasta rivers. In the early 20th century (1910 to 1925), the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation started the Klamath Basin water management project to develop farmland and supply irrigation water to the region’s farmers. In total, seven dams on tributaries of the Klamath and hundreds of miles of canals were created to develop farmland in California and Oregon.

Separate from these federal irrigation dams, Pacific Power owns and operates seven hydroelectric projects on the Klamath. The dams provide enough power to supply the energy needs of 70,000 households. They were built by the California Oregon Power Company, a predecessor to Pacific Power, that served Southern Oregon and Northern California. The Fall Creek dam is located on a tributary, while the rest of Pacific Power’s facilities are located directly on the Klamath.

There has been considerable opposition to the Klamath River hydro dams, including from environmental activists and Indigenous American tribes. The dams have been very harmful to salmon and steelhead runs on the river. Iron Gate, the lowest Pacific Power dam on the river, has no fish passage equipment and acts as an insurmountable barrier to fish passage. Before the Pacific Power and Klamath Basin water management projects, the Klamath was an extremely productive fishery for chinook salmon, coho salmon, and steelhead trout. The spring chinook run on the Klamath has dwindled to an estimated 2 percent of its historic volume.

In 2010, the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement was signed by California, Oregon, local counties, local tribes, fish activists, and Pacific Power. The restoration agreement allowed for four of Pacific Power’s hydroelectric dams to be breached for increased fish passage. See this blog for more information about the Klamath River dam removal. CUB participated in the regulatory process that resulted from that agreement. It was found that demolishing the dams would be both less costly and less risky than installing fish passage equipment.

Instead of having Pacific Power’s customers bear the risk of increased decommissioning costs for the four dams, demolition is being handled by a third party, the Klamath River Renewal Corporation. Normally, when a power plant is demolished, customers of the power plant bear the cost of decommissioning it. If the cost is higher than expected, customers fund that additional cost. In the case of the Klamath power plants, the states of California and Oregon are bearing the risk of decommissioning cost increases through the guarantee of the Klamath River Renewal Corporation.

The corporation is being funded in part by customers of Pacific Power in Oregon ($200 million). Fortunately, though, financing will also be provided by California water bonds, which will save customers an additional $250 million in decommissioning costs. As of 2021, it was found that the Klamath River Renewal Corporation is adequately funded to demolish four of the Klamath River dams. Demolition is expected to proceed in 2024.

Therefore, while Oregon Pacific Power customers currently receive electricity from Klamath river dams, that will sunset in the next few years. CUB believes this outcome is in the best interest of Pacific Power’s customers and the Pacific region generally.

11/19/21  |  4 Comments  |  Where Our Energy Comes From: Klamath River

Comments

1.Extremely short sighted when you have such a large population of people that will be affected from lack of water and energy. Extremely stupid!
Brian Mahoney | July 2023

2.Why are taxpayers throughout California paying for $250 million in water bonds to help demolish a dam constructed by a private power company? Didn't Oregon Pacific Power's customers benefit for decades by having lower cost electricity? Didn't this company make huge profits from electricity produced by this dam and others on the Klamath? The cost of this demolition should by paid 100% by the power company and its customers.
Wes Hill | September 2023

3.Often times one of the underlying factors which separates the first world from the third world is the enriching benefits of dams. That’s probably why a prized war target is the enemy’s dams. Ironically, we seem to be accomplishing this for our enemies without their loss of blood and treasure
Rudy Hiley | December 2023

4.The underlying argument that dams caused the salmon decline is refuted in the historical records. John Fortune, in a 1966 study of the available historical records, indicates salmon decline in the Klamath River occurred before 1890.

I encourage everyone that disagrees to read well researched report at https://ifrmp.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Fortune-et-al_1966_0349_Feasibility-of-est-salmon-and-steelhead-in-upper-Klamath.pdf

Additional evidence suggests the anadromous species were unable to move upstream beyond a reef below Keno; the argument dam removal is opening up hundreds of miles of habitat is not supported by the written records, nor the archeological examination of fish bones studying chemical elements within the bones to determine if they were from an ocean fish.
Gene Souza | December 2023

====================================================

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml