Bill would lead to dam removal from Klamath River

Lawmakers from the Pacific Northwest are asking Congress for approval to spend nearly $800 million to restore salmon and sustain irrigation for farmers in the Klamath Basin of Southern Oregon and Northern California, where some of the bitterest battles in the nation have been fought over sharing water between fish and farms.

A bill introduced Thursday in Washington would authorize implementation of two landmark agreements to remove four dams.

Estimated to represent $536 million in new federal spending and $262 million in existing funding that would be redirected, the Klamath Basin Economic Restoration Act is widely anticipated to face a tough road in Congress, where budget cutting has been a top priority among Republicans.

"This legislation is proof that through collaboration and hard work we can move beyond the disputes of the past and create a stronger foundation for economic growth," co-sponsor Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., said in a statement.

Co-sponsor Rep. Mike Thompson, D-Calif., said in a statement the agreements represent the best way forward for the Klamath Basin.

"The dam removals will not only benefit our river basin by restoring fish and wildlife habitats, it will strengthen our economy by creating more than 4,600 jobs," Thompson said.

The agreements were signed in 2008 by Oregon and California, tribes, conservation groups and farmers to end decades of battles over sharing scarce water between farms on a federal irrigation project and fish.

The bill would authorize the U.S. Department of Interior to decide whether to remove four hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River to open some 300 miles of spawning habitat to salmon blocked for a century and give farmers better assurances of irrigation water that was shut off during a drought in 2001 to protect threatened salmon.

When irrigation was restored in 2002, tens of thousands of adult salmon died before they could spawn in low and warm water conditions that spread disease.

An analysis by Interior found implementing the agreements would create more than 4,000 jobs in agriculture, restoration of salmon habitat, and boost commercial harvest of chinook salmon from the Klamath River.

For farmers on the Klamath Restoration project, the agreements call for stable minimum irrigation deliveries, help developing local power sources to pump water, and support for a drought management plan for low water years.

The agreements also set minimum flows for salmon and national wildlife refuges.

If approved next year by the secretary of Interior, actual removal of the dams would not start until 2020.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENTS Dear Jeff...as a regurgitater of "news" you should be aware, as you misinform the public (and I hope you are doing so without due harm and in light of innocence) that there was NEVER ANY kind of SETTLEMENT. With secret meetings with 3 of 4 tribes who will get land and money given to them, Portland Oregon environmentalists, two farmers out of 1000s in the area, a Water Users Association founded and backed by one of the tribes, etc. etc. ... there was NO AGREEMENT. As the daughter of ranchers in Siskiyou County (of which 3 of 4 of these dams reside) there are 1000s of ranchers and farmers (all of whom provide you and us readers sustenance to live by) who are ADAMANTLY OPPOSED TO DAM REMOVAL. Siskiyou County residents VOTED 79.9999% (aka majority) FOR DAMS IN. That means NO AGREEMENT FOR DAM REMOVAL. Furthermore, the KBRA, KHSA, EIR/EIS and executive summaries to match are full of mistruths (aka lies) and are nothing but an agenda to remove citizens off beautiful, natural resource-rich land. Shame on you!!! Debbie Bacigalupi --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kristen Riter · University of California, San Diego According to the dam removal official documents, the jobs created will be very short term (the majority temporary during dam removal). Overall the community will loose jobs. Tens of thousands of homes on the lakes (including Lake Shastina) will be on a swamp. Boaters, fishers and lake goers loose their homes and recreation (though the documents say that there will be an increase in the recreational activity of viewing fish!). This a horrible case of government agencies creating Indian and land wars. While the tribe that opposes removal of the dams (because this will disturb their burial sites under the lakes and they now live on/recreate in the lakes), is not acknowledged by the DOI and CDF&G, the other tribes are guaranteed MILLIONS of DOLLARS, more fishing rights, and THOUSANDS of ACRES (of which will be sovereign and inaccessible to US citizens and law enforcement)... this is all pending approval of the dams getting removed by Secretary of the Interior. The scientific studies that supposedly back all of this claim that the Klamath Blue Green Algae is toxic and lake must go. THOUSANDS of health minded Americans ingest this daily in supplements and all of the testimonies show improved health (I take it too!). The Klamath Lake water quality studies at the very heart of this movement demonstrate that of the 3 samples taken on the lake bottom, 2 were rejected and the 1 remaining and used defies logic by independent sedimentation scientist - this would throw out this study if any company or individual submitted it for peer review as it is statistically insignificant and unsupported science. Coho are proven to not be indigenous to the area and are in record numbers globally - they were listed as an endangered species to the area in error (benefit of the doubt there). Locals scientist and engineers have submitted alternatives plans that truly benefit the fish (ladders, tunnels) and maintain the benefits of the dams (water filtration, flood and drought control) and a fraction of the cost. ALL IS IGNORED OR DENIED... Why? Money, Land, Power, Water. Social Engineering and Redistribution of Wealth. The CA water bond of 2012 will also try to push this through. Many in Congress are fighting this shindig! Thank you to the Congressmen that recognize the Siskiyou County community collective speaking out loudly that this is a scam and science for convenience. Our elected officials took an oath to uphold our constitutional rights and have that opportunity to defend that here. It is not the Department of the Interiors, Fish and Games, Congresses right or job to redistribute wealth from citizens to government agencies, to spend our tax dollars and fine us in ways that the Klamath basin is being subjected to, and to socially engineer our communities. This is not and will not improve our state and economy - but will eradicate local fresh farms, clean hydroelectric dams supplying 70,000 homes, and communities.   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Gierak · Los Angeles College of Chiropractic The entire premise for removing the four hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River is to restore Coho Salmon populations.  1. There is no historical evidence that Coho Salmon were ever indigenous to the Klamath Basin.  http://www.dfg.ca.gov/fish/documents/SAL_SH/SAL_Coho_StatusNorth_2002/SAL_Coho_StatusNorth_2002_D.pdf http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a932170617 http://www.naturalprocess.net/np_pages/coho.html http://www.cfses.org/salmonid/html/salmonid/population.htm FINAL Report_Coho Salmon-Steelhead_Klamath Expert Panels_04 25 11 2. The Karuk tribal Council meeting of Dec. 27, 2001 indicated that Coho Salmon were never in the Klamath River and they should not try to bring them back. http://www.savethedams.com/?page_id=350 3. In a 1913 California Fish & Game Commission report indicated there were no run of either kind of Salmon in the Trinity River even after Coho were planted in 1895 and 1899. 4. There is no provision in the Federal Endangered Species Act for listing a non- indigenous species. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/laws/esa/text.htm 5. California ESA and NMFS are in violation of the Endangered Species Act by listing Coho Salmon which is unlawful, arbitrary and capricious. 6. U.S. Fish & Wildlife service are in violation of their mandates which are restricted to freshwater species only. By being involved in the KBRA and KHSA regarding a saltwater species, ie: Salmon, their actions are unlawful, arbitrary and capricious. http://www.fws.gov/endangered/ 7. Based on these historical records and the violation of the Federal Endangered Species Act Coho Salmon must be removed from the endangered list in California. 8. As to the commercial Salmon industry in the Pacific Northwest let us look at the real data from NOAA and NMFS. In 1950 the total catch of Salmon was 149,000 metric tons with 80% caught in Alaskan waters. In 2007 the total catch of Salmon was 403,000 metric tons with 97% caught in Alaskan waters. 9. NOAA and NMFS predicted in 1970 that the warming of the Pacific Ocean would drive Salmon North into Alaska. They were right but are blaming dams and human activities for the Salmon moving North.  10. Removing the dams will decimate any future Salmon runs as the thousands of tons of sludge behind the dams will destroy Salmon spawning beds. The Klamath in a dry summer will revert to marshes and swamps and there will be no Fall Run of Salmon.  --------------------------------------------------------- Ann Smith I agree with both posts below. What I don't see is the names George Soros and Warren Buffet's names connected to the dam removal. George Soros funds the Nature Conservancy and Earth Justice. WHY would Soros want to have the dams removed? Why is he buying grain elevators and fertilizer companies? Why is the government deliberately flooding farm land. Buffet wants the dams removed so he can corner the energy supply and raise the residents rates. Pacific Power and Light, which he purchased via Berkshire Hathaway and their subsidiaries have already raised their rates to over 11 cents a KWH. Coal is approximately 6-8 cents a KWH. So we have wealthy men, one of which says the "wealthy should pay more taxes" wanting the removal of the dams, decimated Shasta tribal land, corner the energy and farmlands and we aren't to question that?  It's obvious the media isn't. They aren't even doing due diligence in the manner. Not one media outlet has done any balanced reporting on this. They all give the same talking points. WAIT! George Soros owns a lot of media. Hmmmmmmm Where are the Woodwards and Bernsteins of our day. They are non-existent. SHAMEFUL ABSOLUTELY SHAMEFUL! %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% http://www.sacbee.com/2011/11/10/4045096/bill-would-lead-to-dam-removal.html Same article by Barnard in the Sacramento Bee. Following are some comments there: ConcernedBayArea Wind farms under fire for bird kills Darryl Fears, Washing Post, August 28, 2011 FishGuys alternative to existing hydroelectric dams... Wind Farms!"Six birds found dead recently in Southern California’s Tehachapi Mountains were majestic golden eagles. But some bird watchers say that in an area where dozens of wind turbines slice the air they were also sitting ducks.The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is investigating to determine what killed the big raptors, and declined to divulge the conditions of the remains. But the likely cause of death is no mystery to wildlife biologists who say they were probably clipped by the blades of some of the 80 wind turbines at the three-year-old Pine Tree Wind Farm Project, operated by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power..."Klamath area is also home to bird sanctuary. FishGuy1 I see the conspiracy theorists are off and running! Three points people who want to keep these four aging Klamath Dams conveniently forget or ignore: (1) The costs of removal to PacifiCorp's customers (i.e., about 600,000 of us in Oregon and about 45,000 people in northern California) under the Klamath Settlement Agreement is capped at $200 million. But the costs of keeping these dams, including rebuilding these 1916-era dams up to modern safety standards, is at least $500 million initially -- and then (according to FERC's own numbers) they could only operate for the next 40-year FERC license at a $20 million/year NET LOSS -- costing customers another $ 800 MILLION . Total cost of keeping the dams = $1.3 BILLION. This would make their power the most expensive power in the region, possibly in the nation. (2) The dams are PRIVATE PROPERTY. In other words, the company has an absolute right to remove them to help keep its customers' power prices as low as possible. The fact the some 80% of the residents of Siskiyou County voted to keep the days is meaningless -- through highly ironic for a county of sel-proclaimed "property rights activists" to be advocating for State Socialism only for PacifiCorp. If the voters want to keep the dams they should ask their County Supervisors to buy them so all the County voters (taxpayers) can pay through the nose to keep them running at a NET LOSS. (3) Both the Oregon and California Public Utilities Commissions (PUCs) -- the consumer watchdog agencies protecting power customers' rights -- have both already formally ruled that dam removal under the Klamath Settlement Agreements is BY FAR the leasty costly and least risky alternative for PacifiCorp's customers. In short, its the best deal in town. How many of you dam-huggers still want to pay 6.5 TIMES the costs of taking these four aging dams down and replacing their power with something much cheaper? In order to run them at a loss? And that is COMPLETELY aside from all many economic benefits to the region's commercial salmon fisheries that dam removal would mean, which the current Draft Environmental Impact Statement now on the streets for comments says are very large, and will generate quite a few regional jobs. The Draft EIS is posted at: www.klamathrestoration.gov along with a whole bunch if scientific studies that went into these numbers. Go check it out! And its not like these dams generate much power... only 82 MW reliably over the past 50 years averaged. A SINGLE modern power plant generates well over 1,000 MW. A single wind turbine can generate up to 6 MW. Do the numbers.... You are all entitled to your own opinions of course -- but NOT to your own FACTS. SavetheDams Dear Fishy1- First, nice name calling: not surprised. Was thinking that a mere 271 mile drive home might provide time for recalculating extremely low-balled numbers. $250 Million alone is being put into the California Water Bond Bill of 2012 (don’t you remember Mr. Pace telling you this already?). California Tax Payers front that bill thanks to "secret" meetings. Wonder what that deal making behind closed doors felt like. To go home, look at the wife and kids, and feel good about oneself. Further, for Klamath Dam Removal, rate payers are forking over an additional $180Million if dams come out ... so combined, you are ALREADY way under and this does not include restoration/ improvements, etc in perpetuity. Also, I recall the same exact arguments back in 2000 for BPA? How can there be the same sweeping statements about costs savings when comparing 2000 to 2011 - there is a 31.8% inflation rate difference? But, clearly the facts are the facts and everything else is just opinion to which one is entitled to. The dollar isn’t what it was (George Soros, “a managed decline of the US dollar is necessary”) and costs are necessarily skyrocketing (“under my plan of a cap & trade system” – now who said this one?). I also wonder how it feels to celebrate an “Agreement” with the Karuks, Yuroks, Hoopas, Schwartzy, Salazar, Buffett’s attorney, and a whole host of other NON STAKEHOLDERS (yet benefactors) while the largest land stakeholders…the Shasta Nation/Shasta People, homeowners, ranchers, and farmers of SISKIYOU COUNTY fear every day what false statements, lie of a media story, onslaught of regulations, name calling, and more they will face as the day unfolds. Being as a fish guy and not even mentioning concern for fish...what kind of fish guy does that make? Sure this was an easy deal for you to make...you don't lose your livelihood living all the way up in Eugene (271 miles away). Despite who you claim to represent...you are not the biggest loser in this "deal"...in fact, we all know you win...being over 3 hours away from the epicenter of this corrupted deal. I would imagine, if you were on the brink of losing everything you worked your 61 years for you too might be stressed, concerned, living in fear, and demand social justice if you were a homeowner in Siskiyou County. They have everything to lose...you have nothing to lose but maybe pride...cuz any money that comes from whatever deals were made...is corrupt and I'm sure another dam is already on your hit list. I can't figure out who you really work for: PEW? Some PUC Lobbyist group? You must cherish those photos on the steps as cameras flashed for your historic deal… How about this one: If 3 of the 4 dams are in Siskiyou County and MOST of the Klamath River is in California it doesn't take a mad scientist or a fake one to figure out which state pays more in long term restoration, flood control, damage control, more species disappearing, loss in homes, businesses, recreation, agriculture, income, tax to the county, private property values, food, and more. With a realtor in the family you gotta be able to figure this one out too. Plus, you have the Ruby Pipeline which will be the alternative to GREEN ENERGY. Who's state will benefit from the revenue of the Ruby while rate payers get slammed with higher costs??? Your math doesn’t compute!!! And, if you are going to start name calling, getting personal, and treating people as gill netted Coho, then be prepared for a defensive reply back. The comments that have been provided up until your insulting one were clean and scientific with solid facts. I won’t call you names…but the one you obviously earned, Counselor. ConcernedBayArea Can't wait to see how much you are getting from this deal FishGuy. It is clear you are in the purse from the comments posting all over and your disregard for humans who live in the Klamath Basin and are directly impacted. My guess is that you are with commercial fishing or Fish and Game! Each of your points are refutable. Depending on where you stand and who you listen to. The government study is for the governments benefit (and yours apparently). Pacific Corp has admitted to being forced into the deal and now gladly going along. Many other private property owners will get their ranch converted to National Park (it's in the EIR/EIS). What about those private property rights. Pacific Corp reps openly admitted to knowing that they are killing property values going along with this... but they get out of litigation. What money hungry company wouldn't agree! OK, in all fairness, they were cornered by the threat of back charges for years of violation of environmental and water quality laws which extreme environmentalist like yourself push through through in blind faith hoping to stop the world from changing. How convent it all is - I believe extortion is the real descriptive word to use. I am usually not this upfront in comments but you are so clearly jaded. I read and am still reading the fluffy EIR/EIS. 1850 pages of protocol, science and convenience. How environmental is trap and haul? How about blasting which is known will cause multiple serious and cumulative effects to the environment? How about drought? The dam repair could be done at a reasonable cost is we all got real about the reports of the Klamath water quality. The Klamath will never be free from phosphorus - studies have proven this as it is in the rocks and every time the wind blows it will redistribute. Further more, studies show it is not toxic. There is not one part of the premise for dam removal that holds true! Debbie Bacigalupi Aha Jeff...we find your misleading article has hit another sheeple news source. Do you live anywhere near, around, or with these dams? NO YOU DO NOT...BUT WE DO!!! This hack of a story is filled with mistruths and lies. But you already knew this. Let me do your work for you: REPORT THE TRUTH TO THE PEOPLE SO THEY CAN CHOOSE FOR THEMSELVES BY USING EVIDENCE-BASED MANAGEMENT/CRITICAL THINKING PRINCIPLES! I'll brand it Journalism 101. My family lives near, around, and with these dams - for over 30 years. And we have a home near them because we LOVE the rugged land, the wildlife, love our animals, and the ability to provide the rest of California with a valuable resource: HEALTHY NATURAL FOOD and the byproducts that come with. While you put pen to paper we put hands to soil to create something that the public can actually count on for a healthy sustainable lifestyle. These dams are vital to your well being, your readers' well being, and mine. First, the earth is a closed system...which means WATER CANNOT, WILL NOT, DARE NOT leave this earth. Next, although water is not disappearing, it doesn't magically appear either. When the dams are gone...so is the water. Further, the very people being blamed for Coho (non-indigenous, non-native, fish that prefer shady, cool-clean, coastal stream water within 20 miles of the coast) are the very folk who only take 3% of water in the upper basins to use to irrigate crops...aka provide you with food, furniture, clothing, asphalt, paint, paint brushes, life-saving pharmaceuticals, ball bearings, insulation, sheetrock, landing gear on airplanes, baseballs, soccer balls, footballs, cake mix, glue, gelatin, soap, cream, shampoo, butter, politician's botox, and more...thousands of more byproducts that you and I use every day. When you do your research, you will find the best part of the river (any river for that matter) is where the river starts or passes through high mountains; hence your "Arctic" water branded for drinking. God, the spirits, animism, the big bang (however you like to believe) did not design the Klamath River to begin in a snow melt mountain range. In FACT, this river starts in high dessert, basalt (that's volcanic)-rich, magnesium-rich, phosphorus-rich, arid, mediterranean land. The lake from which the water first flows is a naturally occurring warm lake, shallow. It is filled with natural phosphorus which is ideal for agriculture and supplements for health. Furthermore, the first dam (Iron Gate) is 187 miles upstream from the Pacific Ocean where the fish spend less than 1/4 of their life (birth and death). Thus, these dams are a valuable resource for scrubbing those naturally phosphorus, magnesium, basalt-rich high desert waters (aka natural pollutants that, in abundance, WILL kill fish) from the upper basin. As the less-than-ideal-fish water passes through each dam, the water gets cleaner and cooler. Remember, these lakes are in arid country...they are considered warm lakes which is why the phosphorus has the ability to grow blooms. Funny how beaver are noted for their environmentally-saving savvy ... their dams which serve the same dam purpose are revered but human-made are recently shunned. Perhaps we should ask China what they think...they must think us crazy as they build more dams...our government (plus Trout Unltd, American Rivers, Environmental Defense Fund, Nature Conservancy, Sierra Club spend billions of tax payer dollars in received grants to sue local communities and government agencies to ensure dam removal....by the way, Jeff...THERE is a great story for you...have you researched where and how some of the leaders in the NGOs live their lives...I have...astonishing that they mill around with the hated "1%"). Educated people (which include(d) farmers, ranchers, surveyors, immigrants, and Indians/Native Americans) were in favor of the dams when they went in (the first in 1908) and saw the many benefits to FISH, PLANTS, WILDLIFE, AND AND AND.....wait for it...PEOPLE!!! By writing this article and posting it for the world to see in a "news" source you therefore claim to have done some research and innocent, unknowing readers rely on people like you as a worthy news source. However, from EVIDENCE/FACTS/and TRUTH I can tell your readers without delay that the science behind the dams being removed are faulty, capricious, and agenda driven. Additionally, THE CITIZENS (where 3 of the 4 dams reside in Siskiyou County) are also educated and therefore VOTED YES TO THEIR DAMS OVERWHELMINGLY backing their claims up with science, evidence, and knowing how that land was before and after dams went in (yes, some are still alive unfortunately for the agenda to remove dams). 79.9999% = Majority/Unanimous Voted 4 THE DAMS IN on the November 2010 ballot. The Constitutional Sheriffs of our land are also in agreement of the land grab driven/private property rights stealing agenda. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... Finally, Klamath means STINKY (Native American term - look in the edits of Wikipedia before the Shasta Nation Tribe was removed in 2004 - Phoebe Hearst, Berkeley Publishing) ... AND, OH JEFF, your article unfortunately STINKS also...TO HIGH HEAVEN. (Just another article chipping away at our right to own private property...under the guise of the United Nations' Agenda for the 21st Century and ICLEI) Ann Smith The truly disconcerting thing about this is the George Soros and Warren Buffet connection. George Soros funds the "Earth Justice" group promoting dam removal. This is the same man who is known for breaking the currency of four nations. Warren Buffet via Berkshire Hathaway purchased Pacific Light and Power. WHY would Buffet want to destroy hydro-electric dams? Any guess, making the energy uses pay through the nose? Profit incentive? Sure he'd love to pay more in taxes when the "little guy" is getting sucked dry from paying the utility rates he will want them to pay. The is land grabs, money, greed. NOT fish or water quality. I have not seen ONE media outlet do any REAL investigation on this. The Shasta tribe has been completely outside any conversations even though their lands will be ruined. CORRUPTION in high places, and no one not even Sac Bee cares. ConcernedBayArea According to the dam removal official documents, the jobs created will be very short term (the majority temporary during dam removal). Overall the community will loose jobs. Tens of thousands of homes on the lakes (including Lake Shastina) will be on a swamp. Boaters, fishers and lake goers loose their homes and recreation (though the documents say that there will be an increase in the recreational activity of viewing fish!). This a horrible case of government agencies creating Indian and land wars. While the tribe that opposes removal of the dams (because this will disturb their burial sites under the lakes and they now live on/recreate in the lakes), is not acknowledged by the DOI and CDF&G, the other tribes are guaranteed MILLIONS of DOLLARS, more fishing rights, and THOUSANDS of ACRES (of which will be sovereign and inaccessible to US citizens and law enforcement)... this is all pending approval of the dams getting removed by Secretary of the Interior. The scientific studies that supposedly back all of this claim that the Klamath Blue Green Algae is toxic and lake must go. THOUSANDS of health minded Americans ingest this daily in supplements and all of the testimonies show improved health (I take it too!). The Klamath Lake water quality studies at the very heart of this movement demonstrate that of the 3 samples taken on the lake bottom, 2 were rejected and the 1 remaining and used defies logic by independent sedimentation scientist - this would throw out this study if any company or individual submitted it for peer review as it is statistically insignificant and unsupported science. Coho are proven to not be indigenous to the area and are in record numbers globally - they were listed as an endangered species to the area in error (benefit of the doubt there). Locals scientist and engineers have submitted alternatives plans that truly benefit the fish (ladders, tunnels) and maintain the benefits of the dams (water filtration, flood and drought control) and a fraction of the cost. ALL IS IGNORED OR DENIED... Why? Money, Land, Power, Water. Social Engineering and Redistribution of Wealth. The CA water bond of 2012 will also try to push this through. Many in Congress are fighting this shindig! Thank you to the Congressmen that recognize the Siskiyou County community collective speaking out loudly that this is a scam and science for convenience. Our elected officials took an oath to uphold our constitutional rights and have that opportunity to defend that here.It is not the Department of the Interiors, Fish and Games, Congresses right or job to redistribute wealth from citizens to government agencies, to spend our tax dollars and fine us in ways that the Klamath basin is being subjected to, and to socially engineer our communities. This is not and will not improve our state and economy - but will eradicate local fresh farms, clean hydroelectric dams supplying 70,000 homes, and communities.