proposed dam removal Klamath 2015

[STEELIES/26c3]

From USAFISHING.COM



Major Step Forward For Klamath River Restoration

One of the nation’s biggest dam removal and river restoration efforts got a major boost on Friday with Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) announcing that he will introduce legislation to authorize the Klamath River restoration agreements.

Elected officials, Tribal leaders, and farming, ranching, and conservation representatives gathered Friday to celebrate the signing of the Upper Klamath Basin Comprehensive Agreement (UKBCA). The agreement resolves water rights disputes among the Klamath Tribes and upper basin irrigators, and permanently increases river flows, protects riverside lands, and provides $40 million to the Klamath Tribes for economic development.

Senator Wyden announced that he will introduce legislation that authorizes the UKBCA, as well as the two existing Klamath settlement agreements, the Klamath Hydropower Settlement Agreement and the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement. Together the three agreements will resolve long-standing water rights disputes, increase water supply reliability for upper basin agricultural communities, improve river flows and water quality, restore wetlands, and allow for the removal of PacifiCorp’s lower four Klamath River dams. The restoration agreements are necessary to restore struggling Klamath salmon runs.

The agreements, the first of which was finalized in 2010, are the product of years of negotiations among more than 40 stakeholder groups including American Rivers, with the goal of restoring the river, reviving ailing salmon and steelhead runs, and revitalizing fishing, tribal, and farming communities.

Removing the four dams will open access to more than 300 miles of habitat for salmon and steelhead. When dam removal begins on the Klamath –scheduled for 2020 – it will be one of the nation’s largest dam removal projects. Before the settlement agreements can be fully implemented, Congress must pass Senator Wyden’s legislation and appropriate funds, and California must contribute an estimated $80 million to augment the $200 million being collected from PacifiCorp ratepayers for dam removal and river restoration. No federal funds will be used for dam removal.

PacifiCorp’s four dams, built between 1908 and 1962, cut off hundreds of miles of once-productive salmon spawning and rearing habitat in the Upper Klamath, which was once the third most productive salmon river on the West Coast. The dams also create toxic conditions in the reservoirs that threaten the health of fish and people.

The dams produce a nominal amount of power, which can be replaced using renewables and efficiency measures, without contributing to climate change. A study by the California Energy Commission and the Department of the Interior found that removing the dams and replacing their power would save PacifiCorp customers up to $285 million over 30 years.

Roughly 1,150 dams have been removed nationwide and 51 dams were removed in 2013.

- See more at:http://www.americanrivers.org/blog/step-forward-klamath-river-restoration/#sthash.5bT09yFi.dpuf

.

[SeanO]

I'm glad they decided to take them out.

It will be interesting to see how the salmon and steel reclaim the lost habitat going forward.

Best,

[TaylerW]

they will just keep swimming. time and time again, studies and nature shows that they start using their old habitat QUICK. i hope i see this within my life time

[Siskiyoublues]

This is nice from a feel good sense,
but does it actually mean anything changes?

[Scott V]

About DAM time:cool:

[Darian]

Siskiyou,.... I'm not sure I have an idea of what you're getting at. Obviously, getting the number of diverse stakeholders together to make an agreement to carry out the project and removing 4 dams on a single river exposing hundreds of miles of additional, potential spawning habitat are big changes by themselves. Add to that, reduction or elimination of water contaminated with algae blooms and thermal pollution and it seems that these changes are really substantial. So, I'm thinking you mean some thing else (political???).... I've clearly missed your point. :confused:

[SeanO]

Anybody know if Iron gate hatchery is going to continue pumping out smolts?

[Tfisher]

Siskiyou,.... I'm not sure I have an idea of what you're getting at. Obviously, getting the number of diverse stakeholders together to make an agreement to carry out the project and removing 4 dams on a single river exposing hundreds of miles of additional, potential spawning habitat are big changes by themselves. Add to that, reduction or elimination of water contaminated with algae blooms and thermal pollution and it seems that these changes are really substantial. So, I'm thinking you mean some thing else (political???).... I've clearly missed your point. :confused:

The point he is making is that it is far from a "done deal." People keep thinking this thing is all wrapped up. I would wager significant $$ most of us will never see it happen, if at all, especially under the current framework. The lynchpin is that the process takes an "Act of Congress" + Congressional funding for the whole thing to move forward.

Thus Congress will need to enact a law that will override and make changes to benchmark environmental laws, reallocate resources at the expense of other federal mandates in the area, and allow for a yet to be determined entity to take on ALL (unprecedented) liability for the removal and prior ownership of the dams from the utility. The finer print details of the "deal" are where people need to focus their attention rather than the "feel good sentiment" of saying there is an agreement to take down the dams. People long ago recognized that need, but a "deal" that doesn't actually mean or do anything, and in fact inhibits other means of removal, is not necessarily one that should be highlighted or trumpeted.

The reason this recently gained some "traction" isn't for some built in timeline or breakthrough, but rather for the recent water rights decision that went in favor of the Klamath Tribe in the upper Klamath Basin. Once they gained clout (superior water rights) & drought struck, the politicians were forced to intervene there and actually re-negotiate a deal that was already negotiated to help alleviate agricultural interests. This announcement is Version 2.0 of that deal, which even now, it's very unlikely that there is enough traction to get that deal(s) approved, let alone funded. There aren't enough votes in that part of the country to make it a top priority on the Hill IMO. Won't be surprised in the least to keep hearing about this beyond 2020 when the supposed dams are to come down....

[Siskiyoublues]

Siskiyou,.... I'm not sure I have an idea of what you're getting at. Obviously, getting the number of diverse stakeholders together to make an agreement to carry out the project and removing 4 dams on a single river exposing hundreds of miles of additional, potential spawning habitat are big changes by themselves. Add to that, reduction or elimination of water contaminated with algae blooms and thermal pollution and it seems that these changes are really substantial. So, I'm thinking you mean some thing else (political???).... I've clearly missed your point. :confused:

Less getting at anything and more trying to keep up,
I was under the impression that passing legislation was where we seemed most stuck, not drafting it.
I guess I am just trying to find out exactly what changes and what is next?
The treaty was huge, but is it the last one or the latest?
I am trying to find out who was there and who they were represented and what most of it actually means.
It seems just as many people are against and for it as before it was signed.
The article makes it sound like the treaty is not actually authorized/real until it's drafted and passed by our politicians? Is that correct?

I'm very aware of the problems and realities of the upper klamath system, above iron gate and below.
Seeing the irrigation from Klamath lake down is shocking. I am wondering what incentives are in place for the ranchers to be trading that away?
I guess living in the region has beaten the optimism out of me, our sheriff doesn't have any interest in policing water rights during the lowest water year in a century, and most people around me are pleased about that.

[Darian]

OK guys,.... Thanks for the clarification. I was aware that the agreement has to be ratified(??) by congress and that funding has to be found and approved before anything can proceed. Also, that action by congress is not likely to happen anytime soon but as a first or second step, the agreement is significant.

Siskiyou, I think I understand your frustration. Living up there and watching this situation up close an personal. Also, I understand the frustration with the feeling that a secession from this state is a good idea. However, can you imagine what being in a separate state and having to deal with all of this from a position of an even lesser position of authority/power than it is now??? To illustrate, the billionaire in silicon valley who wants to divide the state into 6 sub-divisions has, recently, come to the conclusion that his initiative/proposition probably wouldn't pass. So, he now wants to create a regional level of government between the local and state level using the same borders drawn (6) for his prior initiative. Of course, that would seem to defeat the purpose of the first proposal of reducing the size of government by creating a new level, requiring it's own administration/staff/funding/budget, etc., ad nauseum. Seems like the more we fool around with stuff like this the worse we make it.

Tristan,.... Altho I agree with your assessment of this, you're much younger than I am and I'm fairly sure removal of these dams won't happen in what remains of my lifetime. I'm trying to look at it from the point of view of what has been accomplished to date. :cool:

[Tfisher]

As a first or second step, the agreement is significant. I'm fairly sure removal of these dams won't happen in what remains of my lifetime. I'm trying to look at it from the point of view of what has been accomplished to date. :cool:

I'll agree to it being a significant step if and only if it actually goes anywhere. That said, I have about the same level of optimism as you do Darian for seeing it in my lifetime.