Klamath dam removal costs, liabilities studied
Paul Boerger
Mount Shasta Area Newspapers
09/23/2009
The four Klamath River hydroelectric dams – Iron Gate, Copco 1 and 2, and J. C. Boyle – might be removed due to an offer from PacifiCorp to divest the dams. Stakeholders including Native Americans, agricultural interests and fish habitat restoration proponents have been in negotiations for two years, and a Draft Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement is now circulating among them.
Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar says a final agreement is expected by the end of summer. A suggested target for dam removal is 2020.
A 190-page report commissioned by the US Department of Interior provides a detailed examination of many liability issues that could result from removing the dams. It is titled “Evaluation and Determination of Potential Liability Associated with the Decommissioning and Removal of four Hydroelectric Dams on the Klamath River.”
Findings detailed in the report by Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc., include a high potential for litigation from numerous sources, loss of property values, possible benefits for fish in the long run, depending on sediment discharge, and loss of green, renewable energy with an increase in greenhouse gasses if a suitable replacement is not found.
The report is divided into four broad categories: physical, biological, socio-economic and legal and regulatory. Each category is further broken down by its relative resource area and by dam or stretch of river.
The report comes with the following disclaimer from the Department of the Interior:
“The attached Report is a snapshot of the published science as it existed slightly less than a year ago; it is one piece of the larger scientific, regulatory, and economic framework that will come into full view during the scientific due diligence contemplated by the Agreement In Principal, leading up to the Secretary’s determination in 2012. We understand the potential for those who oppose dam removal to identify isolated portions of the analysis and postulations of the CDM Report regarding quantification of risk. We encourage the parties to focus on the Report’s true value: its identification of factors and data gaps in the science that must be addressed in order for the Secretarial determination of 2012 to be fully informed and sound.”
The study notes the following “important findings relative to the decommissioning of the four dams.”
• Decommissioning approaches reviewed as part of this study proposed and evaluated the passage of sediment to the Lower Klamath River through to the Pacific Ocean. The North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board effectively prohibits the discharge of sediments to the Klamath River system, including dam decommissioning projects, and the mouth of the Klamath River at the Pacific Ocean is an Area of Special Biological Significance, with further restrictions on sediment discharge. This approach has many regulatory challenges and has high potential for litigation;
• The Federal Power Act grants the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission significant authority to impose mitigation and restoration measures related to project decommissioning, potentially including measures to address the liabilities described in this report; and
• There is the high potential for litigation with a dam removal program that proposes to pass large volumes of sediment due to the damage to downstream fisheries and the aquatic ecosystem. Potential litigation could come from the Lower Klamath River tribes, fishery groups, riparian residents, boaters and recreational users.
Dam removal cost liabilities
The CDM study examines 27 areas of cost that could result from removing the dams and gives total cost estimates ranging from $466 million to nearly $1 billion ($836.5 million).
Among the larger costs are the following:
• Physical structure removal of the four dams, $95 million;
• Dealing with sediment, $175 million to $350 million;
• Loss and replacement of renewable power source, $65 million to $171 million;
• Reservoir restoration, $35 million to $53 million;
• Property value loss and PacifiCorp property reimbursement, $13 million to $27 million;
• Decommissioning design, studies and 10 percent programmatic costs, $34 million to $67 million.
Litigation liabilities
The report says the potential for litigation is “high.” Among the possible litigation issues are the following:
• Fisheries and aquatic ecosystem losses during and following sediment discharge to the Lower Klamath River from Iron Gate Dam to the Pacific Ocean. Potential litigants include the affected tribes and local fisheries, watershed, and recreational groups;
• Whitewater boating losses to commercial companies in the Hell’s Corner whitewater boating run downstream of J.C Boyle dam;
• Unidentified Pacific Ocean based protection groups for the discharge of fine sediment into the Humboldt County Area of Special Biological Significance at the mouth of the Klamath River and the Pacific Ocean. The California Ocean Plan has been updated to include a prohibition on non-point source discharges of sediment to any ASBS;
• Aesthetic and real estate values damages at Copco Reservoir;
• Water quality impacts to downstream diverters during and following sediment passage;
• Unidentified state, local or non-governmental organizations’ opposition to the loss of renewable power in a period of rapidly escalating non-renewable fossil fuel prices.
The report suggests that proper planning may reduce potential litigation.
“Minimizing the potential for litigation against, or regulatory intervention to the Klamath Dam decommission program will best be accomplished through the federal and environmental planning process, and by engaging the local, regional, and statewide stakeholders affected by the project as part of the planning process,” the report says.
Biological liabilities
With proper planning and data collection on dam removal effects, the report rates potential biological liabilities as “moderate.”
Multiple studies have found that, over the long-term, “dam removal generates benefits for the affected environment and enhances fisheries,” according to the
report.
Among the areas the report says need further study are the following:
• Sedimentation, sediment management, sediment contamination, and subsequent short-term loss of spawning areas;
• Alteration of downstream channel geomorphology, potentially causing a loss of habitat;
• Alteration in fish disease location and dynamics. The potential changes in fish disease location and dynamics are uncertain because diseases and their causal mechanisms are not well understood.
“Generally, dam removal would cause some short-term impacts, such as a temporary increase in sedimentation,” the report states.
Socioeconomic liabilities
Each of the four dams was evaluated for potential socioeconomic liabilities, including real estate, aesthetics, recreation, economics and power generation. Conclusions included:
• Real estate values could drop in certain areas such as Copco Reservoir where owners “will lose access to a major amenity;”
• Aesthetics liabilities would be related to changes in views, visual scarring of the land, changes in topography and resulting effects on real estate, business profitability, recreation and other entities or factors that relate to scenic viewing opportunities;
• Recreation liabilities include loss of flatwater recreation, increased distance to water features and changes in recreational opportunities;
