My Word: A step forward or a setback for Klamath dam removal?
Erica Terence
Times-Standard
02/26/2011
Recently Klamath dam owner PacifiCorp filed a formal complaint with parties to the Klamath Agreements over a federally-mandated, high-flow event. Federal agencies, with support from tribes and conservation groups, have adopted a plan to each winter release a large amount of water temporarily to flush out fish disease-causing parasites and protect endangered salmon downstream.
The plan required water managers to first cut back on flows to store up a reserve in Upper Klamath Lake then ramping up flows to 5,000 cubic feet per second and back down again over a 24-hour period. PacifiCorp complained that the temporary reduction in flow followed by a bump in flows that sent water over their dams instead of through their turbines was wasting an opportunity to generate power and make money.
PacifiCorp argued that the recently minted Klamath Agreements are based on an economic analysis derived from looking at historic flows. Changes in the flow regime, they argued, could delay dam removal by altering their profit margin. A week later, after going through a dispute resolution process, the Bureau of Reclamation, PacifiCorp, tribes, and conservation groups issued press statements declaring all was resolved after all the facts were shared among parties.
But even so, dam owner PacifiCorp told the Associated Press that, “it remains to be seen whether reduced flows continued long enough to cause economic losses that could delay plans to remove dams by 2020.”
First, the idea that PacifiCorp is entitled to any more profit at the expense of Klamath River communities is offensive and intolerable after decades of environmental destruction caused by their outdated energy infrastructure.
Secondly, economic reports show that PacifiCorp stands to save its ratepayers and shareholders hundreds of millions of dollars by removing four Klamath dams, so delays in the process that threaten to derail the settlement agreements would likely only harm its own interests.
Third, Klamath salmon are tough, but betting that they can survive past 2020 may be a losing gamble, and could make the whole settlement moot without measures such as the winter flow enhancement program.
Fourth, PacifiCorp is subject to the same endangered species rules as the rest of us, and the company knew that when it agreed to the 2020 date in the settlement.
And lastly, farmers and fishermen whose futures are tied to the fate of the struggling Klamath salmon have not stopped paying attention. As we enter the final lap leading up to a federal decision to stage the world's biggest river restoration on the planet, we need all players on board to pass the measure through Congress.
