Sides clash over key Klamath studies
Tim Hearden
Capital Press
09/27/2011
The two sides in the debate over whether to remove four hydroelectric dams from the Klamath River offered opposing reviews of key documents released this month by the federal government.
Proponents say that technical reviews and environmental reports unveiled Sept. 21 by the U.S. Department of the Interior show the dam removals and related restoration efforts would provide significant economic and other benefits for Northern California and southern Oregon.
Groups including the Klamath Tribes, the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations and irrigators' organizations applauded Interior Secretary Ken Salazar's statement that the dam removals would cost $290 million and not $450 million as initially estimated.
"For one thing, they're thorough, they're very thorough," PCFFA Northwest regional director Glen Spain said of the scientific studies. "They spent a lot of time, effort and money keeping their commitment to do as thorough and as unbiased an analysis as possible.
"Number two, there are pluses and minuses just like with any project of this sort," he said. "The good news is the pluses are very large ... and the minuses are all controllable."
But Tom Mallams, a Beatty, Ore., hay farmer who has led local opposition to the project, questioned the science behind the studies. He said they "are totally ignoring" problems that would be caused by releasing sediment from behind the dams into the river.
"The state does not allow me to put four or five yards of material in the river without permits," Mallams said. "They're talking 22 million cubic yards of sediment and they know there's lots of nasty stuff in there. That is absolute, pure insanity."
Mallams and others have been busily poring over the long-awaited studies required as part of the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement, which was formed by more than 30 governmental and tribal entities and announced in February 2010.
Among the findings by the Department of the Interior's researchers was that the dam removals and restoration efforts could increase salmon harvests, eliminate toxic algae blooms from reservoirs and restore more normal water temperatures in the river.
The project would create as many as 1,400 jobs in the short term and wouldn't directly affect water supplies in the Klamath Basin because the dams being eliminated don't provide storage for irrigation, the government asserted.
The studies were released along with state and federal environmental documents, the public comment period for which began Sept. 22 and runs through Nov. 21. A series of public hearings will include one at 4:30 p.m. Oct. 18 at the Klamath County Fairgrounds in Klamath Falls, Ore.
Proponents hope the environmental reports will provide them with the political momentum necessary to push the project through Congress. They tout the purported cost savings, arguing they would even accept a partial removal of the dams at an estimated cost of $247 million.
"With some old power houses and abutments left behind, it still creates a free flowing river," said Craig Tucker, the Karuk Tribe's Klamath coordinator. "If they can save $50 million and do it that way, we would be willing to go along with a partial removal scenario."
Backers of the dam removals say the studies show the project would lead to more commercial fishing jobs while providing tribes with an increased abundance of salmon and improved water quality.
They note findings that the Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuges would receive additional water, which could improve hunting and wildlife viewing, attracting more visitors. There would be an estimated additional 193,830 fall waterfowl and 3,634 hunting trips over the 50-year period of analysis, they assert.
"We hope it'll motivate Congress to take action," Tucker said. "This is an effort that does a lot more than restore salmon. It puts the Klamath Basin on the path to economic sustainability."
However, Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., who earlier this year authored amendments to strip $1.9 million for Klamath River dam removal studies from a stopgap spending measure, blasted the scientific findings in a speech last week on the floor of the House of Representatives.
