Curtis Knight Outlines Case For Klamath River Dam Removal
This Editorial supporting Klamath River dam removal was written by CalTrout Conservation Director Curtis Knight and published in the Siskiyou Daily News. This is CalTrout’s response to the disappointing news that the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors plan to sue to oppose the removal of the four lower Klamath River dams.
—-
Mount Shasta, Calif. — The Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors’ decision to spend precious county legal funds on challenging the Secretary of the Interior’s pending decision regarding dam removal on the Klamath River is disappointing for several reasons.
First, kudos to Supervisor Ed Valenzuela, who has posed the key questions Siskiyou County residents have whether they are for dam removal or not – “Is this the best use of limited county funds?” And, “Just how much has been spent on legal fees on this issue? To what end?”
There are certain conditions that must be met prior to the Secretary of the Interior making a decision on dam removal. One condition is congressional approval. As the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors correctly points out, this has not yet occurred. And the secretary can’t make a decision until it does. So, in a sense, the Board of Supervisors is threatening to sue the Department of Interior over something the Department of Interior doesn’t have the authority to do.
The county’s primary concern appears to be that the Secretary of the Interior will make a decision on dam removal without adequate environmental review or that is “contrary to science.” A Draft Environmental Impact Statement was released with hundreds of pages of studies. Also, a Draft Secretarial Determination Overview Report was recently released that summarizes Klamath River biology, hydrology, sediment issues, recreation and economics. Both of these are ongoing and involve a tremendous amount of scientific and economic analysis. The secretary’s decision will not happen until these analyses are complete.
The “hide your head in the sand” approach – hoping the dams can stay and operate as they are – is simply not an option. There are two legal options for the dams: 1) fix them up and relicense them to modern standards at a cost exceeding $450 million, which is passed on to ratepayers; or 2) decommission and remove the dams under the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA) at a cost capped at $200 million to PacifiCorp and its ratepayers. Dam removal is cheaper. Much cheaper.
So PacifiCorp, as a private business, has chosen the cheaper alternative. The county’s position to try and force PacifiCorp into a bad economic decision sends the wrong message to other businesses that may want to invest in our area.
In the article, Supervisor Michael Kobseff asserts that “the county will lose $250,000 of tax revenue under the dam removal agreement.”
This is not the case. The KHSA requires California and Oregon to make payments in-lieu of taxes to make up for any lost tax revenue. In other words, under the KHSA the removal of the dams will result in no net loss of PacifiCorp generated tax revenue to Siskiyou County.
The Klamath Settlement Agreements represent a big economic opportunity for Siskiyou County – an opportunity that is not fully realized. The Klamath Agreements are expected to bring 4,600 jobs to the region over a 15-year period, preserve agricultural jobs and bring millions of dollars of investment. Active and collaborative participation in discussions with all the many parties who have come together to solve a problem will only expand the county’s opportunities. This why the biggest irrigation district in the county supports the agreements.
It is time for county leaders to take advantage of this opportunity, not fight progress. Forcing a private company to keep dams that are uneconomical is not good for the future of Siskiyou County.
2 Comments
Obviously Mr. Knight, you have not talked to Dr. Paul Houser who has filed allegations of scientific misconduct on the Klamath River Dam Removal Project by DOI Secretary Salazar. It seems Salazar and his staff deliberately mis-quoted the scientific studies of the dam removal to show positive results.
You also state this project would create 4,600 jobs for 15 years, ok, then what ? Also, you mis-represent what the actual cost is for removing the dams. If the surrounding communities are gona lose tax revenues from the removal of the dams and California and Oregan have to pay that lost revenue forever, doesn’t that drive that price up considerably ? Not to mention, what is to become of the 70,000 households that really on the dam’s hydro-electricity ? Who is gona provide them electricity and who is gona pay for that ? And, one last thing, California is broke.
But, the main point here is Obama, Salazar, the DOI and his people and you lied about the scientific studies on the removal of the dams. You people cannot be trusted. Criminal Charges need to be filed.
We’re as concerned with the quality of the science behind the KBRA as anyone.
It’s important to point out Mr. Houser has not questioned the quality of the science behind any Klamath decision. Instead, he’s confined his complaint to the contents of a press release and the DEIS summary report, and has only suggested that not enough negatives were presented.
A Siskiyou Daily News interview said:
In fact, a complete reading of the complaint makes it clear this is not a matter of science, but one of opinion. The few scraps of information cited by Houser as being absent from the summary report were always available to the public.
And while he still opines that not enough changes were made to the press release in question, he also admits changes were made to that press release as a result of his concerns.
Hardly the stuff of a coverup.
The amount of work that generated these studies has been staggering, and the overwhelming weight of evidence agrees that salmon and steelhead populations need the dams removed if they’re to have a chance of rebounding (which will involve solving other issues too).
Those studies, which were run by people recognized as leaders in their respective fields, are not in dispute, even by Mr. Houser.
Finally, let’s not forget that these privately owned dams will — once retrofitted to meet minimal standards — operate at a $20 million annual loss. Dam removal opponents often ignore that set of facts, and no one has yet offered a realistic solution.
The KBRA and any recommendations for dam removal have been based on a very transparent series of peer-reviewed studies by leading scientists, and we stand behind the agreement and the science supporting it.