As a representative elected by
people living along about 110 miles of Klamath river and two of its tributaries, the Scott
and Salmon Rivers, I am looking closely at the costs and benefits offered by the Klamath
Restoration Settlement Agreement.
The benefits to my constituents appear to be few and uncertain. Dam
removal could benefit salmon, which provides a minor contribution to the County’s
economic base. However, I understand that PacifiCorp ran models that showed that fish
populations would not rebound as claimed. In addition, without Iron Gate dam, the fish
hatchery would be unable to operate. This would decrease salmon runs by about 25%. The
California Dept. of Fish and Game promises to ask the State Legislature to give up to $20
million to offset the estimated County loss in tax revenues from the dam facilities and
potential revaluation of property impacted by dam removal. However, it looks like the
County would have to: (1) prove its actual loss in revenue; (2) receive the money on other
than a lump sum basis; and (3) it is implied the money would be regranted to local people
rather than supporting the County’s General Fund. The State is currently in a budget
deficit of more than $15 billion, so chances of that passing are pretty slim. If we
don’t get the promised money, Siskiyou County can opt out of the agreement after the
dam license is surrendered.
The costs to my constituents from the agreement are many. The list is
long and clearly indicates that they may be in
a far worse position by the County signing it than by not signing it. It appears that the
dams could come out anyway and the Settlement Agreement could go forward anyway without
the County’s approval. One thing we might gain is retention of the right to sue the
federal and state government for damages. We also could draw public attention to the fact that, although this could be
the largest dam removal project the United States has ever seen, the peer reviewed
impartial scientific studies to support it have not been done, and the negotiation process
has been corrupt, politically motivated and unfair.
There is not even a certainty that anyone will have liability for
severe physical impacts of dam removal: potential damages to bridges, roads, private
property – such as mining claims and increased flooding in areas like Seiad Valley,
or impacts to the salmon from the release of 20 million cubic yards of sediment down the
Klamath. (Even during the NEPA/CEQA process, mitigation requirements can be completely
waived.) There is no provision for money to restore the raw lake bottoms to be left by dam
removal. The City of Yreka could suffer severe damage to its water supply and water lines,
and no provisions are made. People living around the lake would lose a locally valuable
prize bass and perch fishery, established lake ecosystems used for recreation, a
designated California Wild Trout fishery and Class IV-V summer white water rafting
opportunities. The Klamath tribe would be given an interim fishery below Iron Gate to the
detriment of the indigenous Shasta tribe, as well as the resorts, guides and local
residents who traditionally fish there.
There are also indirect impacts. The tribes agree not to demand
additional water from the Upper Basin and the Klamath Project, but the Yurok tribe has
publicly stated that they may still go after the Scott and Shasta for additional flows.
Currently, the Scott and Shasta Valleys receive grants from many agency sources for salmon
restoration. The new agreement would apparently funnel all Klamath restoration funds
through a Council that includes the fish agencies and the tribes. In the agreement,
priority would be given to tribal projects.
One of the greatest implications of the Settlement Agreement is
unknown: How electrical rates will be impacted. Humboldt County and the Yurok tribe are
not in Pacific Power’s Service Area. They will not be impacted. The Klamath Project
Users have negotiated a frozen electric rate of $.03 rate per kilowatt hour. In some sort
of exception to the reopening of negotiations rule, the Off-Project irrigators in the Upper
Basin are looking for the same rate. How will the costs of putting in fish ladders or of
dam removal and securing a replacement power source affect your rates? In 2006, Pacific
Power requested a rate increase from the Calaifornia PUC. For each $1 million of expenses
they claimed, the rate of the California rate payer was to increase 1.48%.
Think about it. The installation of fishways (ladders) is estimated
to cost from $300-$415 million. Dam de-commissioning cost estimates vary widely from 100
million to a billion – particularly if sediment must be moved. Power replacement costs are estimated from $20-$30
million. After all these protections in the Settlement Agreement, who is left to pay for
these costs? The answer is – YOU!
My readers can see an online list of questions I have posed
concerning the Restoration/Settlement document here: http://www.sisqtel.net/armstrng/ It
points to the many negative impacts of this proposed agreement on my constituents |
