Last Tuesday, the Siskiyou County
Board of Supervisors held a special “Congressional style” meeting on the
proposed Klamath River Basin Restoration Agreement. This agreement is based on the
negotiation of a second “hydro” agreement with PacifiCorp to remove four of the Klamath
River dams. The Board had the opportunity to ask questions of representatives from the
California Resource Agency/ Dept. of Fish and Game; federal U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service; PacifiCorp; Karuk and Yurok tribes; Tulelake Irrigators; Klamath Project Water
Users and “off-Project” water users.
We also heard from an engineering specialist, John Lambie. He was
there with Brownfield Partners at the request of the county to talk about the sediment
studies that had been done on dam removal. According to Mr. Lambie, no one has done a
comprehensive feasibility study that actually explores and compares the dollar and
environmental costs of the different ways the dams could be removed. Although he only had
a few days to review the studies that had been done, he found them “fairly limited
science” - relying on “over simplified methods” with no analysis of the
carrying capacity of the river. Only one potential method of sediment release had even
been examined. He also pointed out that one of the studies actually listed six pages of
additional studies that needed to be done before a sound decision on dam removal could be
made.
There are an estimated 20 million cubic yards of sediment behind the
dams. . In Lambie’s opinion, sediment had to be released and could not be trucked
away. Apparently three sediment samples had been taken for dioxins (a wood preservative)
and all three were positive. Lambie stated that dioxins at sample levels would be
“injurious to the benthic community” (organisms that live on the bottom of the
rivers.) Further, he stated that the sediment study done by those who were promoting dam
removal actually estimated a sediment release that would seem to be a killer to the fish
in the river.
Lambie stated that he had previously worked on the Klamath. When a
dam goes in, the sediment piles up behind the dam and the area below the dam scours out.
He estimated that the area below Iron Gate was degraded several feet. If the dam is
removed, it will raise the river bed that same amount with sediment and gravel as the
river equalizes. (It would seem likely that the water level will also be raised a similar
amount.)
It became readily apparent that the Restoration Agreement and
proposed dam removal lacked the comprehensive scientific studies to support claimed
benefits to salmon and absolutely lacked any body of sound science to understand the
potential negative impacts and costs of the Agreement and dam removal. Over the past
couple of years, Siskiyou County representatives have repeatedly requested that such
comprehensive studies be performed to no avail. It is apparent to me that the lack of
science appears to serve dam removal proponents by allowing them to greatly understate the
costs and overstate the benefits of these proposals to the public and uninformed policy
makers.
It is by no accident that the study of the costs of dam removal was
commissioned by the Karuk tribe and done by Ecotrust who’s mission is to “Build
Salmon Nation.” www. Ecotrust.org. It is
no coincidence that environmentalists quote from this “study” as if it were
established fact. A current campaign by Friends of the River among Pacific Power customers
even cites the questionable study to support Klamath dam removal as the lower cost option.
It is obvious that the true potential costs of dam removal have not been identified, nor
have the costs of damage to infrastructure, liability for injury, mitigations for river
restoration, costs in property loss, environmental damage, etc. been considered.
Asked why extensive studies had not been done on the potential
impacts of the “biggest dam removal project in the United States,” US Fish and
Wildlife representatives assured the Board that environmental impact studies would be done
AFTER the Restoration Agreement and Hydro Agreements to remove the dams were signed and
given to FERC for consideration. It is apparent that PacifiCorp wants immunity in the
Hydro Agreement from any liability for injury or damages as a condition of agreeing to dam
removal. In addition, it has been implied that any environmental impact analysis will find
that “over-riding human concerns” for tribal and coastal fishing interests will
trump any local impacts or concerns.
In my opinion, it is becoming glaringly clear that the Settlement
Agreement and companion dam removal agreement is expedient public policy based on: (1)
reckless emotion rather than sound science; (2) factional self-aggrandizing agendas; (3)
power brokers that have ganged up to sacrifice the well-being of certain areas and
populations in the Klamath River system; and (4) a transfer of inland wealth to tribal and
coastal commercial interests. This is public policy at its worst. It is in no way a
process that has been in the public’s interest and could cause incalculable harm to
people and the environment. Federal, State and local government entities have a fiduciary
and legal responsibility to the public to base their decisions on adequate and sound
information that can be reviewed by all. It is clear in this instance that the cart is
miles in front of the horse. |
