[env-trinity] Klamath Dams, Friant Decision/Sac Bee and Eureka Times Standard

[Byron]

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER

Editorial: Reviving a river

San Joaquin seems destined to flow again

Sacramento Bee - 9/1/04

The San Joaquin River is the second-longest in California - when it is a
river, that is. For many months in a typical year, this river no longer
flows for much of its course from the southern Sierra Nevada to the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Instead, it is a dry, dusty channel. The
federal Central Valley Project, which captures the headwaters at Friant Dam
and then conveys much of the flow away from the river channel and to Valley
agriculture, is the reason for the San Joaquin's demise. The long-time
existence of this plumbing and federal water contracts are not reason enough
to kill a river, U.S. District Judge Lawrence K. Karlton has ruled, and
justly so. Given the sorry state of this river, it's impossible to defend
the status quo.

Environmental groups that filed the lawsuit hailed the ruling, while farmers
along the San Joaquin Valley who use most of the water for irrigation
predicted economic catastrophe. But no final outcome is likely for some
time, given the time it takes to hear appeals and the bureaucratic wrangling
that is sure to continue. What does seem clear is that restoration of the
river is no longer a matter of if, but rather of when. But what kind of
restoration? How much? At what cost, and to whom?

Karlton answered none of those questions in this initial ruling. He could
throw the problem into the laps of state officials or divide the waters
himself. Given the glacial pace of progress before the state Water Quality
Control Board, a careful ruling by Karlton might lead to a more objective
solution and would certainly take less time.

A couple of things are clear, however. More study is needed - of how to
maximize groundwater in a sustainable fashion, to alter water deliveries and
to estimate the health of the river based on additional increments of water.
Restoring a flow is one thing. Restoring a fishery, particularly a salmon
fishery, would be another.

While some environmentalists dream fondly of taking down Friant Dam, that
won't ever happen. This is the one and only dam on this river, making it
vital for flood control and water reliability. By the same token, farmers
must reconcile themselves to the fact that some considerable amount of
restoration will take place. A lasting solution is somewhere in this
uncharted middle ground. Here is hoping that Karlton can find it.

 <http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/story/10587302p-11506162c.html>
http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/story/10587302p-11506162c.html

 

KLAMATH RIVER BASIN

Settling on the Klamath's dams 

Eureka Times-Standard - 9/1/04

By John Driscoll, staff writer

The owner of six dams on the Klamath River is hoping to have settlement
talks under way as early as the fall, and has repeated its stance that no
options -- including dam removal -- are off the table.

Portland, Ore.,-based PacifiCorp's application for the relicensing of the
dams has been accepted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Now the
power company wants to open settlement negotiations with tribes,
environmentalists and others, whose final terms would be adopted by federal
regulators.

Such a process has been used throughout the West to allow for more
flexibility than is provided for in the onerous relicensing process. But how
many groups -- and who will represent them -- will be allowed at the table
is up in the air.

"I think we've been clear that we haven't drawn a line in the sand," said
PacifiCorp spokesman Jon Coney. "We haven't prejudged the outcome."

Klamath Indian tribes, fishermen and environmentalists are just coming off a
trip to Scotland, where they met with PacifiCorp parent company Scottish
Power executives and attended its shareholders meeting. Scottish Power
pledged that its subsidiary would talk with the groups. Last month,
PacifiCorp CEO Judi Johanson met with several Klamath tribes.

Yurok Tribe Executive Director Troy Fletcher said the Yuroks have told
PacifiCorp they want to negotiate with the understanding that their goal is
to see the dams removed. But the tribe also wants to see the full effects of
such an effort studied, something the company has left out of its federal
license application. 

"We believe PacifiCorp is poised to do the right thing and the Yurok Tribe
is going to do everything we can to help restore fish to the Upper Klamath
Basin," Fletcher said.

Salmon once ran far up the Klamath, maybe well into the Sprague and
Williamson rivers that feed Upper Klamath Lake. As the dams went up, salmon
were cut off from their historic spawning grounds.

A lawsuit from tribes on the upper Klamath asks for $1 billion in
compensation for treaty rights to fish for salmon in the upper watershed.
Coney said that lawsuit could complicate settlement talks.

The hydroelectric project today produces about 151 megawatts, enough to
serve 77,500 homes. Coney said it's a source of cheap power that doesn't
pollute -- an assertion questioned by many who hold that its reservoirs
degrade water quality. 

Coney could not say what removal of the project might mean to its
ratepayers. The California Energy Commission has stated that new, larger
power projects coming on line regionally would more than supplant the power
PacifiCorp generates.

And Scottish Power bills itself as an environmentally minded company, and
could face a public relations backlash if PacifiCorp isn't willing to
consider eliminating some of its impacts. 

In fact, the tribes and groups that traveled to Scotland were the source of
a minor media frenzy in a country whose residents were largely unfamiliar
with Scottish Power's interests in the Klamath River. 

One of the key elements likely to come up during settlement talks is the
cost of dam removal. Some preliminary estimates have been thrown around, but
the price is likely to be in the tens of millions of dollars, and PacifiCorp
would probably expect federal assistance in bearing the burden. 

"I think it's inevitable that federal funding of dam removal is going to
come up," Coney said. 

How many dams might come out would obviously affect the cost, and different
groups might advocate different approaches. Craig Tucker of the
Sacramento-based Friends of the River said Keno Dam could be left, and the
other dams are fair game, but Iron Gate Dam, in his opinion, has to go.

The National Research Council and the California Energy Commission have
advocated that removal of at least Iron Gate Dam be considered. 

The differing opinions mean as many groups that are committed to the process
should be allowed at the table, Tucker said. But instead of following other
successful models, PacifiCorp seems intent on dictating the shape of the
negotiations, he said, something that might only lead to lawsuits once the
settlement terms are clear.

"The last thing the Klamath needs is another lawsuit," Tucker said.

 

 

Byron Leydecker

Chair, Friends of Trinity River

Consultant, California Trout, Inc.

PO Box 2327

Mill Valley, CA 94942-2327

415 383 4810 ph

415 519 4810 ce

415 383 9562 fx

bwl3 at comcast.net

 <mailto:bleydecker at stanfordalumni.org> bleydecker at stanfordalumni.org
(secondary)

http://www.fotr.org

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20040901/998e98ed/attachment.html>