[env-trinity] Times Standard- Klamath dam removal delayed; parties hope for hearings this spring

[Tom Stokely]

Click photo to enlarge



 Klamath dam removal delayed; parties hope for hearings this spring

 

The parties to the Klamath dams removal agreements are optimistic that plans are still on track despite the lack of action in Congress on essential legislation.

Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar announced Monday that he will not make a decision on the removal by March 31, as originally planned.

Craig Tucker -- a spokesman for the Karuk Tribe, one of the parties to the agreement -- said this will not deter the parties or delay the dam removal, which is scheduled for 2020.

”This is a bump in the road; this isn't the end of the line,” Tucker said. “All the parties remain committed to seeing this through.”

Congress has not enacted the legislation necessary to authorize a secretarial determination under the terms of Klamath dam agreements. Salazar was expected to decide whether the removal of four dams -- owned by energy company PacifiCorp -- on the Klamath River would be in the public's interest and advance the restoration of salmon and steelhead fisheries in the Klamath Basin.

”The Department of the Interior, working with our partners at NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and the U.S. Forest Service, has upheld our commitments in these agreements that are so important to strengthening the health and prosperity of those that depend on the Klamath River for their way of life,” Salazar said in a press release. “I am proud of the work of our team of experts who have completed more than 50 new studies and reports that are providing significant new information on the potential effects of Klamath River dam removal as part of a transparent, science-based process.”

The U.S. Department of the Interior has been completing peer-reviewed scientific and technical studies and an environmental analysis during the past year to inform Salazar for the determination -- a condition of the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement, or KHSA, and the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, or KBRA. The legislation, the Klamath Basin Economic Restoration Act, was introduced in the Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives in November.

In addition to the determination, the agreement requires California and Oregon to identify a funding source, and the secretary's office must conduct additional studies on the costs, benefits and liabilities associated with dam removal. The final version of the study is expected to be released this spring.

According to a release, the parties to the agreements met on Friday with Salazar's staff and Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner Mike Connor in San Francisco to discuss the next steps.

Tucker said the parties agreed that the delay wouldn't violate the agreement.

”We urge Congress to hold hearings as soon as possible so we can educate people and get all the facts on the table and keep moving this forward,” he said.

Tucker added that the need for the agreements is underscored by the looming drought this year.

”If we had implemented these agreements, we would have had a game plan for this year,” he said.

Patrick Higgins -- a fisheries consultant for the Resighini Rancheria, a tribe located in Del Norte County that is not a party to the agreements -- said the delay does not surprise him. A vocal opponent of the agreements, Higgins said he doesn't see the current Congress passing the key legislation, considering the political pressure from some irrigators to stop the act.

”The possibility of passing this in future congresses is equally bleak,” he said.

Higgins said that without the legislation, the KHSA is in trouble, and it would be best to allow the PacifiCorp relicensing process to move forward through the California State Water Resources Control Board. The board delayed a clean water certification process in light of the agreements.

Tucker said the delay does not change the KHSA's terms.

”We tried to build an agreement with some flexibility with some hurdles just like this,” he said.

Under the terms of the KHSA, the secretary agreed to use “best efforts” to make a decision by March 31.

PacifiCorp spokesman Bob Gravely said the company is hopeful that the water board will continue to delay the clean water certification process. The company is expected to go before the board this spring for its yearly review.

”We're disappointed that Congress hasn't acted, but March 31 has also been a target date rather than a fixed deadline,” Gravely said. “So from our point of view, nothing really changes for this. We're still committed to the settlement.”

The company has continued to collect a dam removal surcharge from its customers in Oregon and California to help pay for the project. Nearly $30 million has been collected so far, Gravely said. While the bulk of its customers are in Oregon, PacifiCorp began charging its California customers in January. Most of PacifiCorp's California customers are in Siskiyou County, but it also serves Crescent City and other areas closer to the coast, he said.

 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20120228/1a437050/attachment.html>