[env-trinity] Chronicle Editorial: Klamath plan gets jammed in Congress

[Tom Stokely]

http://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/Klamath-plan-gets-jammed-in-Congress-6718886.php

Klamath plan gets jammed in Congress
San Francisco ChronicleDecember 23, 2015   
   - 
    
   - 0
   
   - 
    
   - 
    
   - 
    
   - 
    
   - 
    
   - 
Five years ago, a compromise package to remove four Klamath River dams straddling the California and Oregon border was saluted as a water-policy marvel. But the package now faces near-certain death as a year-end deadline for congressional action draws near. The failure harms the river’s health and upstream farmers, killing a deal that drew in Indian tribes, high-country ranchers, conservationists and the owners of the power dams that date back a century. But the defeat is also a major trouble sign for solving other water wars in California where similar dreams of consensus and bridge building are fraying in an era of droughts and oversubscribed supplies. The Klamath deal had nearly everyone on board. For nearly $1 billion, the dams would come down, restoring salmon-rearing areas in the upper reaches of what once was one of the West’s major fish-rearing rivers. Oregon farmers who long feared the loss of irrigation water were promised reliable supplies, a major pledge that brought them along. A nearby wildlife refuge was guaranteed water, too. Downstream, some 200 miles of river would be restored to health. On the California side, tribes and fishing groups signed on. The dams’ owners, faced with major repairs to the aging structures, went along with demolition. A complicated, multisided fight appeared over.This all-hands agreement should be a winner, showing a better way to achieve results than scorched-earth fights that produce more uncertainty, lawsuits and forced solutions. The complexity of ripping out dams, sharing water and placating so many interests groups took years of work.The deal’s demise can be blamed on factors large and small. The Republican-dominated Congress didn’t like the $1 billion bill, though the cost was spread across 15 years. Rep. Doug LaMalfa, R-Richvale (Butte County), didn’t accept the science that predicted revived fish numbers after the dams came down. Voters in Siskiyou County, where three of the dams stand, opposed removal, saying it would jeopardize property values. The ever-smoldering resentment of outsiders in a far corner of the state also played into local opposition to demolition. Still others feared losing the power output of the dams, though the owner, PacifiCorp, said other sources could make up the relatively small output of the dams.These short-sighted arguments can’t be the last word for a river that sustains communities across two states. If the deadline for congressional approval passes, the coalition behind dam removal must press ahead in other ways to restart the process, wearying and unfair as that is.One opportunity may be a dispute over new operating licenses for the four dams, which must be approved by Washington. One requirement would be new fish ladders that allow migrating fish around the dams, but the cost is predicted to be far more than taking out the concrete structures.That may lead PacifiCorp to take down the dams, but that outcome does nothing about water sharing or restoring the river downstream. All the old tensions will revive over tribal fishing rights, on-and-off fishing restrictions in the ocean, and diversions for farmers and wildlife refuges.A peaceable future for this major river won’t be assured simply by fixing or removing the dams. A rare opportunity for peace in the water wars can’t be allowed to slip away.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20151224/dbd81652/attachment.html>