Are we one step closer to seeing the four Klamath Dams removed? Will the Klamath finally escape the decades of environmental degradation that have left its salmon runs teetering on the brink?
Maybe.
After more than two years of behind-closed-doors negotiations between 26 different groups — including Native Americans, irrigators, conservation groups and county, state, and federal agencies — a draft Klamath Restoration Agreement has been released.
(Read the Summary of Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement here, or the
Full Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement here)
The agreement represents a proposed series of commitments and agreements between groups who are normally at each other’s throats, and according to CalTrout’s Brian Stranko, “The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement marks a major stride forward in bringing peace to the Klamath River.”
According to Craig Tucker — Klamath Campaign Coordinator for the Karuk Tribe — the proposed agreement includes four key elements:
- A comprehensive program to rebuild fish populations sufficient for sustainable tribal, recreational, and commercial fisheries. Elements include: Actions to restore fish populations and habitats, including a program to reintroduce anadromous species in currently-blocked parts of the Basin; actions to improve fish survival by enhancing the amount of water available for fish, particularly in drier years; and other efforts to support tribes in fisheries reintroduction and restoration efforts.
- A reliable and certain allocation of water sufficient for a sustainable agricultural community and national wildlife refuges.
- A program to stabilize power costs for the Upper Basin’s family farms, ranches, and for the two national wildlife refuges.
- A program intended to insure mitigation for counties that may be impacted by the removal of the hydroelectric facilities.
Only Halfway There
We’re seeing the first major step to dam removal, but a critical piece of the puzzle remains — Pacificorp must agree to remove the dams, or the basin restoration agreement will be voided.
PacifiCorp has been maneuvering frantically to avoid dam removal, but the arrival of an agreement certainly places more pressure on them. Some suggest their goal all along hasn’t been to preserve the dams, but instead force ratepayers to pay for their removal (instead of stockholders).
It’s the kind of legal maneuvering that frankly makes my head spin, but there it is. Act II is about to start.
Not Everyone’s Happy
Any attempt by the Klamath’s widely disparate stakeholders to hammer out a compromise where everyone gets enough of the pie to go home happy is bound to have its critics, and the agreement hasn’t been embraced by everyone.
Oregon Wild — a conservation group opposed to allowing farming operations to encroach on Klamath Wildlife Refuges — refused to sign an “agreement framework” and was excluded from the talks. They’ve been openly critical since, alleging that the Bush Administration was weakening protections for fish and wildlife, and forcing stakeholders to sign on.
In addition, a locally run blog (The KlamBlog) run by Felice Pace has published several articles critical of the agreement, alleging that the agreement won’t lead to the recovery of salmon stocks.
A problem like the restoration of an entire watershed — especially one as compromised and degraded as the Klamath — is certainly not a simple thing, and at this point, I haven’t read enough to jump with joy or wonder at all the wasted time.
The prospect of dam removal is bouying; the danger that corporate agricultural interests aren’t giving up enough water to maintain the runs in dry years is daunting.
I’ve got some reading to do. For now, I’m cautiously optimistic, imagining the economic and sporting benefits provided by a healthy Klamath watershed. Hot damn.
See you at reading table, Tom Chandler.
Technorati tags: klamath river, klamath, klamath river recovery, klamath dam removal, klamath basin restoration agreement, oregon wild, salmon recovery
Once again, great reporting, Tom. It will be interesting to see how all this pans out.
Also, enjoyed the nod yesterday regarding the lower Lower Owens too!
Dave N(Quote)
caution, caution—don’t ever sign untill there is a written legal agreement from all parties involved. there could be something not so fishy here. the groups $ profitting here are hoping we’ll bite on this first proposal just because we are so eager to see the dams go. yet alot of public recreation water rights will be compromised, including my favorite, right to fish the waters. not to mention many other factors—the klamblog is very descriptive-then again its just one perspective—i need to read more too.–just hope it all works out in good balance
isaac roman(Quote)
There is a lot going on here behind the scenes, and if I worked on this story fulltime for a week or two, I could probably start to do it justice.
I am planning a followup, and while I’ve got a couple people to talk to, what I’m hearing is that I’ve been suffering from tunnel vision; removing the dams is a nice first step to restoration, but in the absence of worthwhile flows (a lot of which will have to come from the Trinity, Scott and Shasta Rivers), we’re wasting our time.
More as it happens, Undergrounders.
Tom Chandler(Quote)