Fans of corporate spin will no doubt find the following passage amusing in the face of the paragraph we’ve placed below it:

PacifiCorp Energy President Rob Lasich says the settlement shows that sincere negotiations can produce positive results for fish as well as PacifiCorp’s customers.

The Portland-based utility agreed to negotiations after the conservation group Oregon Wild filed notice it would sue under the Endangered Species Act…

OK, we get it; PacifiCorp won’t engage in "sincere negotiations" until it’s forced to by the threat of a lawsuit. Still, it’s a good result for Oregon Wild and Klamath fisheries (a little good news, eh?).

ShareThis

In one sense, we shouldn’t be surprised; it’s a loaded issue, and any agreement would likely add fuel to the firestorm over the Klamath’s dying salmon runs.

I was willing to chalk up much of the negative feedback to simple sour grapes, but the range of dissent has been surprising. One very credible Klamath expert even suggested irrigators will be enjoying Christmas pretty much every day for the next 50 years.

Like many folks, I’ve been focused almost solely on the issue of dam removal (and it’s critical to salmon recovery), but it turns out I might have been suffering from a combination of tunnel vision and wishful thinking.

I’m researching this one for you, and hope to have something postable early next week. In the meantime, this LA Times story nicely summarizes the issues.

Look for lots, lots more on this one.

See you on the Klamath, Tom Chandler.

ShareThis

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

ShareThis

And guess what? They say it’s still cheaper to remove the four Klamath dams than it is to keep them (these are the same dams that are beating the crap out of the Klamath Salmon runs and commercial and sport fisheries).

From the Karuk tribe press release:

The document includes an economic analysis that shows that the removal of the lower four Klamath dams would save ratepayers $7 million dollars a year which will likely make it difficult for PacifiCorp to recover expenses from their customers. The FERC analysis showed that the dams would operate at a net loss of more than $20 million a year if relicensed.

PacifiCorp wants to retain the dams in spite of the Klamath salmon’s rapid march towards extinction (earning them an “Axis of Evil” label from the Trout Underground), and this will make it much harder for them to do so.

So… get rid of the damn things already. And then we’ll see the economic power of a healthy river. After all, the Trinity finally got some water put back into it, and now you can hardly find a place to park.

Imagine what happens if the Klamath comes back to even a shadow of its former salmon/steelhead runs…

See you at the dam removal party, Tom Chandler.

ShareThis

It’s bullshit.

There is so much grossly wasted energy out there — waiting to be reclaimed — that massive conservation is possible without the cold, dark houses predicted by the fearmongers who wish to maintain the status quo.

For example, “flaring” natural gas as a part of petroleum production is a commonplace tactic, and as reported on Newsweek’s blog, countries have been hugely underreporting their “flaring” emissions.

How much are they really flaring?

Enough to equal the carbon emissions of one-third of that emitted by homes in the United States last year.

Worldwide, gas flaring is sending into the atmosphere the greenhouse-warming equivalent of 400 million metric tons of carbon dioxide every year. That’s more than one-third of the 1,197 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions from every home in the U.S. last year, according to the Energy Information Administration, and more than one-fifth of the 1,965 million metric tons from all the trucks, planes, SUVs and every other vehicle in the U.S. that year.

Imagine collecting that gas and using it instead of burning it — and adding that “no net gain” carbon to the atmosphere.

Next time someone trots out the “carbon neutral” or energy argument as an excuse to save an environmentally damaging dam, tell ‘em they’re full of it. Once we’ve made a real effort at energy conservation, then we can talk about the utility of environmentally damaging dams…

Technorati Tags: klamath river, klamath dams, pacificorp

ShareThis