The Klamath Water Users Association (KWUA) is a non-profit corporation that has represented Klamath Irrigation Project farmers and ranchers since 1953. Our members include rural irrigation districts and other public agencies, as well as private concerns operating on both sides of the California-Oregon border. KWUA’s Power Committee, consisting of volunteers from the local agriculture and business community, have over the past four years prepared a strategy to engage in the FERC relicensing process and to advocate for continued affordable power for Upper Klamath Basin agriculture.

After months of soliciting proposals, reviewing qualifications and interviewing potential candidates, KWUA last fall entered into an agreement with a Portland law firm to guide the association’s efforts to address pending electrical power issues. KWUA signed into a formal agreement with Cable Huston Benedict Haagensen and Lloyd, to provide the association with professional legal and other consulting guidance as Klamath Project irrigators face the expiration in 2006 of a contract, which presently provides for power pricing in the Klamath Project. The Klamath Project’s power contract dates to 1917, when PacifiCorp's predecessor – Copco – negotiated a deal with the U.S. government to build Link River Dam. The power company received the run of the river and storage benefits for hydropower, while the government and water users received affordable electricity for the Klamath Project. PacifiCorp and the federal government negotiated the current 50-year deal in 1956. KWUA was formed in 1953 in part to specifically address the power contract that was in place at that time.

We believe the farmers of the Klamath Basin have certain legal rights that are reflected in the conditions on the current FERC license, and any entity that acquires a new license will be required to offer low cost power to the farmers, or equivalent consideration. In essence, the water users have a right to power benefits. Further, waters used by PacifiCorp are only available to the Klamath Irrigation Project and only so long as they are not required by the irrigation project.

The Reclamation Act was enacted in 1902 to encourage irrigation and homesteading in arid western states. It was anticipated that the irrigation would require two interrelated resources: water and power. The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) asserted legal claim to all residual or inchoate water rights within the Project boundary. Reclamation also has authority to develop hydroelectric power projects.

Within the Klamath Irrigation Project, Reclamation gave permission to Copco to begin developing key components of the Klamath Hydroelectric Project pursuant to terms of the 1917 agreement. In 1951 Copco sought a federal license for two new hydroelectric facilities—now known as JC Boyle. Reclamation and local interests vigorously opposed the license, as it would impede the federal agency from ever developing its own power resources.

In a document called Protest of the United States to the Application For License of the California-Oregon Power Company, Project No. 180, June 1, 1951, Reclamation made the following arguments to FERC, which are no less true today:

FERC interpreted the Bureau’s objection as an exercise of the Bureau’s mandatory conditioning authority under Section 4(e) of the Federal Power Act. FERC ultimately issued the license solely upon the condition that the 1917 agreement be renewed for the term of the license.

Under Section 4(e) of the FPA, 16 USC § 797(e), federal agencies can require conditions for projects located on or within federal "reservation" lands. In general, the agency can require conditions to ensure that the hydroelectric project, as operated pursuant to the license, is consistent with the basic purpose of the federal reservation. Reclamation is entitled to require license conditions to ensure that the hydro Project license is not inconsistent with the irrigation purposes of the Klamath Irrigation Project. In addition to the mandatory conditioning authority, there are several other bases under Federal Power Act upon which FERC would have discretion to condition PacifiCorp’s license.

We object to the terms "preferential rate" and "subsidized rate", favorite characterizations of Klamath Project critics. The current contract is the product of negotiation among sophisticated parties that resulted in an acceptable agreement for all concerned. We believe that the current rate schedule is a reasonable consideration of the relationship between the Klamath Hydroelectric Project and the federal Klamath Irrigation Project.

We have monitored PacifiCorp's collaborative pre-filing consultation process for the Klamath relicensing, and we believe that PacifiCorp has striven to provide an inclusive, fair and open process.  PacifiCorp has funded studies that have provided a much better understanding of this unique, complex environment that we in the Klamath basin call "home". We generally support the PacifiCorp application as presented, although we will submit more detailed concerns in writing in the coming month. This support is concurrent, of course, with an understanding that all practical measures will be taken to ensure that continued affordable power rates are provided to Upper Basin irrigators.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PacifiCorp Model Provides a Klamath Reality Check
by Dan Keppen

Recent water quality modeling developed by PacifiCorp provides a glimpse into Klamath River dynamics that may force policy makers to take a whole new look into how the system can be managed. PacifiCorp has developed flow and water quality models for the Klamath River, specifically from Link Dam to Turwar, California. The models developed by PacifiCorp can analyze water quality from Link Dam to Iron Gate Dam and below, and show how the PacifiCorp facilities contribute to or control water quality conditions in and downstream of the dams. The models can address questions related to PacifiCorp operations including (1) whether and how operations might contribute to water quality conditions, and (2) whether and how operations might feasibly contribute to water quality improvements.

According to the modeling, the PacifiCorp dams in the Middle Klamath are serving important functions. Some of those functions are attributable simply to the fact that they create a series of lakes. Turbidity, for example, diminishes as water moves through the system; turbidity can be a surrogate for particulate matter, including dead algae and other nutrients.

Particulate organic matter that originates, or is a result of nutrients released from Upper Klamath Lake (UKL), agricultural return flows, and municipal and industrial inputs in the Klamath Falls area is to a large extent trapped by system reservoirs (settles out), reducing the overall nutrient load to the reaches below Iron Gate Dam. All of the reservoirs are "productive," and organic loads are elevated in all of them; however, Upper Klamath Lake is in general several times as "productive" as Iron Gate and Copco reservoirs. Further, Upper Klamath Lake is a much larger body of water with a large surface area, and can produce appreciable organic inputs to the Klamath River. Comparatively, Iron Gate and Copco reservoirs have much smaller surface areas and, although productive, do not yield the same loading potential as Upper Klamath Lake. These reservoirs thus have a considerably smaller impact on releases to the Klamath River than UKL.

PacifiCorp’s findings suggest that, under current conditions - even if all the dams were removed below Link Dam - the resulting river reaches could not assimilate or retain anywhere near what the dams now assimilate or retain. Without the dams, there is potential for water with substantially impaired water quality to flow downstream to the middle Klamath River reaches. Without the current impoundments in place, water would reach the area of Iron Gate Dam in two to three days versus six to eight weeks. The dams are beneficial for water quality, because UKL water quality is impaired, and the reservoirs trap appreciable amounts of matter, thereby reducing the load to downstream reaches.

If Iron Gate Dam were removed, PacifiCorp modeling suggests that the river below Copco I and II developments would be slightly warmer than the river below Iron Gate Dam because Copco is smaller and has a smaller cold water pool. There would be unknown silt impacts downstream of Iron Gate Dam upon removal. There would still be "thermal lag," even without Iron Gate Dam, since the Copco Dam would continue to have a thermal lag effect. Finally, cold water in Iron Gate Dam is a source of water for the fish hatchery, so removal would result in no cold water supply for the hatchery. Removing Iron Gate Dam would restore approximately eight river miles, with resultant increase in mainstream reaches, and some spawning habitat.

The habitat quantity and quality outputs from another model are being used to focus on dam and reservoir passage efficiencies so that passage options can be assessed. The model incorporates both habitat data and fish passage survival through Klamath Hydro Project structures to estimate fish production in specific reaches or areas of the basin. The model can explore how different assumptions affect model results; this model is being used primarily as a "gaming" tool to assess the effects various fish passage options have on fish production. KWUA believes this model may prove to be a useful tool to evaluate watershed-wide actions that can benefit water quality and fish habitat.

Participants in recent PacifiCorp modeling presentations have noted that the Klamath River behaves as if it is "upside down", with characteristics that differ from other river systems. It is vitally important for policy makers and participants in the relicensing process to understand this. Recent comments in the media made by river restoration and free flow theorists tout the advantages of dam removal on the Klamath River, and predict surging runs of salmon and pristine water quality conditions once those structures are modified. Based on the information that is available to date – and the work prepared by PacifiCorp’s scientist, Mike Deas, a man we hold in respect – we believe the burden is on the theorists to prove that improved water quality and fish habitat will result from modifying the mainstem Klamath River dams. If they can clearly demonstrate this is the case, and that the benefits outweigh the associated environmental and economic impacts to our communities, than that may be the direction to go. For now, until new information is developed to demonstrate otherwise, it is simply another great idea.