By Klamath Basin irrigator Bill
Kennedy, who is a Klamath Water User Association
director. He is responding to 'Local consensus:
All four Klamath dams should go', by Terry Dillman
Of the Newport News-Times December 6, 2006
Followed by 'Local
consensus: All four Klamath dams should go'
Dear Terry
I thought your coverage of the FERC hearing and
the issue was quite good.
I have been involved with this issue for many
years as I irrigate wildlife habitat with water
from the Klamath river. I also enjoy fishing and
eating fish from the wild.
Dam removal has become a mantra for many. The
discussion regarding healthy fisheries has been
limited and focused to dam removal. Those who have
limited our perceived choices see dam removal as a
fix all to a complex wildlife and social issue.
If you assume that our goal is to have a robust,
healthy fishery and conclude that this will happen
when dams are removed from the Klamath river, it
seems obvious to look at some rivers that do not
have dams on them. Both the Cal Salmon river, a
tributary to the Klamath, and the Smith River just
north of the Klamath are free from dams. I believe
that the salmon and steelhead fisheries on these
rivers is also less than healthy.
There are indeed many factors that attribute to a
decline in our fish populations. From marginal
spawning health to ocean and harvest issues, the
health of our fisheries depends upon more than
just dam removal.
Several people at the FERC hearing claim that the
dams are poor producers of electricity and do not
have any other function. This is a somewhat
limited view. While the dams are about the same
age as I am, they do provide for many who are
dependent upon electric power.
I depend upon electric power for irrigation
drainage and for application. The hydroelectric
development on the Klamath river is attractive
because of the large amounts of water pumped out
of the Klamath basin. This water that would
naturally be in upper Klamath Lake and Tule Lake
is now pumped into the Klamath river. If it was
not for the coordinated development of our
irrigated lands, there would be naturally low
summer flows down the Klamath river.
Hydroelectric production has some very attractive
attributes. It is very controlled. When the power
is needed in the hot summer months, it is
available at the flip of a switch. It does not
take many hours or days to start up like coal or
natural gas fired generation. Another benefit of
hydroelectric production is that it does not
create "greenhouse" gases that contribute to
climate change. The natural gas fired plant
operated by the city of Klamath Falls creates
between 800,000 and one million metric tons of C02
per year.
Back to the discussion on FERC and dams. Is it
possible to have MODERN hydroelectric production
AND a healthy abundant fish population? Part of
the under the table assumption about dam removal
is that there will be less or eventually no
irrigated agriculture that depends upon affordable
power and water. With little or no irrigation
there will be LESS not more water going down the
Klamath river.
In the upper Klamath marsh, land at the base of
Mt. Scott and to the east, close to 40,000 acres
has been taken out of irrigated pasture. With this
change, there is less water coming off the marsh
and into upper Klamath Lake. Three years ago there
was a large land base here in Poe Valley enrolled
in a water bank. There was so much flood irrigated
land enrolled that there was a substantial
reduction in return flows to the Lost River and
the Klamath river. This was a disaster for
wildlife in the Lost River.
Today, after spending over 100 million dollars to
improve on farm water use efficiency, we are
experiencing a loss of valuable wildlife habitat.
I think this aspect of our direction with dam
removal disturbs me the most. My family created a
private wildlife refuge on our 4800 acres in Poe
Valley back in 1975. We provide food, habitat and
privacy for over 400 vertebrate species of
wildlife. This includes three endangered species.
Our "single species" management through federal
biological "opinions" is at the detriment to
wildlife.
When we consider dam removal I think we need to be
realistic and make decisions with a holistic
approach. It may make a tremendous statement to
our nation if we dismantle dams on the Klamath,
the Snake, the Columbia and even the Colorado and
Mississippi rivers. We may also realize that we
have not "fixed" the fisheries on the west coast
and we have disregarded our wildlife values, our
needs for clean, reliable electricity and our
nation's security.
I believe that one aspect of the timing of this
FERC licensing process that is a coincidence is
that we are moving towards a more diverse
production of power. Because of the world demand
for petroleum and reliable power, we are moving to
renewable power. One producer here in Klamath
Falls will go on line next year with a geothermal
development to produce over 1,000,000 gallons of
biodiesel. This, along with future ethanol
production and hydrogen production is dependent
upon a reliable source of WATER.
We want healthy fisheries. We need reliable power
and we need reliable irrigated crops.
I am not willing to accept the limited choices we
are being offered. I feel that we have more
options. I know our worlds will look a lot
different than today. That is the good news.
Someone said " Change is mandatory, Progress is
optional". We are making progress. With improved
community relationships that have led to
understanding, we are progressing towards
solutions for our small part of the world.
Please feel free to give me a call sometime Terry.
Thank you for your balanced coverage of this
complex issue that is often simplified and
polarized.
Sincerely,
W. D. Kennedy
lostriverranch@earthlink.net
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.newportnewstimes.com/articles/2006/12/06/news/news02.txt
Local consensus: All four
Klamath dams should go
By Terry Dillman Of the News-Times December 6,
2006
For possibly the first time in anybody's
recollection, recreational and commercial
fishermen wholeheartedly agree on a fisheries
issue.
I've been around this fleet all of my life, and
I've never seen such agreement, said Lincoln
County Commissioner Terry Thompson. He considered
having recreational and commercial fishermen on
the same page at the same time a clear referendum
against PacifiCorp's re-licensing request for four
dams the Portland-based utility owns on the
Klamath River.
Thompson joined about 60 folks with a vested
interest in salmon fishing for a Nov. 30 public
hearing at Newport's Shilo Inn.
Representatives for the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) were in town to reel in public
comments about the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) for the Klamath Hydroelectric
Project. At issue is the pending re-licensing for
Iron Gate, J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, and Copco 2 on a
section of the Klamath River that straddles the
Oregon-California border.
Thompson and about 20 others called for
dismantling all four dams - an alternative not
featured among the options described in the DEIS,
which include removing the two tallest dams,
building fish ladders, trucking fish around the
dams, or maintaining the status quo. While a few
attendees expressed doubt about their input making
any difference in the decision-making process,
they almost didn't get a chance to provide direct
face-to-face testimony.
FERC's original list of public hearing sites
excluded the Oregon coast's top fishing
communities.
United States senators Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and
Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) joined U.S. representatives
Darlene Hooley (D-5th District) and Pete DeFazio
(D-4th District) in requesting an extra hearing on
the Oregon coast, preferably in Newport, the
state's largest salmon trolling port. In an Oct.
26 letter to FERC Chairman Joseph T. Kelliher,
Wyden and Smith said management of the Klamath
River for weak stock and Endangered Species
Act-listed fish species has negatively affected
the livelihoods of fishermen, farmers, and tribes.
The DEIS evaluates environmental consequences of
issuing a new license for continued operation and
maintenance of the Klamath Hydroelectric Project
located mainly on the Klamath River in Klamath
County, Ore., and Siskiyou County, Calif. The
existing project covers 219 acres of land
administered by the U.S. Bureaus of Land
Management and Reclamation.
During prior public hearings, opponents said the
outdated dams (built in the late 1950s and early
'60s) provide little power, no flood control,
miniscule water storage, and serve no irrigation
purpose, while simultaneously blocking hundreds of
miles of former salmon habitat, creating river
conditions hostile to salmon downstream, and
negatively impacting ocean fisheries and
downstream fishing communities. They urged FERC
officials to consider other options - chief among
them, dam removal or full fish passage - to
achieve the greatest benefit for salmon and
fishing communities, and said FERC has ignored
mandates from NOAA Fisheries and other agencies.
Comments from NOAA Fisheries on FERC's initial
look at the dams indicate the energy commission
violated federal law requiring them to analyze a
full range of alternatives, which includes
removing all four dams.
PacifiCorp recently revised its proposal to truck
adult and juvenile fish around all four dams. The
latest plan would truck adult salmon returning to
spawn around the three lower dams and build a fish
ladder over J.C. Boyle, the top power generating
dam located farthest upstream. Some adults would
get a truck ride around J.C. Boyle. This new
proposal would also modify all four dams to allow
young fish to migrate downstream under their own
power.
But for those folks at the Newport public hearing,
the real solution remained painfully obvious.
They gave you clear direction in 2002, and it was
ignored, said Paul Englemeyer, who among many
other affiliations, is the statewide conservation
representative on the Oregon Ocean Policy Advisory
Council. It's time to get rid of them.
Newport fisherman Michael Becker said problems
with the Klamath salmon runs - most, if not all,
stemming from the presence of the dams - cost
Oregon's coastal counties $15 million in 2005 and
$30 million in 2006. Such a financial impact
devastates coastal communities struggling to
provide family-wage jobs.
One by one, they walked to the microphone to voice
the same sentiment. Failure to remove the dams
could irreparably harm the coastal salmon fishery,
with collateral damage that would far outweigh any
economic benefits. While not the only perceived
culprit, he Klamath Hydroelectric Project is
nonetheless, in their view, a major contributor to
fishery woes along the Oregon and California
coasts. Another ocean harvester who works for the
public noted the fleet's importance to coastal
towns, saying the dam's benefits are out of
balance with other economies. The future of
coastal communities hangs in that balance, as the
Pacific Northwest morphs from a salmon cradle to a
grave. One insisted that FERC scrap the current
DEIS and start the process over.
Jeff Feldman, a Newport fisherman and a fisheries
and seafood specialist with Oregon Sea Grant
Extension, said any recommendation other than dam
removal is procrastination at best.
We're at a defining moment, said Onno Husing,
director of the Oregon Coastal Zone Management
Association, urging FERC to do the right thing.
Season report calls 2006 a disaster,
Husing submitted copies of what he deemed a
profound piece of evidence - the 2006 season end
briefing report (Oregon Commercial and
Recreational Ocean Salmon Fishery) prepared by
Corvallis-based The Research Group for OCZMA and
the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Based on 2006 ocean troll landings and
recreational trips made through October, the
report describes commercial landings in terms of
volume (pounds), value (harvest revenue), prices
(adjusted to 2006 dollars divided by round pound
fish weight), and effort (days fished or delivery
counts).
The state and federal governments have declared
the season a fishery resource disaster because of
extensive federal fishery management restrictions
for this season (area, time, and trip limits), the
report noted. Ocean troll salmon harvest volume in
2006 was the second-worst year since 1971, only
exceeded by the 1994 season, when the area north
of Cape Falcon was closed. It would also be the
second-worst harvest value using last year's
average prices. However, average troll Chinook
prices jumped 68 percent over last year, raising
total harvest value to the fourth worst since
1971.
We rarely are all on the same page as we are
tonight, Husing concluded.
Now he and others must wait to see whether FERC
officials find that page and bookmark it. In
making recommendations, FERC must balance the
value of the electrical power the dams generate
against the cost to fish. FERC has estimated the
cost of dam removal at $77 million, while adding
fish passage facilities under National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) requirements could exceed
$220 million.
The on-going FERC process is focused on producing
a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) by
April 23, 2007.
Terry Dillman is a reporter for the News-Times. He
can be reached at 265-8571 ext. 225, or
terrydillman@newportnewstimes.com.
|