"Congressional style" meeting on the proposed Klamath River Basin Restoration Agreement

Last Tuesday, the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors held a special "Congressional style" meeting on the proposed Klamath River Basin Restoration Agreement. This agreement is based on the negotiation of a second "hydro" agreement with PacifiCorp to remove four of the Klamath River dams. The Board had the opportunity to ask questions of representatives from the California Resource Agency/ Dept. of Fish and Game; federal U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; PacifiCorp; Karuk and Yurok tribes; Tulelake Irrigators; Klamath Project Water Users and "off-Project" water users.

We also heard from an engineering specialist, John Lambie. He was there with Brownfield Partners at the request of the county to talk about the sediment studies that had been done on dam removal. According to Mr. Lambie, no one has done a comprehensive feasibility study that actually explores and compares the dollar and environmental costs of the different ways the dams could be removed. Although he only had a few days to review the studies that had been done, he found them "fairly limited science" - relying on "over simplified methods" with no analysis of the carrying capacity of the river. Only one potential method of sediment release had even been examined. He also pointed out that one of the studies actually listed six pages of additional studies that needed to be done before a sound decision on dam removal could be made.

There are an estimated 20 million tons of sediment behind the dams. . In Lambie's opinion, sediment had to be released and could not be trucked away. Apparently three sediment samples had been taken for dioxins (a wood preservative) and all three were positive. Lambie stated that dioxins at sample levels would be "injurious to the benthic community" (organisms that live on the bottom of the rivers.) Further, he stated that the sediment study done by those who were promoting dam removal actually estimated a sediment release that would seem to be a killer to the fish in the river.

Lambie stated that he had previously worked on the Klamath. When a dam goes in, the sediment piles up behind the dam and the area below the dam scours out. He estimated that the area below Iron Gate was degraded several feet. If the dam is removed, it will raise the river bed that same amount with sediment and gravel as the river equalizes. (It would seem likely that the water level will also be raised a similar amount.)

It became readily apparent that the Restoration Agreement and proposed dam removal lacked the comprehensive scientific studies to support claimed benefits to salmon and absolutely lacked any body of sound science to understand the potential negative impacts and costs of the Agreement and dam removal. Over the past couple of years, Siskiyou County representatives have repeatedly requested that such comprehensive studies be performed to no avail. It is apparent to me that the lack of science appears to serve dam removal proponents by allowing them to greatly understate the costs and overstate the benefits of these proposals to the public and uninformed policy makers.

It is by no accident that the study of the costs of dam removal was commissioned by the Karuk tribe and done by Ecotrust who's mission is to "Build Salmon Nation." www. Ecotrust.org. It is no coincidence that environmentalists quote from this "study" as if it were established fact. A current campaign by Friends of the River among Pacific Power customers even cites the questionable study to support Klamath dam removal as the lower cost option. It is obvious that the true potential costs of dam removal have not been identified, nor have the costs of damage to infrastructure, liability for injury, mitigations for river restoration, costs in property loss, environmental damage, etc. been considered.

Asked why extensive studies had not been done on the potential impacts of the "biggest dam removal project in the United States," US Fish and Wildlife representatives assured the Board that environmental impact studies would be done AFTER the Restoration Agreement and Hydro Agreements to remove the dams were signed and given to FERC for consideration. It is apparent that PacifiCorp wants immunity in the Hydro Agreement from any liability for injury or damages as a condition of agreeing to dam removal. In addition, it has been implied that any environmental impact analysis will find that "over-riding human concerns" for tribal and coastal fishing interests will trump any local impacts or concerns.

In my opinion, it is becoming glaringly clear that the Settlement Agreement and companion dam removal agreement is expedient public policy based on: (1) reckless emotion rather than sound science; (2) factional self-aggrandizing agendas; (3) power brokers that have ganged up to sacrifice the well-being of certain areas and populations in the Klamath River system; and (4) a transfer of inland wealth to tribal and coastal commercial interests. This is public policy at its worst. It is in no way a process that has been in the public's interest and could cause incalculable harm to people and the environment. Federal, State and local government entities have a fiduciary and legal responsibility to the public to base their decisions on adequate and sound information that can be reviewed by all. It is clear in this instance that the cart is miles in front of the horse.