Klamath River Basin: Done Deal or Dam(n) Deal?

Earlier this month I asked the question Peace in the Klamath Basin?, based on the nonbinding agreement to remove the four dams below Upper Klamath Lake. An article by Mateusz Perkowski in the Capital Press (21 November 2008 print edition) seems to answer my question.

The map by Will Koenig (from the USBR's Klamath Basin Area Office) is from the article.

Earlier this year, the Klamath Water Users Association reached an agreement with Native American tribes, environmentalists, and conservationists to end litigation over water rights in the basin. I posted about this last January.

Here are some related materials - posted items about the Klamath situation: the NRC Committee report and related news stories. [Disclosure notice: I was a member of the NRC committee.]

The first few paragraphs of Perkowski's story:

The planned removal of four hydroelectric dams along the Klamath River is a bitter pill to swallow for the basin's agricultural industry.

Some farmers regard the plan as an unpleasant but ultimately necessary remedy that will help heal divisions over the competing water needs of farmers and fish.

Others say dam removal will only inflame the Klamath Basin's ills over the long term.

"Common sense says, 'What are they thinking?'" said Tom Mallams, a hay farmer and president of the Klamath Off-Project Water Users, who opposes dam removal. "It's an absolute disaster, the way they're trying to do this."

Though disassembling power infrastructure is not something farmers in the region like to see, dam removal is a crucial step in resolving the long-standing dispute between farmers, tribes and conservationists, said Steve Kandra, a farmer and board member of the Klamath Water Users Association.

"It's a milepost in the process, and we've still got a way to go," he said. "We keep developing and fine-tuning the system."

But the ag community is not the only group unenthused about the deal.

Craig Tucker, spokesman for the Karuk Tribe, said that tribes have faced opposition to the agreement as well - albeit for the opposite reasons. The Hoopa Valley Tribe, for example, opposes the deal because it believes farmers are given water-use priority.

The deal has adversaries in the environmental camp as well. Groups like Klamath Riverkeeper, Trout Unlimited and American Rivers applauded PacifiCorp's announcement, but Oregon Wild wasn't impressed.

"It's a pretty bow on a package that's intended to pass the Bush administration's priorities into the next administration," said Steve Pedery, conservation director for the group.

In effect, the settlement agreement weakens protections for fish in return for dam removal, he said.

Doesn't sound real optimistic does it? But the article does end on a positive note:

Despite such contentiousness within stakeholder groups, Tucker believes the coalition of farmers, tribes and conservationists is strong enough not to be pulled apart by detractors.

"I think we've staked out a sizable portion of the middle ground," he said.

But remember - the agreement to take out the dams is nonbinding - it's an Agreement In Principle.

My take: no one is going to be entirely happy with any solution in the Klamath Basin. Everyone has to give up something. I think the Klamath Basin is finally on the right track, as long as the AIP holds and the dams come down.

"Beyond mountains there are mountains." -- Haitian proverb

Comments

[Ganttic]

I hope for the betterment of Klamath River Basin. I pray for its life. Anyway, thank you for sharing this news. I had a great time reading posts here.

[Malena Marvin]

Please note that contrary to the Capital Press article quoted above, Klamath Riverkeeper does not "applaud" the Agreement in Principle. Please see http://www.klamathriver.org/AIP.html for a discussion of the AIP and our strategy in regards to it.