Sacramento Bee -- Klamath dam removal costly, but would add jobs, federal report says
January 25, 2012
By Michael Doyle
WASHINGTON - The ambitious proposal to remove four Klamath River dams would add jobs and aid fish, a new federal report asserts, but the idea still leaves California lawmakers badly divided.
As they approach a make-or-break decision on whether to recommend the dam removal, U.S. Interior Department officials on Tuesday touted anticipated benefits that include improved salmon habitat and 1,400 construction jobs during the year it would take to remove the hydroelectric dams.
Long-term Klamath basin restoration efforts would add an estimated 4,600 jobs, the report says.
But the dam removals would also cost somewhere between $238 million and $493 million, potentially increase flooding risks and cut electricity production, the new Interior Department compilation shows. The new report pegs the most probable dam-removal cost at $291.6 million.
"The science and analyses presented in these reports are vital to making an informed and sound decision on the Klamath River dam removal," Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said.
Nevada City resident Steve Rothert, California director of the group American Rivers, added in an interview that the latest study is "by far the most rigorous and comprehensive" of the subject to date.
"This is really a path forward that will result in a better future for the Klamath River basin," Rothert said.
Salazar must decide by March 31 whether to recommend the long- debated removal of the four dams near the Oregon border. Three of the dams are in California's Siskiyou County.
If Salazar decides the dams should go, the governors of Oregon and California will have 60 days to either concur or veto the plan. The governors appear sympathetic, while Congress seems ambivalent.
A House bill introduced last November by Rep. Mike Thompson, D-St. Helena, would authorize restoration of the Klamath basin following dam removals and would guarantee farmers certain water deliveries. But the chairman of the House water and power subcommittee strongly opposes dam removal.
Last February, in a largely party line 215-to-210 vote, the House approved an amendment by the panel chairman, Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Elk Grove, blocking federal spending on studies of Klamath River dam removals. Although the amendment was eventually dropped, its House approval underscored political difficulties ahead.
As they approach a make-or-break decision on whether to recommend the dam removal, U.S. Interior Department officials on Tuesday touted anticipated benefits that include improved salmon habitat and 1,400 construction jobs during the year it would take to remove the hydroelectric dams.
Long-term Klamath basin restoration efforts would add an estimated 4,600 jobs, the report says.
But the dam removals would also cost somewhere between $238 million and $493 million, potentially increase flooding risks and cut electricity production, the new Interior Department compilation shows. The new report pegs the most probable dam-removal cost at $291.6 million.
"The science and analyses presented in these reports are vital to making an informed and sound decision on the Klamath River dam removal," Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said.
Nevada City resident Steve Rothert, California director of the group American Rivers, added in an interview that the latest study is "by far the most rigorous and comprehensive" of the subject to date.
"This is really a path forward that will result in a better future for the Klamath River basin," Rothert said.
Salazar must decide by March 31 whether to recommend the long- debated removal of the four dams near the Oregon border. Three of the dams are in California's Siskiyou County.
If Salazar decides the dams should go, the governors of Oregon and California will have 60 days to either concur or veto the plan. The governors appear sympathetic, while Congress seems ambivalent.
A House bill introduced last November by Rep. Mike Thompson, D-St. Helena, would authorize restoration of the Klamath basin following dam removals and would guarantee farmers certain water deliveries. But the chairman of the House water and power subcommittee strongly opposes dam removal.
Last February, in a largely party line 215-to-210 vote, the House approved an amendment by the panel chairman, Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Elk Grove, blocking federal spending on studies of Klamath River dam removals. Although the amendment was eventually dropped, its House approval underscored political difficulties ahead.