San Francisco Chronicle - Time fortoughest step on the Klamath
November 13, 2011
Chronicle Editorial
The nation's biggest-ever dam removal project - knocking down four aging structures along the Klamath River on the California-Oregon border - took years of dickering among farmers, tribes, environmentalists and policymakers. Now it faces another high hurdle: Washington politics.
A bill introduced last week opens the way for the $1 billion demolition of the four dams along the upper Klamath. Across the country, scores of smaller dams have come down to restore river flows, water quality and fish populations, but none approaches the scale or political temperature of this project.
On the West Coast, the deal has won widespread support as a cure for fluctuating numbers of salmon and steelhead and includes guarantees that upstream farms and ranchers receive irrigation water, their financial lifeline. After years of fighting, the two states along with a long list of interest groups agreed on the removal scheme last year.
The hydropower dams aren't due to be taken down until 2020, and a final decision by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar may come next March. Last month, he strongly hinted at his preference for removal by noting that preliminary studies showed that removal costs were lower than expected and 4,600 jobs would be produced by demolition and river restoration work.
Now comes the hard part: selling the plan to Congress, where both parties are committed to budget cuts running over $1 trillion in the next decade. The Klamath plan calls for $536 million in federal money over 15 years. An additional $500 million will come from the two states, the dam operator and nearby ratepayers.
Despite Washington's chilly atmosphere for infrastructure projects, this package has powerful appeal. Fish runs must be safeguarded by federal law, and dam removal would unblock more than 60 miles of restorable habitat. The free-flowing currents are projected to boost salmon stocks by 81 percent and ocean catches by commercial and sport anglers by 46 percent. A degraded river, home to the West Coast's third-biggest salmon population, has a chance at new life.
The cost of sticking with the four structures would be exorbitant. Relicensing the dams, which date back nearly a century, will require more than $400 million in upgrades, far more than direct demolition. That's one reason the dam's operator, the PacifiCorp company owned by Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway firm, favors the tear-down option.
The plan has powerful allies: Rep. Mike Thompson, a St. Helena Democrat, has pushed hard for the removal project. He's joined Sen. Jeff Merkley, an Oregon Democrat, to introduce similar funding bills in both the House and Senate to pay for the federal share of taking out the dams, reviving the long-dammed riverbed and administering the new water sharing agreements.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., hasn't taken a position. Her stature as a negotiator and consensus seeker would help the cause enormously, especially as the opposition mobilizes. California's other senator, Democrat Barbara Boxer, is already on board as a co-author of the demolition plan.
Republicans in Congress have opposed the removal, noting the cost, loss of electrical generation and uncertainty of such a large-scale idea. The project has also played into a rural rebellion in Siskiyou County over water rights threatened by environmental laws aimed at safeguarding fish stocks. The county Board of Supervisors opposes the dam removal scheme and the local sheriff has talked a tough anti-Washington line in siding with water rights protesters.
A promising and far-reaching plan to demolish dams stands at a crossroads in Congress, as well as back home. After years of negotiations, it would be wrong to give up.
A bill introduced last week opens the way for the $1 billion demolition of the four dams along the upper Klamath. Across the country, scores of smaller dams have come down to restore river flows, water quality and fish populations, but none approaches the scale or political temperature of this project.
On the West Coast, the deal has won widespread support as a cure for fluctuating numbers of salmon and steelhead and includes guarantees that upstream farms and ranchers receive irrigation water, their financial lifeline. After years of fighting, the two states along with a long list of interest groups agreed on the removal scheme last year.
The hydropower dams aren't due to be taken down until 2020, and a final decision by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar may come next March. Last month, he strongly hinted at his preference for removal by noting that preliminary studies showed that removal costs were lower than expected and 4,600 jobs would be produced by demolition and river restoration work.
Now comes the hard part: selling the plan to Congress, where both parties are committed to budget cuts running over $1 trillion in the next decade. The Klamath plan calls for $536 million in federal money over 15 years. An additional $500 million will come from the two states, the dam operator and nearby ratepayers.
Despite Washington's chilly atmosphere for infrastructure projects, this package has powerful appeal. Fish runs must be safeguarded by federal law, and dam removal would unblock more than 60 miles of restorable habitat. The free-flowing currents are projected to boost salmon stocks by 81 percent and ocean catches by commercial and sport anglers by 46 percent. A degraded river, home to the West Coast's third-biggest salmon population, has a chance at new life.
The cost of sticking with the four structures would be exorbitant. Relicensing the dams, which date back nearly a century, will require more than $400 million in upgrades, far more than direct demolition. That's one reason the dam's operator, the PacifiCorp company owned by Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway firm, favors the tear-down option.
The plan has powerful allies: Rep. Mike Thompson, a St. Helena Democrat, has pushed hard for the removal project. He's joined Sen. Jeff Merkley, an Oregon Democrat, to introduce similar funding bills in both the House and Senate to pay for the federal share of taking out the dams, reviving the long-dammed riverbed and administering the new water sharing agreements.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., hasn't taken a position. Her stature as a negotiator and consensus seeker would help the cause enormously, especially as the opposition mobilizes. California's other senator, Democrat Barbara Boxer, is already on board as a co-author of the demolition plan.
Republicans in Congress have opposed the removal, noting the cost, loss of electrical generation and uncertainty of such a large-scale idea. The project has also played into a rural rebellion in Siskiyou County over water rights threatened by environmental laws aimed at safeguarding fish stocks. The county Board of Supervisors opposes the dam removal scheme and the local sheriff has talked a tough anti-Washington line in siding with water rights protesters.
A promising and far-reaching plan to demolish dams stands at a crossroads in Congress, as well as back home. After years of negotiations, it would be wrong to give up.