Klamath Agreements continued from page 12
Years of Congressional Inaction (2010 to 2015)
The Agreements stipulated that Congress must pass a bill by December 31, 2015 authorizing the agreements. Congressional involvement is required to address a variety of issues such as funding for the KBRA restoration projects (with a price tag of $466 million), changes to how the Bureau of Reclamation operates the Klamath irrigation project, a transfer of land to Indian tribes, and federal assumption of liability if any property damage occurs as a result of removing the dams.
Finally, in January of 2015, Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) packaged the three Klamath agreements into one bill called The Klamath Water Recovery and Economic Restoration Act (S. 133). With the Senate bill in motion, all eyes turned to Congressman Walden (R-OR) and Congressman LaMalfa (R-CA) whose districts encompass the dams and the majority of the agricultural interests in the basin, looking for a companion bill to be introduced in the House of Representatives.
The Causes of the Stalemate
One of the primary hurdles in the Republican led house was that certain Republican lawmakers, several of whom sit on key committees that oversee the Klamath Basin legislation, are ideologically opposed to dam removal and are fearful of the precedent it would set. The dictum "dam removal anywhere leads to dam removal everywhere" resonates with them. Republicans representing the Klamath Basin are heavily influenced by a vocal subset of their constituents who are fiercely opposed to dam removal and any change to their traditional way of life. Resistance is particularly vehement in Siskiyou County, home of "The State of Jefferson," where any attempt by the federal or state government to meddle in local affairs is viewed with suspicion.
Lost in the rhetoric are the basic facts of the four dams: they are privately owned and operated by a corporation that wants to remove them, in contrast to the federally-owned dams on the Snake and Columbia Rivers; they provide no water for irrigation and only negligible hydroelectric power; and, the cost of their removal would not be borne by taxpayers. Also lost in the rhetoric was the degree to which these are ground-up, local solutions - hardly an example of the federal government imposing its will on a community.
If the agreements expire, PacifiCorp will be forced to resume the FERC relicensing process and might end up building fish ladders or removing the dams on its own, in either case passing on the higher costs to its ratepayers. Meanwhile, the Indian tribes will be able to exercise their senior "time immemorial" water rights whenever they deem it necessary to protect salmon runs. As Doug LaMalfa, a Republican Congressman from California whose district includes some of the Klamath Basin, acknowledged at a town hall meeting in September, "We know the tribes can make a call on all water and shut everything down (for farmers)."
Without the agreements, the Klamath Basin could devolve to the status quo ante: communities divided by conflict and mistrust, with a return to lawsuits and battles that will only intensify as climate change inevitably reduces the amount of water in the drainage.
Curtis Knight, CalTrout Executive Director, offered this assessment. “What’s most disappointing is that the Agreements died not on merit but on political gamesmanship. Local parties were told by the Bush administration to roll up their sleeves and work out the issues and bring it back to Washington. The local communities--those with skin the game--did their part, but unfortunately Congress did not deliver.”
The Last-Ditch Effort
There remained a glimmer of hope as the calendar turned to December. Representative Greg Walden (R-Oregon), who is opposed to dam removal, released a draft bill in the House in early December that would take dam removal out of the equation and thereby make the bill more palatable to his Republican peers. Walden's bill would preserve the broader restoration goals of the KBRA and turn the dam removal process over to FERC.
However, Walden's approach quickly drew harsh criticism from the Senate, the Obama Adminstration and settlement parties because the House bill disrupted the bargained for benefits and careful balance negotiated over many years.
“Unfortunately, Congressman Walden’s draft conspicuously leaves out the dam removal that’s vital to river restoration—the centerpiece of the whole agreement for my constituents in California—and adds poison pills in the form of massive giveaways of public lands that were never part of the settlement," California 2nd District Congressman Jared Huffman said in a statement.
And in the end, Congressman Walden’s poison pill bill never was reconciled with the Senate bill. With the KBRA expiring on December 31, and the KHSA to expire in early 2016, it’s hard to see how Congress can salvage the delicate balance that was reached through the three negotiated agreements. The hard-won comprehensive solution that would have not only removed dams but also improved riparian conditions throughout the watershed is unlikely to be preserved in full. A failure to act by several key Congressman has sent a severe set back to the Klamath Basin.
The documentary A River Between Us , by Jason Atkinson, poses this timely and relevant question at the conclusion of the film: "Are we big enough to finish the largest restoration project in American history?" The answer is no. At least for now.
Check out our range of t-shirts and lots
of new items. Great as gifts!
caltrout.org/gear
The 2016 T-Shirts are here. Get yours to ring in the
New Year!