The Klamath dam battle wages on in Northern California and southern Oregon, with the latest tactical move being the release of a draft environmental impact report by the California State Water Resources Control Board on Dec. 27, 2018. In the report, the Water Board called dam removal of four hydroelectric dams the “environmentally superior alternative” to keeping them in place.
The dams—the J.C. Boyle; Copco I; Copco II; and Iron Gate dams, collectively known as the “Lower Klamath Project”—currently provide 169 megawatts of hydropower to local residents. That is enough power for about 65,000 homes per year. If accomplished, the dams’ demolition would be the largest dam removal project in U.S. history.
The Water Board’s 8,200-page report comes in light of an effort by a nonprofit, Klamath River Renewal Corporation (KRRC), to obtain—and surrender—the hydroelectric license currently held by energy company, PacifiCorp. If KRRC obtains the operating license, it then plans to demolish the dams. The entire scheme must be approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), Oregon, and California. Some argue that federal legislation will also be required.
“The KRRC’s goal is to create a free-flowing Klamath River and provide for volitional fish passage in the Klamath River currently occupied by the Lower Klamath Project,” the Water Board draft report states. Project objectives include improving water quality and fish habitat, the report says.
Local opposition
Locals are voicing environmental and economic concerns with the proposal, however. Voter opposition to dam removal in the affected area is high: In 2014 Siskiyou County residents voted nearly 80 percent in opposition. In 2016, citizens in Klamath County voted 72 percent against dam removal.
WLJ spoke to Ray Haupt, chairman of the Board of Supervisors for Siskiyou County. The county is home to three of the four dams proposed for removal and has been fighting efforts to remove the dams for over a decade.
Haupt called the Water Board report just the latest installation of a “propaganda campaign” being perpetuated by the states of California and Oregon. In reality, he said, there are some high hurdles standing in the way of dam removal.
He pointed to unaddressed concerns brought up by Siskiyou County in both a Nov. 2018 letter to FERC and Feb. 2017 comments to the Water Board. Those concerns include: environmental risks to unleashing 20-30 million cubic yards of polluted sediment that has built up behind the dams; loss of ability to provide cold water pulses for fish when the Klamath River runs low; risk to homes and other property with no way to regulate river flows; loss of major water sources for fighting wildfire; risk of sacred tribal sites; and more.
Other local government bodies and groups have also put up challenges to dam removal, including Jackson County, OR, the Shasta Nation, and the Siskiyou County Water Users Association (see related story, “Local groups object to Klamath dams removal”).
The Klamath County board of commissioners declined to comment. KRRC did not respond to a request for comment.
First things first
Haupt said the Water Board “put the cart ahead of the horse” by releasing its draft report last month. FERC hasn’t yet accepted KRRC’s “definite plan,” submitted in June of 2018. FERC’s acceptance of a plan should precede the Water Board’s environmental impact report, he said. Then, years’ worth of NEPA review and litigation will no doubt follow, Haupt predicted.
He added that the county believes federal legislation is also needed to approve dam removal. Such legislation has failed in the past.
At this point in the process, FERC has sent KRRC’s “definite plan” back to them—along with a long list of requests for clarifications, Haupt said. KRRC has yet to respond.
“[KRRC] just keeps asking for extensions,” Haupt said. “The fact is, [FERC] doesn’t have a complete picture of what the environmental impacts will be.”
“The state is driving a political process,” he told WLJ. “This draft was released to make it look like dam removal is a done deal, when it’s not.”
“The Water Board’s report is also pre-decisional,” Haupt added. This means the report doesn’t adequately consider alternatives to dam removal, he explained.
Meanwhile, Haupt expressed cautious optimism regarding the FERC panel, which is now comprised of four President Donald Trump appointees and one of former President Barack Obama’s.
“The only indication I have now is they are doing their due diligence as to the impacts to the environment,” Haupt said of the panel.
Haupt has been in steady contact with the White House Intergovernmental Affairs Office about the issue.
“I believe they’re listening,” he told WLJ. — Theodora Johnson, WLJ correspondent
