Debate over removal of four Klamath hydroelectric dams in Northern California and southern Oregon has gone on for over a decade. Proponents include a long list of signatories to the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA) of 2016—including some local tribes, government agencies, irrigation districts, commercial fishing groups, and conservation groups.
The signatories “believe that decommissioning and removal of the [dams] will help restore [Klamath] Basin natural resources, including anadromous fish, fisheries, and water quality,” according to the KHSA.
However, not all the players think that’s the case. A multitude of local groups and government bodies stand in opposition to dam removal.
In 2011, for example, resolutions of opposition to the removal project were unanimously adopted by the cities of Yreka, Dorris, Etna, Montague, Weed, Fort Jones—all located in Siskiyou County, home to three of the four dams. In recent years, voters in both Siskiyou County and Klamath County—the two counties which house the four dams—have come down against dam removal.
WLJ spoke to Ray Haupt, chairman of the Board of Supervisors for Siskiyou County. The county has been fighting efforts to remove the dams from the beginning.
Haupt pointed to unaddressed concerns brought up by Siskiyou County in both a Nov. 2018 letter to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and Feb. 2017 comments to the California State Water Resources Control Board.
“[T]here has been no adequate investigation into the 20-30 million cubic yards of sediment that is trapped behind the dams,” the county states. That sediment could permanently raise the Klamath riverbed height by several feet, resulting in increased water temperatures and poorer water quality and fishery habitat, the county says.
Water quality will be further affected by the loss of water storage in the Lower Klamath Lake, the county asserts. Ever since that lake was filled and reclaimed by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation in the early 1900s, it has stored water from high flows, then released cool water during the rest of the year into the mainstem of the Klamath River. This has “maintain[ed] an environment that promoted rearing of juvenile salmon and allowed safe access for returning adults,” the county claims.
The county asserts other dam benefits will be lost as well, such as flood control; wildfire suppression aid; recreational opportunities; tribal sacred site protection; and power production.
Haupt also worries about hazardous waste cleanup liability, and the lack of adequate insurance obtained by PacifiCorp or the Klamath River Restoration Council (KRRC), the nonprofit created to take control of the dams for the purpose of removing them. Haupt fears the county will be left holding the bag when the costs of dam removal—and the resulting fallout—exceed KRRC’s $450 million budget, as the county predicts.
Tribal concerns
Another issue unaddressed by dam removal proponents is the risk to sacred tribal sites should the dams be removed. WLJ spoke to Roy Hall, a member of the Shasta Tribe, who said he’s been attempting to cooperate with KRRC for months, without success.
“We have maps and documentation of hundreds of burial sites currently protected because they’re under water,” Hall told WLJ.
“And [KRRC] thinks they can just drain the dams and dig them all up and move them all.”
KRRC even attempted to smooth the issue over by getting the approval of other tribes, such as the Klamath tribes, Hall said.
“They brought in those tribes to mitigate the Shasta’s sacred and burial sites,” Hall said. “This is not done.”
Hall indicated the Shasta Nation will sue if it must.
Court action already underway
Meanwhile, a water-use advocacy group in Siskiyou County has taken steps to have FERC drop the dam transfer proposal. In November 2018, the Siskiyou County Water Users Association (Association) filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, asking the court to require FERC to respond to their motion. That motion states that the dams’ transfer and removal would violate the Klamath River Compact of 1957, a law approved by Oregon, California and the federal government.
Specific to the Klamath River Basin, the Compact states: “It shall be the objective of each state… to provide for the most efficient use of the available power head and its economic integration with the distribution and use of water and the lowest power rates which may be reasonable for irrigation and drainage pumping…”
In addition to asking why the compact isn’t being discussed, the Association’s motion brought up the fact that tons of sediment would be released into designated Wild and Scenic portions of the Klamath River, and that endangered and threatened fish species would be harmed by dam removal.
Marshall told WLJ that once the dams are out, regulators are likely to look to the Shasta and Scott rivers as cold-water sources for endangered fish—which will endanger agricultural water use in the Shasta and Scott valleys.
More local voices
The Jackson County (Oregon) Board of Commissioners has voiced similar concerns about KRRC’s proposal, calling it “riveted with risk and liability.”
Commissioners from Klamath County (Oregon), which is party to the KHSA, declined WLJ’s request for comment. — Theodora Johnson, WLJ correspondent
