A group of Klamath Basin stakeholders - government agencies, irrigators, Indian tribes, fishermen, and environmental groups - announced on 15 January 2008 an historic accord that they hope will restore the Klamath fishery while providing enough water to farmers. One of the key components of the agreement is the removal of four PacifiCorp dams on the lower Klamath River.
Here are links to stories from the Los Angeles Times (the accompanying map is from the story) and the Oregonian.
I also recently posted items about the Klamath situation: the NRC Committee report and related news stories. [Disclosure notice: I am a member of the NRC committee.]
Here you can download the agreement's press release and summary.
Download pr_proposed_klamath_basin_restoration_agreement_011508.pdf
Download summary_klamath_restoration_agreement_11508.pdf
The entire agreement can be downloaded here.
There are several items worth noting about the agreement:
- it will cost about $1B over 10 years, presumably from Oregon, California, and the Federal government (Congress), none of whom has committed funds;
- it hinges upon the removal of PacifiCorp's four dams, yet the company was excluded from the negotiations and has not signed on; and
- it excludes the Trinity River watershed above its confluence with the Klamath River.
Some of the $1B will be used to create a water bank and to retire water rights, which can then be dedicated to environmental flows.
The parties to the agreement feel that PacifiCorp will sign on, since the relicensing of its four dams will likely require the installation of fish ladders at a cost of $300M or so, an amount that would probably exceed the cost of the dams' removal.
So what's important about this agreement? The fact that a diverse group of stakeholders agreed on a plan of action. The groups who did not acquiesce were the Hoopa Valley Tribe, Oregon Wild, and WaterWatch.
Even if PacifiCorp agrees to take down the dams, will the implementation of the agreement produce restoration? I don't know; I have not read the entire 256-page agreement. But in the few documents I read, I did not see the essential elements I view as critical (these are from the NRC report, of which I was a co-author):
- a formal science plan for the Klamath Basin that defines research activities, their interconnections, and how they relate to management and policy;
- an independent science review and management mechanism;
- a whole-basin perspective - something that has not been done in all the years of study and tens of millions of dollars spent;
- a transparent data and analysis process; and
- an adaptive management approach.
The proposed Klamath Basin Coordinating Council (KBCC), the Techncal Advisory Team (TAT) and the Upper Basin Team (UBT) may fulfill the roles described in the second bullet. But unless the bulleted items are implemented, I fear the Klamath River Basin is doomed to the status quo.
"Wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then." -- Bob Seger, 'Against the Wind'
Comments