Learning from the Past: Can the Klamath be Restored?

Felice

Wow... this is the first I've ever heard of the conference and it's already over. For all of the thousands of emails I get about Klamath Basin issues, I never received any information on this before the event. However, I figured this was probably intentional; the organizers didn't want a reporter at the conference challenging the effectiveness of "consensus" love fests that are manipulated and controlled by federal and state agencies.

I was at a Cal Fed science conference two weeks ago where there must have been over 350 people in a room listening to presentations on the Pelagic Food Chain decline on the Delta, an ecosystem disaster that rivals the Klamath Basin fishery declines. Most of the crowd was federal and state scientists and consultants, with some academic folks, students and NGO representatives mixed in. I realized that were probably more people in the room, many of the making careers off the Delta environmental disaster, than there are Delta smelt left.

The problem is that fishing groups for decades have been saying for years what to do to solve the Delta fishery decline: adopt tough standards for highly toxic farm runoff, retire "farm" land that should have never been irrigated and severely curtail Delta exports, rather than increasing them. However, the state and federal governments really don't want to solve the problems that pollution and exports have caused to Delta fish and other organisms. Millions and millions of dollars have been spent filling consultants' pockets doing "touchy feeling" programmatic EIS workshops, scoping meetings and other garbage rather than solving the problem.

I guess I didn't miss much at the Klamath event, based on a conversation that I just had with Zeke Grader of the PCFFA, although I would have liked to hear about the latest data on Klamath and Salmon River salmon and steelhead returns this year.

A couple questions, Felice:

1. Did you go to the conference?

2. How do you get published on counterpunch? Cockburn used to publish my articles on a variety of issues frequently until last spring. Since then, he has not published anything of mine and I ended up getting them published on other websites. I haven't changed the topics I write about or writing style, so I figure he might be mad at me about something I wrote. However, he hasn't replied to any of my emails for 1-1/2 years.

The decommissioning and removal of the lower four Klamath dams is a realistic option for restoration of the Klamath River ecosystem. The severe problems facing the Klamath include toxic algae ('Microcystis aeruginosa') blooms from nitrate loading, higher water temps, lower water velocity. All three of these problems are either direct or secondary effects of the lower four dams impeding the flow of Klamath Rio agua..

Many scientists have research that indicates the removal of the lower four dams will have an immediate improvement on the Klamath river's health, including all the migratory fish (salmon, lamprey, sturgeon, etc..) that currently struggle with the toxic algae behind the dam reservoirs. The Karuk's website has several reports on Klamath dam removal available to the public via their website;

Karuk Nation;
http://www.karuk.us/press/press.php

Join Up! Salmon Nation;
http://www.ecotrust.org/citizenship/

Removing the lower four Klamath dams will not effect farmers as the reservoirs contain high levels of toxic algae and the water isn't used for irrigation anyway. Removing the dams will prevent the build-up of toxic algaes in the reservoirs. Farmers of the Klamath Basin have joined up with the Klamath Nations (Yurok, Hupa, Karuk, Klamath/Modoc) and coastal fishery employees in advocating for the lower four Klamath dam's decommissioning and removal, including holding Pacificorp directly responsible for the toxic algae blooms behind their reservoirs..

http://www.klamathbasincrisis.org/fishermen/fisherfarmeralliance071406.htm

(NOTE- Author disagrees with above article's suggestions of sea lion's take being responsible for lowered populations of salmon runs, with a restored Klamath river ecosystem following dam removals there would be enough salmon available for sea lions, seals, AND humans!!)

For the last several years limited amounts of Klamath river water were caught in a tug of war between Klamath basin farmers and downstream salmon fisheries, indigenous nations. Pacificorp's dams, the real culprits behind ecosystem degradation were making problems unnoticed by the regulatory agencies who frequently blamed farmers for everything wrong with the Klamath. While farmers in the basin take considerable amounts of water and return water loaded with nitrates, in a free flowing river without dam impediments this wouldn't be so much of an issue.The reduction of water flows from the 4 dam impediments increases water temps, stagnant water behind dams enables toxic algae blooms from nitrate runoff, resulting in lowered dissolved oxygen, crowding of salmon and eventual fish kills..

The removal of the dams will certainly improve salmon habitat, and the water available to farmers would increase, as water temps would be lower and not require additional inputs from agriculture..

Karuk biologist Craig Tucker gave an excellent powerpoint presentation at the NEC in Arcata on 11/10. He stressed that dam removal would NOT result in higher electric bills for Pacificorp ratepayers, to the contrary, installing fish ladders to mitigate the dam's obstruction and routine dam maintenance/cleaning would be far more expensive for ratepayers than simply removing the dams. Trapping and trucking salmon over the dams only to dump them into a reservoir clogged with toxic algae isn't a realistic option for salmon survival either..

Public comment to FERC on Klamath;
http://www.klamathforestalliance.org/

also;
http://www.klamathforestalliance.org/Actionalerts/ferchearing.html

SAMPLE LETTER

Klamath Dam Removal

October 27, 2006

Margalie Roman Salas, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 29246

RE: Klamath FERC Relicensing Docket No. P-2082-027

Dear Secretary Salas:
I am writing to oppose the relicensing of the Klamath Hydroelectric Project dams and to support removing the primary dams (Iron Gate, Copco Dams Nos. 1 & 2, and J.C. Boyle) and requiring full fish passage in the remaining dams (Link River and Keno). These dams have been a disaster for the Klamath River and its valuable salmon runs, once the third largest in the nation.

The abundance of the Klamath’s salmon runs determines the extent of nearly all of California’s and Oregon’s ocean salmon fisheries. This year, after years of declines, Klamath salmon runs have collapsed so badly that they did not meet even the 35,000 “minimum spawner floor.” As a result the fishing industry will suffer at least $100 million in economic losses from closures over nearly 700 miles of coastline because of the need to protect these weakest limiting Klamath stocks. These economic losses are far larger than any conceivable benefits from the generation of power from these small and nearly obsolete dams.

Until these dams are removed, we will continue to face these sorts of crises and closures. Even the FERC Draft EIS characterized the removal of at least two dams (Iron Gate and Copco No. 1) as the cheapest and most effective way to correct serious water quality problems caused by the dams.

The four major Klamath dams (Iron Gate, Copco Nos. 1 & 2 and J.C. Boyle) should be decommissioned and removed because they:

- Have no fish passage and block some 350 stream miles of once occupied salmon spawning and rearing habitat that could be once again productive;

- Collect huge pools of nutrient-laden warm water in their reservoirs which are breeding grounds for toxic algae and fish diseases like Ceratomyxa shasta;

- Add warm water from their reservoirs that decreases dissolved oxygen levels and adds to stresses on cold-water fish, often pushing summer water temperatures in the lower river past salmon tolerance levels;

- Block recruitment of gravel to the lower river for salmon spawning and rearing habitat for at least 50 miles downstream from Iron Gate Dam;

- Have disrupted the natural hydrology of the Klamath River, including limiting flushing flows that in the past have scoured out fine sediment and algae, limited the spread of fish diseases, and nourished riparian vegetation;

- Represent less than 2 percent of PacifiCorp’s total power generation, and only a fraction of 1 percent of California’s and Oregon’s power grid;

- Provide only a minimal amount of power that can be easily replaced by renewable energy sources or through very minimal conservation efforts;

- Create more social harm (including economically devastating the west coast salmon fishing industry) than any conceivable power benefits they might provide, and;

- Violate the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Sustainable Fisheries Act and federal legal obligations to the Tribes and to commercial fishermen to protect our salmon fisheries.

The Final Environmental Impact Statement should analyze four-dam removal (i.e., Iron Gate, Copco No. 1 and 2, and J.C. Boyle dams) as an option, with effective fish passage at both Keno and Link River dams, which produce no power.

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC), many scientists and several state agencies have all recommended removal of these four dams. This should be the option selected by FERC.

Sincerely,

Your Name and Address

FERC website;
http://www.ferc.gov/