Eyes on the prize

Text Size: A | A | A

Print this Article Email this Article

Nearly two years of work by PacifiCorp, the states of Oregon and California, American Indian tribes, farmers and fishing and environmental groups has brought the goal of removing four Klamath River dams within sight.

There is still much work to be done, and the finish line is still a decade away, but the draft Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement released this week is a historic achievement in itself. The agreement to remove the dams, coupled with a companion agreement on irrigation and power distribution in the Klamath Basin, holds the promise of ending bitter battles over water and restoring fish runs at the same time.

Not everyone is happy about the draft agreement. Opponents include one Indian tribe and the environmental group Oregon Wild. There will be plenty of opportunity in the coming months and years for all interested parties to be heard, but the priority ought to be making sure dam removal isn't scuttled in a misguided push for a perfect outcome.

The agreement calls for removing four Klamath River hydroelectric dams — Iron Gate, Copco 1, Copco 2 and J.C. Boyle — and restoring salmon habitat that has degraded to crisis levels in the nearly 100 years since the first dam was built. A fifth dam, Keno, will remain in place. Keno generates no power but provides irrigation water to Klamath Basin farmers.

Opposition to the plan stems not from a desire to preserve the dams but from disagreements over timing and the future of irrigated agriculture in the Klamath Basin. The Hoopa tribe says depleted salmons runs cannot wait 10 more years for the dams to go. Oregon Wild also objects to the timeline and opposes continuing water diversions to farmers in the Klamath and Tule Lake federal wildlife refuges, part of the Bureau of Reclamation's Klamath Irrigation Project.

Between now and 2020, when dam-removal work is projected to begin, lie many opportunities for such concerns to be voiced, as well as pitfalls that could doom the entire project.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar must reach a determination by 2012 that removing the dams is in the public interest. Congress must act to appropriate federal funds and authorize the work.

Farmers have many friends in Congress. Ending their access to water for their crops could make it impossible to gain congressional approval, which could leave the dams in place with no provision for improved fish passage.

The lengthy timeline is unfortunate, but hardly a deal-breaker considering the near century of history that led up to this point and the sheer magnitude of the undertaking. Of greater concern is the notion that no compromise on farming can be tolerated.

Environmentalists who say they want the dams removed but insist that farming in the basin also must end run the risk of achieving neither objective.

Reader Reaction We welcome your feedback on this story, or any follow-up story ideas you might have. Please send a letter to the editor to letters@mailtribune.com, or submit story ideas online here. When submitting a letter to the editor, please review our submissions policy.

Print this Article Email this Article