Waters still turbulent in Klamath dam deal

Concerns raised, voices heard at California State Water Board meeting.

Northern California Indian tribes and conservationists on Tuesday express disparities over whether the state's lead water quality agency should give more time to negotiations or forge ahead with regulatory means to clean up problems generated by the Klamath River's four dams.

Those closest to the ongoing talks with dam owner Pacificorp asked the State Water Resources Control Board to stall the regulatory process that would grant or deny a water quality certificate for the dams. The delay would allow Pacificorp, state and federal agencies, tribes, farmers and environmental groups to polish off an agreement to take out the dams, they argued.

But others told the board that the state needs to aggressively hold Pacificorp's feet to the fire, and push the process along on a parallel track with the separate negotiations.

The water board has issued a request for comments on a notice to prepare an environmental impact report on continued operation of the hydropower project. It's one of the first stages of the California Environmental Quality Act process, and the deadline for comments is Feb. 23. Proponents of the delay are asking that be stretched to July 15.

Chuck Bonham with the group Trout Unlimited said the agreement in principal reached in November is a rejection of the status quo -- depleted fisheries and toxic algae blooms -- even if it isn't perfect. He said what would be the country's largest dam removal project needs more time at the negotiation table, and that the involved parties can't undertake two processes that are at odds with each other at the same time.

”We've never tried something this bold or this big before,” Bonham said.

However, Hoopa Valley Tribe Chairman Clifford Lyle Marshall accused the settlement's backers of pushing propaganda. The agreement in principal, he said, provides too many opportunities for Pacificorp to walk away and no assurance that water quality standards on the river would be put in place between now and when the dams begin to come out after 2020. In the meantime, the water behind the dams “looks like split pea soup,” he said.

”Pacificorp is in a good place but the salmon in the Klamath are not in a good place,” Marshall said.

The item on the board's agenda was informational only, and there was no decision made on whether to extend the comment period.

Negotiations have been ongoing for years among farming, fishing, environmental and tribal interests, and a tentative agreement on a variety of other issues in the troubled Klamath basin was reached a year ago. The separate deal to take out the dams -- which could be merged into the earlier agreement -- was reached between California, Oregon and federal agencies and Pacificorp in November.

Together, the blueprints represent an incredibly complex series of environmental, legal and political challenges. Proponents of the draft arrangements said that critics cannot provide alternatives to the deal that will lead to comprehensive solutions to the fisheries, water quality and water use problems in the basin.

No one state agency can deal with the range of complex issues, said Troy Fletcher with the Yurok Tribe. Fletcher asked that the negotiating parties be given a chance to seal the deal without having to battle each other in the regulatory process at the same time.

”We don't want to be duking it out with Pacificorp in this forum while we're negotiating with them,” Fletcher said.

Pacificorp's Corey Scott insisted that the company is not simply trying to delay, and pointed to commitments in the draft dam agreement to monitor water quality, reduce nutrient loads that cause toxic algae blooms and take steps to improve aeration of water below lowermost Iron Gate dam. Some of those efforts are under way now, he said.

Others said the agreement is flawed -- but worth saving. Klamath RiverKeeper Erica Terence said that among the issues are a need to make dam removal more certain and tighten water quality protections, including granting Pacificorp legal immunity only for dam removal itself, not against water quality violations and fish kills. Despite those difficulties, Terence said, the baby shouldn't be thrown out with the bath water.