Draft bill on Klamath water doesn’t include dam removal
With deep chasms remaining in Congress over a proposal to remove four dams from the Klamath River, U.S. Rep. Greg Walden unveiled a bill Dec. 3 to address other aspects of the Klamath Basin’s water agreements.
The Oregon Republican’s draft proposal would implement water-sharing agreements in the upper basin and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s Klamath Project worked out in 2010 while transfering federal lands and economic development funds to the Klamath Tribes in exchange for waiving senior water rights.
The bill punts on the issue of dam removal, which has been a sticking point in Congress since 2011, by putting its approval in the lap of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Tribal leaders have made dam removal a condition for their participating in the Klamath pact.
The bill’s unveiling comes after what Walden spokesman Andrew Malcolm described as a “frank” meeting Dec. 3 involving West Coast lawmakers on both sides of the issue. The meeting included Oregon’s Democratic Sens. Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden as well as California Republican Reps. Tom McClintock and Doug LaMalfa, two staunch opponents of removing the dams.
“I think it was a good discussion,” Malcolm said. “It was helpful to have everyone from both chambers and both parties in the same room. They had a frank exchange of views about what is possible in both chambers, and discussions are ongoing.”
Walden’s bill got a cool reception from proponents of the Klamath agreements, who have warned that water-sharing components of the pacts could crumble if Congress doesn’t authorize the package before the end of the year.
In a joint statement after the meeting, Wyden and Merkley called Walden’s bill “a step forward” but lamented that it omits a dam removal provision “that is central to the bargain worked out over years with blood, sweat and tears.”
They also said Walden’s proposal to give 100,000 acres of U.S. Forest Service land each to Klamath and Siskiyou counties for economic development is “a known non-starter” in the Senate, where Wyden’s bill to authorize the Klamath agreements has languished since early this year.
“Congressman Walden told us all that he understood that dam removal had to be part of the bill or else irrigators would face water uncertainty,” Karuk Tribe councilman Josh Saxon said in a statement. “The draft bill he released ... leaves out dam removal and instead replaces it with a giveaway of public lands. Communities in the basin left partisanship at the door to hammer out a solution. Mr. Walden must do the same.”
Don Gentry, the Klamath Tribes’ chairman, said Walden’s draft proposal is “encouraging” but that the tribes can’t support it without dam removal, which he has said is necessary to ensure that fisheries key to their economy and culture will be preserved into the future.
Gentry said he is aware of instances when willing owners took out dams without needing congressional approval, but it’s not clear how a process before FERC would work.
“We don’t really understand fully how that would occur or how long that would take,” he told the Capital Press. “We do know our members voted for the whole package, including dam removal, so this puts us in a situation that if legislation were to move forward without dam removal, our members would be getting together at the start of next year to determine what that means.”
FERC officials did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.
The 42 signatories of the 2010 pacts that included the dam removals as well as water-sharing and numerous conservation efforts in the basin already renewed the agreements once, in late 2012. However, looming deadlines lend more of a sense of urgency this time, proponents say.
Already, regulatory agencies are resuming the task of reviewing PacifiCorp’s dam relicensing application, and the Yurok Tribe — a key water right holder on the Klamath River -- has withdrawn from the agreements because of Congress’ inaction, the advocates say. The Klamath Tribes have given notice that they, too, would likely withdraw if the agreements aren’t authorized this year.
Proponents say PacifiCorp’s pledge of $200 million and funding from California’s Proposition 1 water bond will cover the cost of dam removal, although the federal government would be on the hook for fisheries restoration. A task force assembled in 2013 slashed the cost of the overall package to about $545 million, down from an original estimate of $1.1 billion.
However, congressional approval has remained a sticking point, as bills authorizing the agreements have languished since 2011. Malcolm was noncommittal when asked if Walden’s bill would be fast-tracked through the House of Representatives and merged with the Senate version.
“We’re not going to speculate on the timeline,” he said. “We want people to have time to absorb it and give us their feedback.”