home > AIP
Will the Klamath "Agreement in Principle" Actually Remove Dams?
Iron Gate dam on the Klamath River
While the "AIP" has some popping champagne corks and others crying foul play, we're applying our strong grassroots organizing and strategic legal toolkit to the new dam removal landscape. In order to dig a little deeper than the headlines and soundbites, we've prepared a list of the good, the bad, and the ugly on this "agreement in principle." Read on to find out what we're doing and what you can do to keep up the fight to Un-Dam the Klamath River.
The Good
Most dam removal advocates agree that the best thing to come out of this AIP is PacifiCorp publicly admitting for the first time ever that dam removal is in the best interest of their customers. This is a statement PacifiCorp has avoided like the plague in the past, and some stakeholders believe that it is a statement PacifiCorp cannot feasibly retract, and therefore represents a massive shift in the Klamath dam removal playing field.
The Bad
Unfortunately, the dam removal agreement is non-binding, and is viewed by many as an agreement to maybe agree to agree in the future. At the earliest, the AIP puts off dam removal to 2020, and allows for delays until at least 2025. In the interim, PacifiCorp can duck out of the agreement via any of a myriad of "off-ramps" included in the AIP. Actual dam removal is resting on a very precarious set of conditions listed in the AIP, and we have no guarantee whatsoever that these conditions will be met and the dams will be removed. Among these conditions are a commitment from the State of California to pay $250 million toward dam removal, and a commitment to use federal legislation to ratify the $1 billion Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement.
The Ugly
One of the provisions included in the AIP is that if PacifiCorp incurs any "significant costs" as a result of regulatory action in the interim period, the dam removal deal is off. This means that Oregon and California must agree to not enforce the Clean Water Act as it relates to the dams' egregious water quality violations until 2020 or beyond. They must also agree to give up their authority to regulate cost recovery from ratepayers. The FERC relicensing process will also go on hold until a federal economic study is completed in 2012, and this study will have the power to give a yay or nay to dam removal based solely on cost analysis.
Even uglier, no one is certain that the mitigation measures included in the AIP for the 12+ years the dams would remain in operation are sufficient to protect public health from toxic algae threats and keep salmon from going extinct. With no regulatory leverage to improve Klamath water quality or endangered salmon, and PacifiCorp absolved of all liability through the AIP, the fate of Klamath salmon will depend solely on provisions within the AIP. Worse, there are no penalties within the AIP for stalling, so if PacifiCorp pursues its typical tactics of dragging out public processes, dam removal could be delayed way beyond 2020 with these same interim mitigation measures in place.
Within the AIP, much of the dam removal project is paid for by PacifiCorp's ratepayers and American taxpayers. This means that even though PacifiCorp has profited off the dams for the last 90 years while Klamath fish stocks tanked and the river became polluted by the dams' toxic discharges, you and I will still pay to clean up the mess. This is not altogether different from the massive corporate welfare being advanced across the board by the Bush administration. There is also concern that California will tie the Klamath dam removal to the construction of several new dams and a controversial peripheral water canal through a joint water bond sent to California voters in 2009.
Regulation vs. Settlement - Did we trade a winning game for a bad deal?
Over the last several years, Klamath dam removal has been considered through two separate but concurrent processes: 1) The regulatory process (FERC relicensing and Clean Water Act permitting); and 2) A negotiated settlement process between stakeholders, PacifiCorp, and government agencies. While many environmental groups worked on a negotiated settlement, Klamath Riverkeeper stuck with the regulatory process, holding the US EPA and the California Water Board accountable for properly regulating the dams. As PacifiCorp was backed into a regulatory corner with California's 401 clean water permitting process, they turned toward the negotiated settlement option.
Whether this shift away from regulation and toward negotiated settlement will be better in the long run remains to be seen. We do know that the regulatory process could take nearly as long or even longer than the 12 year timeline in the AIP, and that the only way federally licensed dams have been removed in the United States has been through the settlement track. We also know that the AIP needs a lot of work before we can trust it to remove dams and save salmon on the Klamath.
If PacifiCorp chooses to take one of the many "off-ramps" out of dam removal currently included in the AIP, the regulatory process should pick up right where it left off. This means that if PacifiCorp tries to go back on their word or starts unleashing stalling tactics, Klamath Riverkeeper will be the first to send the corporation straight back to California's 401 Clean Water Act process, where it faces little chance of winning the clean water permit necessary to relicense the dams.
How can we make the AIP meet our needs?
Klamath Riverkeeper is working with Tribes, fishermen, and other conservation groups to modify and strengthen this agreement in whatever ways we can. Successful dam removal hinges on our ability to change the parts of the Final Agreement we don't like, and keep the process on an expedient timeline so that PacifiCorp is forced out of the stalling tactics it has used so heavily in the past.
What Klamath Riverkeeper is doing....
Omaha 2009: We're sending a delegation back to Omaha for the third year in a row to let Berkshire shareholders know that PacifiCorp must Close the Deal and Open our river. We need your help to sponsor tribal members in making this important trip. >> take action with us
California's 401 clean water permit process: Since the AIP came out in November 08, KRK has been working hard to ensure the California Water Board retains proper regulatory oversight of PacifiCorp's dams' egregious water quality violations. >> take action with us
Demanding changes in the deal: We are currently circulating an open letter to negotiating parties reiterating that a final dam removal agreement must:
- Comply with the mainstem Klamath TMDL and preserve the integrity and enforceability of all water laws and regulations.
- Preserve and respect the roles and authorities of water quality regulators.
- Limit immunity to the act of dam removal.
- Commit to locate funding for dam removal independent of a bond that would build a peripheral canal or any new dams.
- Eliminate or drastically improve the secretarial finding clauses that give the federal government veto power over dam removal in 2012.
- Increase certainty of dam removal by eliminating rights of withdrawal or qualifying them with written consequences for exercising those rights.
Educating lawmakers: As soon as our crew comes home from Omaha, we'll start working on the California Governor's office, California legislature and Obama administration to get stronger commitments to dam removal from each of them. We'll also continue building a coalition against trading Klamath dam removal funding for environmentally damaging projects in other watersheds.
What can the public do to stay involved?
Support the action alerts and campaigns above, and sign up for our Klamath River eNews to receive the latest action alerts on this issue. Become a member of Klamath Riverkeeper or help us out by donating time, money or other useful items.
Resources
The official Agreement in Principle
Riverkeeper Op-Ed: Klamath Dam Removal Deal Needs More Work
More info on dams and toxic algae on the Klamath
News Headlines
Klamath Riverkeeper Press Release
KDRV News Video
Associated Press - 11/13/08
New York Times
San Francisco Chronicle
Siskiyou Daily News
Klamath Falls Herald and News
Editorials on Dam Removal Agreement
Agreement Signals Major Progress In Dam Fight Eureka Times-Standard 11/19/08
Is Schwartzenegger Trading Klamath Dams for Delta Destruction? Independent Media - 11/15/08
Dam Removal Off-Ramps Ahead Eureka Times-Standard - 11/15/08
Settlement Has Long Way To Go Before Dams are Gone Klamath Falls Herald and News - 11/16/08
Hurdles Remain for Dam Removal Klamath Falls Herald and News - 11/16/08
This Dam Deal Will Cost You Albany Democrat Herald - 11/14/08
Agreement Proves Opponents Can Compromise The Columbian - 11/17/08
And Now the Work Begins Eureka Times-Standard - 11/19/08