[env-trinity] NEC Op-Ed in the Sacramento Bee on Klamath Dams

[Tom Stokely]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Greg King" <greg at yournec.org>
To: "Greg King" <greg at yournec.org>
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 3:18 PM
Subject: NEC Op-Ed in the Sacramento Bee


> http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/820197.html

Greg King: Any Klamath dam deal must provide water for fish
By Greg King - Special to The Bee
Published 12:00 am PDT Saturday, March 29, 2008
Story appeared in EDITORIALS section, Page B7

Print | E-Mail | Comments (2)|

Not long ago my neighbor said he'd seen me on TV discussing the Northcoast 
Environmental Center's opposition to the Klamath Basin Restoration 
Agreement. He seemed puzzled.

"I thought you guys wanted dam removal," he said.

My heart sank. Of course the NEC wants to tear down four dams on the Klamath 
River. The NEC is an original proponent of dam removal, as we've long worked 
to restore populations of fish and other wildlife along one of America's 
greatest rivers.

We want the dams out to open up more than 300 miles of former salmon and 
steelhead habitat, and to improve the abysmal water quality currently 
released by the reservoirs behind the dams. But dam removal is only one 
step, however significant.

The agreement's most controversial provision allocates to farmers 330,000 to 
340,000 acre-feet of water during dry years, and 385,000 acre-feet in wet 
years. (An acre-foot is literally that: the amount of water it would take to 
cover an acre of land a foot deep.) This allocation can be renegotiated only 
during "extreme drought" years, but this "drought plan" will not be created 
until after the settlement agreement is completed, one of the many 
unsettling provisions of the agreement. Also, this allocation is about 10 
percent more than farmers currently get during dry years under court-ordered 
Endangered Species Act protections.

Two species of salmon (chum and pink) are already extinct on the Klamath. 
Spring Chinook runs are at dangerously low levels. Klamath Coho salmon are 
listed as "threatened" under the federal Endangered Species Act. Dam removal 
alone is not enough to prevent further declines. Scientists tell us that the 
Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement may not provide enough water for salmon 
to avoid extinction, owing to significant allocations to farmers.

The NEC supports farmers. They provide our nation with food, and in many 
places productive farmland can forestall development and preserve open 
space. So we hope farmers in the upper Klamath basin are able to secure 
adequate water supplies, but not at the expense of salmon. This occurred in 
2002, when farmers received 400,000 acre-feet of water and 68,000 adult 
salmon died in the lower Klamath. Would the agreement prevent such an 
excessive allocation? Probably. Would an allocation of 330,000 acre-feet 
also be excessive even during very dry years? Good question.

Last year, the NEC hired Bill Trush of McBain and Trush, and Greg Kamman of 
Kamman Hydrology, to examine the complex scientific modeling of flow 
allocations contained in the agreement. Trush's primary conclusion was that 
once the dams come out and agricultural interests get their water, there 
still might not be enough water in the river for fish.

Last month the NEC again hired Trush, this time to create an alternative 
path that scientists working on the agreement could follow to better ensure 
fish recovery on the Klamath River. In that paper, Trush wrote, "The Klamath 
Basin Restoration Agreement relegates salmon and the Klamath River ecosystem 
to the status of junior water users, while upper basin irrigators become the 
senior water users. This premise squarely places onto the salmon and the 
river ecosystem any risk inherent in the conclusion that flows contained in 
the agreement will actually provide enough water for recovery of the 
species."

The Trush and Kamman reports are available at www.yournec.org.

At the same time, the NEC's board of directors hosted a phone conference 
with Thomas Hardy, associate director of the Utah Water Research Laboratory 
at Utah State University. Hardy's analyses of Klamath River hydrology are 
considered to be the best available science for evaluating the river's 
fishery. Hardy confirmed Trush's conclusions: "Agriculture gets all the 
guarantees, and everything related to the environment is left to somewhat 
vague processes and committees." In dry years, said Hardy, agriculture in 
the upper basin will be "taking too much water from the system." An 
acceptable agreement, he said, would "guarantee flows for fish first, then 
other water uses."

The NEC's rejection last month of the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement 
was intended to make it better and to aid the recovery of the entire Klamath 
River ecosystem. We are still negotiating. Already the NEC has spent about 
$60,000 to review the science and legalities contained in the 256-page 
agreement, and we're not done yet. If we agree to support the settlement it 
will be because dams will come down and fish will get the water they need to 
thrive. That's our promise to our members and to the fish.



Greg King
Executive Director
Northcoast Environmental Center
1465 G Street
Arcata, CA 95521
(707) 822-6918
greg at yournec.org
http://www.yournec.org

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: button1-share.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 1505 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20080329/c71ffbc2/attachment.gif>