Estimated read time: 5-6 minutes
This archived news story is available only for your personal, non-commercial use. Information in the story may be outdated or superseded by additional information. Reading or replaying the story in its archived form does not constitute a republication of the story.
SALT LAKE CITY — The fate of four hydropower dams along the Klamath River in California and Oregon could have long-term implications for ratepayers in six states, with Utah customers taking the hardest hit if the dams have to be relicensed and upgraded.
A trio of complex settlement agreements negotiated after years of litigation called for the removal of the dams — the most ambitious and large-scale dam removal in U.S. history — to meet a number of goals, including the restoration of fisheries, improvements to water quality and to honor Native American treaty rights.
The problem is these agreements had to be authorized by Congress, which was given a deadline of 2015 to act or they would expire, leaving the multiple parties the option of walking away. Congress adjourned Friday until the end of the year, failing to move the agreements forward.
If the PacifiCorp-owned dams were authorized for removal, the cost to ratepayers would have been capped at $200 million, and only California and Oregon customers would be impacted. The dams negotiated for removal are the Iron Gate, John C. Boyle and Copco Dams 1 and 2.
Under relicensing and the accompanying required upgrades, such as fish ladders, customers in six states would bear the $1 billion in costs, and because Utah comprises 42 percent of the company's electric deliveries, it pays the biggest chunk — at $452 million.
It's a hair-raising number, even though PacifiCorp spokesman Bob Gravely stressed that the costs — if they happen — would be spread out over 50 years and absorbed among Utah's 800,000 ratepayers.
The irony is PacifiCorp wants the dams removed because the hydropower they produce is a relatively small component of the company's energy portfolio, and it is going to be dramatically more expensive for the utility company to upgrade them than to remove them. Under the agreements, the company's costs for removal were capped at $200 million and PacifiCorp would be absolved of liabilities.
"The dams actually create more trouble than they are worth," said Don Gentry, chairman of the Klamath Tribal Council. "Maintaining the dams over time is going to be more expensive to the ratepayer than removal."
The Klamath Settlement Agreements were finalized in 2010 to solve decades of dispute. With legislation languishing in Congress, however, all three tribes involved in the negotiations filed a dispute notice, demanding lawmakers act by the end of 2015 to authorize the settlements' provisions and get on with the work of restoration.
Because a component of the agreements requires removal of the dams, the U.S. secretary of the Interior needs congressional approval to initiate that process.
"We ended up with a settlement agreement, and while it is complex, in many respects it really works for the parties who signed it. It is not perfect, but we came to a solution that would work for everybody, only to have Congress not move it forward. It was certainly a disappointment," Gentry said.
Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., unveiled last-minute legislation in early December that eliminated the dam removal component and included a transfer of Forest Service lands to a pair of counties for logging operations.
That federal lands transfer to local control brought accusations of a "land grab" and further emphasized the conservative opposition to dam removal, fearing it might set a precedent.
"I know there is concern over the precedent this might set because there are environmental groups seeking the removal of federal dams," Gentry said. "But these are private dams. To me, it is comparing apples to oranges."
Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah and chairman of the U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources, threw his support behind Walden's bill because of the land transfer component, but he noted in a statement that the agreements negotiated over several years require a second look.
"I've made my position very clear during recent bicameral discussions that big, bold and creative proposals are what's needed to resolve these long-standing issues in the Klamath Basin," he said. "That means looking differently at the issue than the provisions and agreements that have been pending for over seven years. If we're tied to these precedents that have failed, then we will fail in the future."
That failure of Congress dashes the hopes of 42 signatories to the agreements.
Gentry fears the collapse of the agreements means the continuation of the wars over water, more shortages for irrigators and even further deterioration over a watershed that has been plagued by poor water quality and loss of fish habitat.
"We have not had salmon here for 100 years," which is a right guaranteed to the tribes by treaty, he said.
Removal of the dams would mean reintroduction of salmon to 600 stream miles and help with recovery efforts of other native fish. It would also boost water quality because the shallow reservoirs behind the dam are rife with nutrient pollution that compromise aquatic life.
The agreements were touted as a landmark solution that would bring to a close the contention that plagued farmers, ranchers, tribes and other users of the watershed.
"We have had many, many years of battle over water, and we have been in court against each other. We reached a point where we realized the best thing to do is to work on a settlement for all the parties," Gentry said.
He fears that work has been lost.
"The difficulty is that the agreements will have terminated and there is really significant concern that we would be able to bring all the parties back to the table to move forward with these specific agreements," Gentry said. "Basically without the settlement agreements folks will be back in litigation."
