Podcasts & RSS Feeds
Most Active Stories
- UW's MOOC On Public Speaking Proving To Be Massively Popular
- How To Make Your Own Crème Fraîche — And Why You Should
- Washington's 'Pot Czar' Says Legal Marijuana Could Be Too Cheap
- UW Professor Traces Growing Income Gap To The Collapse Of Organized Labor
- Seattle Artist Turning Centuries-Old Pieces Of Wood Into One-Of-A-Kind Sculptures
News & Music Contributors
Thu September 22, 2011
Congress must approve Klamath dam deal by March
Medford, Ore. — The U.S. Secretary of Interior released this week a draft report on impact of tearing down four dams on the Klamath River. It concludes that getting rid of the dams would increase salmon populations and create thousands of jobs.
But Congress could still scuttle the deal.
Secretary Salazar has until March of next year to decide if removing four dams and implementing a restoration and water sharing plan in the Klamath Basin is in the public interest.
The draft environmental statement he just released suggests the answer will be “yes,” says James Honey. He’s with the environmental group Sustainable Northwest.
“It does appear that it’s cost effective, it does appear that in general it’s safe, and protects in particular some fairly big natural resource economies in agriculture and commercial fishing.
But don’t get ready to celebrate or mourn for the Klamath dams yet. There’s a catch. It’s Congress. Salazar can’t decide to remove the dams. First, he needs congress to pass a law giving him permission. Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley is writing a bill that would authorize the Klamath settlement agreements. But so far, there’s no plan for a bill in the House.
“The House has already voted once this year against this lunacy,” said Tom McClintock a California Republican. “It would require the house of representatives to agree to tear down four perfectly good hydroelectric dams. At the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. I don’t think that’s likely.”
McClintock sits on the House Natural Resources Committee. The cost of actually taking out the dams would be paid for ratepayers and the State of California. But the cost of the follow-up environmental work in the deal would be paid for by federal agencies.
Greg Addington represents farmers in the Klamath Basin. He says that for years, the farmers asked members of Congress for help securing water for irrigation. They were told:
“you guys have to work this out on the ground. You have to work it out and bring us something. Well, we went and did that.”
Addington is still hoping congress will approve and fund the deal by March. If not, farmers, tribes, fisherman, and the power company PacifiCorp will have to re-open negotiations.
Elwha River restoration