Klamath Dam removal makes economic sense craig tucker karuk 061606

Dam removal makes economic sense

By S. Craig Tucker guest columnist Herald and News 6/16/06

(KBC Comments follow Tucker's column)

The author S. Craig Tucker, Ph.D., is the Klamath Campaign coordinator for the Karuk Tribe of California, headquartered in Happy Camp.

Many of us who live along the Klamath River have watched the fish runs plummet and with them our local economies. Communities such as Happy Camp, once known as the “Steelhead Capital of the World,” brought anglers to our area from around the world. Today, these communities have had their economic bedrock, the fishery, ripped out from under them. The Klamath once returned nearly a million wild salmon each year. This year the expected return is fewer than 30,000 fish.

Now the Klamath problem is metastasizing. Recently, the decision to severely restrict over 700 miles of coastline to salmon fishing has grabbed the attention of lawmakers from Los Angeles to Portland. The fishery closure could result in economic losses of $200 million and drive many family fishermen out of business.

However, there is hope for the Klamath. The current Federal Energy Regulatory Commission relicensing of the Klamath dams provides a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to reverse this trend by enabling the removal of the lower four Klamath Dams.

The dams cause problems for salmon and steelhead in two ways.

First, they deny access to more than 350 miles of historic spawning habitat.

Second, the dams degrade water quality. The stagnant reservoirs soak up sunlight and warm the water to temperatures lethal to salmon.

In addition, the reservoirs host massive algal blooms that are bad for both fish and humans. The algae provides habitat for the parasites that cause gill rot and other fish diseases.

One of the algal species the reservoirs host, Microcystis aeruginosa, secretes a potent liver toxin. Last year water quality experts found the toxin present at levels as high as 1,000-fold higher than what the World Health Organization considers a moderate health risk. These dams are dangerous to fish and people.

Removing these dams will take political will. With the economic problems that stem from the collapsing fishery, politicians are under pressure to act.

For years, there has been little in the way of big fixes for the Klamath that could gain bipartisan traction. Few politicians would dare suggest downsizing the Klamath Reclamation Project as many conservationists have suggested. However, since the lower four dams provide no water for farms, dam removal is a politically practical approach to helping salmon recover.

Experts believe that dam removal could cost as much as $100 million. A lot of money, but less than the estimated $187 million it would cost PacifiCorp to add ladders to the dams — a criterion federal agencies have placed on the utility for issuance of a new license. Given the fact that the two most politically powerful players in the Basin — Tribes and irrigators — appear willing to work together on a holistic Klamath package that would include dam removal and affordable power for farmers, Congress may be willing to foot the bill for additional restoration projects as well.

Funding for dam removal and ensuing restoration efforts could come from Pacifi-Corp, state governments, the federal government, or most likely a combination of the above. This kind of funding would be an economic windfall for the area. The jobs dam removal would create for area construction firms and supporting businesses would be huge. In addition, there are long-term economic opportunities afforded by an increase in salmon in the area. Happy Camp could again be ‘Steelhead Capital of the World.’
It’s time for our area leaders to acknowledge the fact that these dams kill fish. In addition they must have the business savvy to understand that salmon restoration means jobs.

Our leaders must stop defending Pacifi-Corp, a company that kills our fish and sends its profits outside the region. Instead, local politicians should be fighting for fisheries restoration and the economic benefits restoration brings. It is time for local elected officials to lead the charge to remove the dams to benefit our economy and our standard of living. It is time for our leaders to bring the salmon — and the restoration dollars — home.

--------------------------------------------------------------

KBC Comments regarding Tucker's column:

The coastal fisheries were severely limited this year because of Pacific Management Council and NOAA Fisheries "projection" of fall run salmon in the Klamath River.

Tucker writes: "The Klamath once returned nearly a million wild salmon each year. This year the expected return is fewer than 30,000 fish."

KBC: There were years written about in history that tell of years the tribes were starving to death...they commonly had poor runs.

And Tucker compares 1 "million wild salmon" historically with "30,000 fish" estimated today. That number is not accurate. They might have an estimated 30,000 fish, but they are not just any fish. They are requiring these fish to be "fall run Chinook salmon," and not just any fall run Chinook. Not wild, because there is legally ruled no difference between wild and hatchery. They must be "fall run natural spawners", and "Chinook". The difference between a natural spawned and hatchery spawned fall Chinook is, the natural spawners spawn outside the hatchery, perhaps a yard away, but indeed outside. So if one combines the natural spawners with hatchery spawners, and add to that the 600,000 fish that Peter Brucker of TWIG of the Klamath Basin Fisheries Task Force counted last year on the Shasta River, the numbers are not quite so bleak. That sum does not include other Chinook salmon and coho and hatchery salmon.

Tucker's view of the Klamath River "projected" fish numbers does not mention ocean conditions responsible for the low fish numbers in Canada and other places in other rivers, and it does not mention predators; sea lions are consuming tens of thousands of salmon a year at the mouth of the Klamath, so these fish can not return. The Baja Sea Lions are protected, even though they are not native.

And regarding Tucker's statement, "the two most politically powerful players in the Basin — Tribes and irrigators — appear willing to work together on a holistic Klamath package that would include dam removal and affordable power for farmers, Congress may be willing to foot the bill for additional restoration projects as well."

KBC: Perhaps a few irrigators are involved in this Klamath dam-removal negotiation, however the community as a whole is not privy to these negotiations so there is no community support for these deals. The irrigators we have talked with support dams, support clean hydro power, and are aware that they sent water from the Klamath Project and put it into the Klamath River to produce clean inexpensive hydro power in exchange for an affordable power rate for irrigators who shipped them the water. They do not believe that dam removal is the silver bullet that will overcome predators, ocean conditions, and guarantee abundant salmon hundreds of miles inland from the ocean.