Guest Viewpoint: The Klamath Solution

Klamath Basin farmer and Sustainable Northwest partner, Steve Kandra, clarifies misconceptions about plans to restore fisheries, stabilize agriculture and remove dams in the Klamath Basin.

Andy Martin's editorial "Removing Dams costly, unwarranted" in the March 5 Chieftain is an insightful representation of how well-meaning distributors of information can be manipulated to distribute misinformation.

I am a Klamath Irrigation Project farmer. I was president of Klamath Irrigation District in 2001 when the water was shut off to the project. My farm suffered, my family suffered, my employees suffered, my extended community of Merrill, Malin, Klamath Falls and Tulelake suffered. Our irrigation community has been working very hard for many years to develop collaborative solutions to our water supply, energy and regulatory needs. Our efforts have continually been met with fear and alarm in addition to misrepresentation of facts from our concerned neighbors and local political representation.

Recovery of the Klamath fisheries stocks is an essential element in providing all Klamath Basin irrigators stability in the future. The decommissioning of four PacifiCorp hydro-electric dams on the Klamath River is a viable and economical element for recovery of those fisheries. I am not anti-dam. I am pro dam, I continue to rely on and contribute to maintenance of eight dams in the system that do provide water diversions, do provide water storage, do provide flood protection to farms and ranches, none of which the PacifiCorp dams in question provide the farming and ranching community.

A few facts regarding the Klamath River Hydro-Project:

• The generating nameplate capacity of the Klamath Hydro Project's four dams being considered for decommissioning is 169 Mw. Over the past 50 years the average actual generation has been about 90 Mw (PacifiCorp, FERC). FERC estimates that conditions of re-licensing will reduce the capacity to 60 Mw.
• The average generating capacity of the dams on the Columbia system, including tributary dams is 1,725 Mw.
• There is no status quo for operations of the Klamath hydro project. FERC estimates relicensing costs for fish passage requirements are conservatively $350 million. The California Energy Commission estimates that operational and infrastructure modifications to comply with water quality standards may push costs over $450 million, to be paid for by rate payers in Oregon and Northern California with no cap. Future operational and environmental liabilities will continue to accrue.
• The Klamath Hydro project does not meet the renewable energy portfolio standard in Oregon.
• SB 76, now working its way through the Oregon legislature, will cap ratepayers and taxpayer obligation/liability to the hydro project at $180 million in Oregon and $20 million in California if decommissioning is deemed prudent. Cost will be 2 percent surcharge to Oregon and California ratepayers until 2020. If needed, California has advocated an additional $250 million for decommissioning through bonds. Irrigators in the Klamath Irrigation Project are significant ratepayers and taxpayers. Limiting liability and fixing costs is just good business sense.
• There will be an extensive compliant process to determine the feasibility of decommissioning, including sediment handling impacts and costs. There are wildly varying estimates for costs of decommissioning, the actual cost is yet to be determined. If the Secretary of Interior finds that decommissioning the hydro project is more detrimental to the resource then other alternatives, decommissioning will not occur.
  

The quick and easy math would show that the low-ball cost of retro-fitting the Klamath Hydro Project to meet minimum re-licensing standards would cost $450 million/60 Mw equals $7.5 million per Mw and would not meet Oregon renewable standards. Renewable standard eligible wind in the Columbia Basin costs about $1.5 million to $2.5 million per Mw. Large scale solar now costs about $4 million per Mw. Consideration by ratepayers and the utility to invest in renewables, and to reduce risk of future liability, is just good business sense. To those who fear precedent for Columbia River dams (10,000's of Mw), it is beyond apples to oranges comparison for regional benefit (Klamath 60 Mw).

The recovery of the Klamath fisheries is vital for our farming communities to survive. I wish that preserving my farm, my family's heritage, and my rural farming community was as important as the ideology of preserving PacifiCorp's dams on the Klamath River, which even PacifiCorp recognizes as a liability to the utility and its rate payers.

Steve Kandra is a Klamath Basin farmer.