The Klamath River near the California-Oregon border has been a hotspot in the clash over endangered salmon runs and the irrigation needs of area farmers, but a formal deal reached yesterday suggests a way out of the long-standing disagreements. The plan -- agreed to by a diverse group of stakeholders in the region including Indian tribes, government agencies, farmers, fishers, and a number of conservation groups -- advocates for removal of four dams on the Klamath and outlines clear water-sharing guidelines. It would open up some 300 miles of river that's been inaccessible to imperiled salmon, and restore 60 miles of current reservoir to unblocked river. While the deal is a major development, it still needs approval from several federal agencies and also from the company that owns the dams, the utility PacifiCorp. The plan also hinges on the approval of about $400 million in new funds from Congress. Then there's the small matter of locating another $180 million to actually remove the dams. However, if the deal goes as planned, the dams could be removed as early as 2015.
source: Associated Press, The New York Times
U.S. pushes for compromise in Copenhagen climate talks
Cautious optimism for Copenhagen deal as Barcelona climate talks end
Another coal plant bites the dust
Comments
View as Threaded
Wolverine Posted 6:54 am
16 Jan 2008
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 7:09 am
16 Jan 2008
Does this remind anyone else of Democrats v. Greens?
Permalink
tonybogar Posted 12:05 am
17 Jan 2008
The preliminary agreement announced yesterday is certainly a step in the right direction. But we still have a lot of work left to do. The agreement resolves significant water issues in the Klamath basin and sets up a restoration program to bring salmon back. Despite news reports, though, it doesn't include the removal of PacifiCorp's four outdated, destructive dams on the Klamath River. That will come in a settlement with PacifiCorp.
So Friends of the River, PacifiCorp, California, and everyone else involved in negotiations still has to work hard to save the Klamath.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 7:17 am
21 Jan 2008
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/01/21/18473846.php
Overall, I oppose it, despite the fact that it might be slightly better than the current situation. Another problem identified by this commentary is that certain agribusiness interests will be given a waiver from "endangered species laws." Any agreement with a provision like that or like one that would give agriculture priority over fish for use of water should be summarily rejected, and shame on Friends of The River for supporting this agreement.
Permalink