Dam removal in the Pacific Northwest: lessons for the nation.

• Author: Blumm, Michael C.
• Position: VI. The Klamath River Basin: Looking Ahead to Future Dam Removals through VII. Conclusion, with footnotes, p. 1084-1100

6. THE KLAMATH RIVER BASIN: LOOKING AHEAD TO FUTURE DAM REMOVALS

   To the south of the Rogue Basin, the Klamath River flows from its headwaters in the Cascade Range near Klamath Falls, Oregon, for over 263 miles to its mouth at the Pacific Ocean in northern California. (398) The Klamath carves a course through two distinct geographic areas--the dry, high desert of southern Oregon, where water derives primarily from spring snowmelt, (399) and the wet, temperate clime of northern California, where rainfall and numerous tributaries (400) increase the river's discharge. (401) Historically one of the most biologically productive streams in the Pacific Northwest, the Klamath yielded abundant runs of anadromous fish, averaging 880,000 spawning salmon per year. (402) For over 4,500 years, the Klamath Tribes (403) have relied on the river's salmon and sucker fish as staple food sources and pillars of their cultural identity. (404) Unfortunately, hydroelectric dams, irrigation projects, and recent droughts nearly destroyed the Klamath's wild salmon population; current salmon runs number only about 6% of historic levels. (405) Throughout most of its modern history, controversy and political strife have dominated the Klamath Basin, including conflicts over virtually every major western water issue--dams, water rights, and endangered species. (406)

   1. Setting the Stage for the Klamath Controversy

      Non-native settlement and population growth in the Klamath Basin began in the middle of the nineteenth century as miners and pioneers flocked to the resource-rich area pursuing gold, timber, and farmland. (407) In 1905, the Bureau of Reclamation authorized the construction of hydroelectric dams and irrigation canals throughout the basin, which eventually supplied electricity and water to over 200,000 acres of arid farmland in Oregon and California. (408) Currently, the mainstem of the Klamath River contains five dams, including four hydroelectric dams, owned and operated by PacifiCorp as part of the Klamath Hydroelectric Project. (409) The combined effects of dams and irrigation, however, blocked the Klamath to salmon migration and reduced water flows, destroying fish spawning habitat and leaving the once-abundant salmon in danger of extinction. (410)

      1. Dam Building for Power

         In 1913, construction began on the first in a series of dams planned as part of an ambitious hydroelectric project on the mainstem of the Klamath River. (411) The California Oregon Electric Company (COPCO) initiated the Klamath Hydroelectric Project by building two concrete arch hydroelectric dams in Ward's Canyon, 198 miles upstream from the Klamath's mouth. (412) Five years after construction began, COPCO completed the first structure, Copco No. 1, a massive 120-foot dam that generated 20 MW of electricity. (413) In 1925, engineers completed the second dam, Copco No. 2, which stood twenty-one feet tall at a quarter mile downstream from Copco No. 1. (414) Together the two dams generated 47 MW of electricity and completely blocked salmon access to seventy-five miles of the upper Klamath River. (415)

         As farms grew and more fields required irrigation, an increasing demand for electricity led to the expansion of the Klamath Hydroelectric Project., (416) In 1958, workers completed the Big Bend Dam, later renamed the J.C. Boyle Dam, twenty-five miles upstream from the Copco Dams. (417) The sixty-eight-foot earthen-fill dam generated 80 MW of electricity for COPCO's power customers in the Klamath Basin. (418) Because the construction of the J.C. Boyle Dam occurred after the Federal Water Power Act of 1935, COPCO required a permit for construction and operation of the dam. (419) In 1954, COPCO received a fifty-year license for the J.C. Boyle Dam, which was later transferred to PacifiCorp after the two companies merged in 1961--the same year PacifiCorp took over management of the Klamath Hydroelectric Project. (420)

         In 1959, the California Fish and Game Department and the downstream Klamath fishing industry threatened to sue PacifiCorp over the wildly fluctuating water releases from the Copco and J.C. Boyles Dams. (421) PacifiCorp generated power from the three dams by releasing stored water from the reservoirs at times of high electricity demand. (422) This produced drastically varying downstream river levels that harmed fish and water quality in the lower Klamath. (423) In order to avert the lawsuit and better regulate flows on the Klamath, Pacificorp agreed to build a new dam downstream from the Copco Dam. (424) In 1962, PacifiCorp completed the massive Iron Gate Dam, which stood 173 feet tall, was composed of rock and gravel fill materials, and generated 18 MW of electricity. (425)

         After completion of the Iron Gate Dam, the Klamath Hydroelectric Project consisted of four hydroelectric dams, with a rated capacity of 169 MW. (426) Currently, the four dams produce closer to 81 MW, (427) supplying power to over 1,400 farms and about 70,000 homes throughout the Klamath Basin. (428) With no fish passage facilities at the three downstream dams--Iron Gate and Copco Nos. 1 and 2--the Klamath Hydroelectric Project completely blocked migratory fish access to 300 miles of the upper Klamath River and its tributary streams. (429)

      2. Irrigating the Upper Klamath Basin

         Coinciding with the start of dam construction on the Klamath, the Bureau of Reclamation began a massive irrigation project to drain marshlands and deliver water from the Klamath River to farms in the upper basin. (430) In 1905, the Bureau began constructing water storage dams, reservoirs, and over 185 miles of canals--all part of the Klamath Irrigation Project. (431) The federal government's policy of transforming the and upper Klamath Basin into productive farmland through subsidized irrigation gained further momentum in 1917 when the government opened public lands to homesteaders who paid only a small fee in exchange for the delivery of irrigation water. (432)

         With a continuously growing population and demand for water, the federal government enacted the Klamath River Basin Compact to govern the orderly development of the basin. (433) The 1957 Compact prioritized irrigation over all water uses in the basin other than domestic use, including instream flows for fish and wildlife. (434) By 2001, the Klamath Irrigation Project supplied water to over 200,000 acres of farmland, (435) but human population growth and water users have long exceeded the capacity of the Klamath to supply enough water for all of the farmlands, let alone leaving water in the river to sustain the ecosystem. (436)

         The economic dependence of farmers on irrigation water has led to serious fights over water appropriations in the basin. (437) In 2001, a severe drought left the Klamath Basin, an already dry region, especially desperate for water. (438) The Bureau implemented an operations plan for the Klamath Irrigation Project that re-prioritized water deliveries, leaving water in the river for ESA-listed fish and tribal water rights, (439) but shutting off water deliveries to upper Klamath irrigators--a move that elevated the water conflict into a furor. (440) After losing a lawsuit attempting to enjoin the Bureau from implementing the operations plan, (441) the Klamath Irrigation District, an organization of irrigators, sued the federal government for $1 billion in lost revenue to farms as a result of the irrigation shut-off. (442)

         Another front in the Klamath water war occurred at the convergence of hydropower and irrigation. Since 1917, a clause in PacifiCorp's FERC license for the Klamath Hydroelectric Project allowed irrigators to receive electricity for irrigation pumps from the hydroelectric dams at one-twelfth to one-seventeenth the market price. (443) In 2006, the states of Oregon and California ordered a decoupling of the favorable rates and a return to market prices phased in over a seven- and four-year transition period, respectively. (444) Although an association of Klamath irrigators continues to challenge the states' decision to decouple, (445) the elimination of below-market power rates removed the principal economic interest irrigators had in maintaining the Klamath's hydroelectric dams. (446)

      3. Tribal Water Rights and the Disappearing Salmon

         For almost a century, the interests of hydropower and irrigators took precedence in the Klamath Basin, subjugating tribal and environmental water usage, and at times leaving not even a single drop of water in the river. (447) In 1864, the Klamath Tribes signed a treaty with the federal government guaranteeing tribal fishing rights in historic fishing grounds of the basin. (448) The Bureau of Reclamation and Oregon's Water Resources Department, however, paid little attention to the tribes' reserved fishing rights until 1983, when the Ninth Circuit ruled that the Bureau's irrigation project must leave enough water in the Klamath to ensure fishing capacity. (449) The Ninth Circuit elevated consideration of tribal water interests above irrigators, concluding that the tribes' water priority date extended to time immemorial and recognizing the tribes' water rights as the most senior in the basin. (450)

         Although the Ninth Circuit recognized the tribes' senior water rights, the historic Klamath water conflict descended into a "wicked" natural resource problem with the interjection of the Endangered Species Act. (451) Because the hydroelectric dams blocked migrating fish access to upstream spawning grounds, and because irrigators pumped massive amounts of water out of the river and tributaries, the native fish species of the Klamath entered a precipitous decline. (452) In 1988, the Fish and Wildlife Service listed two upstream fish, the Lost River sucker (Deltistes luxatus) and short-nose sucker (Chasmistes brevirostris), as endangered species. (453)

         The ESA's requirement that federal agencies consider and protect the listed sucker fish forced the Bureau to store more water in upper basin...