Need Your Help-Klamath Dams Removal

#1
It’s been a long time and getting all stakeholders to agree was monumental. Please sign, it’s right on the brink of happening.
http://caltrout.org/2017/10/ready-see-klamath-dams-come/
The removal of these dams will open over 400 miles of spawning waters on a still wild and beautiful stream. Other than the Columbia it’s the only stream that crosses the mountains from east to west. The section above the dams is rugged and wild and has excellent trout fishing and middle river is still very wild despite a highway paralleling one bank. Steelhead come readily to the surface.
 

Salmo_g

Well-Known Member
#2
Sign what? I didn't see any petition or anything to sign. Or is that that we should send a letter or email to FERC? I don't think FERC is standing in the way; they already approved the settlement from several years ago. In fact I'm not sure that any entity is preventing Pacificorp from removing the dams, altho a CA Congressman tried filing something to prevent it. Still, they are privately owned dams operating under a federal FERC license. Need more info.
 

Bob Triggs

Stop Killing Wild Steelhead!
#3
@Salmo_g

Copied from the linked document in the original posting here:

How to submit your comment:
1. Go to www.ferconline.ferc.gov/QuickComment.aspx. (If you’d like to submit by mail, use address below. Include docket # P-2082-062 in letter.)
2. Enter your information including e-mail. Open automatic e-mail from FERC, follow link from there to submit comment.
3. In the docket field, enter # P-2082-062 to specify the project.
4. Fill in comment form using our sample letter (click here to read) or your own. Personal stories are always a good touch.

FERC requires comments be submitted by November 5th. Thank you for your help!

FERC Mailing Address:
Kimberly Bose, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, NE
Washington, D
C 20426
 

Salmo_g

Well-Known Member
#4
Thanks Bob, but I get that part. What I don't understand is what role FERC has at this point, having approved a settlement agreement a few years ago that allows and calls for removal of the dams by the owner, Pacificorp. So I'm not sure why FERC is asking for comments; do they think people have changed their minds or something?
 

FinLuver

Active Member
#5
I have already "signed on" by proxy to support this project.
My "donation" is deducted from my monthly electric bill....and has been for several years now. ;)
 

Josh

dead in the water
#6
Thanks Bob, but I get that part. What I don't understand is what role FERC has at this point, having approved a settlement agreement a few years ago that allows and calls for removal of the dams by the owner, Pacificorp. So I'm not sure why FERC is asking for comments; do they think people have changed their minds or something?
Caveat that I'm not 100% sure that I've got this right. But as I understand it....

There was an agreement between feds/states/tribes/ranchers/PacifiCorp/etc signed a few years back, but it needed to go through congress for approval. Unsurprisingly, it never made it. So a new agreement was signed in April 2016 and the decision was made to try and achieve the process through FERC (thus avoiding the congressional morass). I suspect this comment period is part of FERC's process?

Rather than attempt another push through Congress, dam removal advocates are bringing the plan before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which regulates energy sales and transmissions in the U.S. The dam removal agreement must still obtain water quality certifications in California and Oregon before the commission can make a final determination.

PacifiCorp spokesman Bob Gravely provided the following statement to the Times-Standard regarding Mikkelsen’s comments on the dam removal plan:

“It’s appropriate to allow the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to follow its regular procedure to review the removal of privately-owned dams. The agreement was purposefully changed to not require approvals from Congress or a direct role by federal agencies in dam removal.”
A couple relevant news links from the past month:

http://www.times-standard.com/article/NJ/20170929/NEWS/170929773

http://www.siskiyoudaily.com/news/20171009/public-invited-to-klamath-dams-meeting-tuesday-in-yreka
 

Bob Smith

Active Member
#7
Sadly, Siskiyou County (where I live and where two of the dams are located) withdrew from the original settlement negotiations and instead is demanding that their concerns be addressed now. I just had lunch with a friend who's the local California Department of Fish and Wildlife lead on the dam removal project. She says things are proceeding quite nicely and still on schedule for removal to begin in 2020. Fortunately (and somewhat surprisingly), the Trump administration has taken the position of allowing the removal to proceed.

Here's a couple of links to stories about the Trump admin position:
http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/water-and-drought/article177691451.html
http://caltrout.org/2017/10/federal-government-says-wont-oppose-klamath-river-dam-removal/
 
#8
Josh and Bob are on track, there are some county supervisors and a couple of hard Tea Party congressional representatives in the State of Jefferson who would like to see this undone, cause as they like to say where I live “any drop of water that flows to the ocean is a waste”.
 

Salmo_g

Well-Known Member
#9
I didn't realize that original settlement agreement included a provision for Congressional approval. That is not typical of FERC license settlements, but there must have been stakeholders who wanted to appear agreeable but were counting on Congress to not approve. That's my guess anyway. OK, I'll send an email to FERC, although public comments have never swayed a FERC decision that I can remember. But if the stakeholders agree to a settlement, FERC will approve it so long as the lawyers say it's a legal agreement.