Klamath River Dams – Setting the Record Straight

by Senator Sam Aanestad

I have become aware that many people in Siskiyou County are getting incomplete information regarding the issue of dam removal on the Klamath River. I write to give you the facts as honestly as I know them.

Earlier this month the Legislature passed an $11 billion water bond that would allocate $250 million for dam removal in the Klamath River watershed. My office has received calls and emails from parties in Siskiyou County concerning this provision, and some have included criticism of me for not somehow stopping its inclusion in the bond – implying that I support dam removal. I’d like to set a few things straight on this issue.

First and foremost, PacifiCorp is a private utility company that owns and operates the four Klamath dams. They reached a decision to pursue dam removal after a decade of fighting for renewal of their hydroelectric utility license. This license requires both a federal and state approval process, and, frankly, the odds of approval ever happening are about the same as California having a balanced budget this year.

It isn’t going to happen, for the same reason that spotted owls killed the timber industry. Environmentalists use the regulatory power of laws like the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act to block, harass, and derail any industry that doesn’t fit their agenda. In this case it is the argument that dams are responsible for declining Klamath fish populations. It was actually the Bush Administration that told PacifiCorp they would have to make major changes to the dams and add fish ladders to gain a utility license renewal.

The price tag for this environmental compliance would be $300 million or more. And even that wouldn’t be enough to ensure the company could get their license. Environmentalists are dead set on seeing the Klamath River free of any dams, and they have the legal and political power to see it done. Even if the federal government were to support continued operation of the dams (and President Obama wants the dams removed), it is one of Gov. Schwarzenegger’s top environmental priorities that the dams come down. Environmentalists could have asked the California Public Utilities Commission to force PacifiCorp to dispose of their hydro assets. Or, the State Water Resources Control Board could have declared PacifiCorp in violation of the Clean Water Act. Either regulatory action would be enough to make the dams worthless as an asset to PacifiCorp.

In short, like so many other businesses in this state, PacifiCorp faced a hostile regulatory environment that forced the company to get the best deal they could for their shareholders. Now, I want to be clear that I do not support removing the dams, and I get downright angry when good people and businesses in my district are harassed by political interpretations of environmental laws. If I owned PacifiCorp, I would be inclined to fight this all the way to the Supreme Court. But I don’t own PacifiCorp, and unless you are a shareholder of Berkshire Hathaway, neither do you. It simply is not my role as a legislator to tell a private company (or any private property owner) how best to operate their business. There are too many legislators already willing to do that, and it’s got this state into an economic mess.

So I oppose dam removal, but I support PacifiCorp’s right to do what is best for their customers. They made a decision that if the dams were to come out, they had an obligation to limit both the costs and the liability to their customers. They did that. Last year an Agreement In Principle was signed by the State of California, the State of Oregon (their legislature has already approved legislation that authorizes $180 million to be collected from Oregon ratepayers for the dam removals), the United States Government, PacifiCorp, and 25 other “stakeholder” groups (which included farmers, fishermen, and Native Americans) that laid out a pathway for dam removal. In September of this year a Draft Final Agreement was signed, and at some point over the next few months there will be a final agreement on the future of the dams.

Unfortunately, the residents of Siskiyou County don’t seem to know about this Agreement. I cannot stop it, and any legislator who says otherwise is not being honest with you. The absolute earliest the dams could be removed is 2020. But, looking at the agreement, and the costs, and the myriad environmental studies that must happen before the first hammer is swung, I’d be surprised if these dams don’t come down for years beyond that.

I understand what this means to those people who have created communities around the lakes. They have been caught in a struggle that was not of their making and had little say in the solution. Many Klamath water users have signed off on the Final Agreement, I know others are very unhappy. The state has an obligation to do what it can to mitigate for the consequences of dam removal. This is why I pushed for a guaranteed $20 million for Siskiyou County if voters approve the water bond. This money will help the county and landowners meet the challenges to come with dam removal.

It doesn’t make sense to me to get rid of these dams—they provide cheap electricity (but only 4% of PacifiCorp’s total generation), they provide some limited water storage, and they enhance the surrounding property for homes and recreation. But when the owner, PacifiCorp, the State of California, the State of Oregon, the United States government, and so many stakeholders from Lake Klamath to the coast have agreed on a plan for their eventual removal, the writing is on the wall. Once PacifiCorp agreed to the dam removal plan, my job, as I see it, was to get the best deal for Siskiyou County that I could. And that’s what I did.

Senator Sam Aanestad (R-Grass Valley) represents the 4th Senate District covering 12-Northern California counties and serves as Vice-Chair of the Senate Rules Committee.

Senator Cogdill Presents His Comprehensive Solution to the State’s Water Crisis at Legislative Hearing

Click here view video of Senator Dave Cogdill (R-Modesto) delivering remarks at a joint informational hearing of the Senate Natural Resources Committee and the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee.

Senate Billx7 2, the Safe, Clean, Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2010, by Senator Cogdill, is a comprehensive solution which invests $9.4 billion in General Obligation bonds in our state's aging water infrastructure – focusing on storage, conservation and environmental protections.

The proposal includes:

EFFECTIVE WATER MANAGEMENT: Reserving Water in Wet Years to Survive Dry Years

The measure includes $3 billion for the public benefit portion of environmentally responsible water storage. These funds would be used to build new facilities and expand existing sites to ensure excess water from wet years is available to use in dry years. In addition, this investment will allow the state to leverage matching funds from other sources. This legislation also contains $1.9 billion for regional water supply, conveyance, and drought relief projects and $500 million for groundwater cleanup, particularly in disadvantaged communities and other economically distressed areas.

RESPONSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS: Helping the Environment without Devastating the Economy

The plan also contains $2 billion to preserve the Delta and other fragile ecosystems -- including restoration projects for rivers, the ocean and fish barriers. Another added benefit is that these projects in the Delta will improve conveyance and help make California’s water system more reliable.

RESOURCE CONSERVATION: Making Every Drop Count

While increasing storage will help reduce shortages in the future, the measure also includes building water supply in the short term through water conservation and water-use efficiency programs.

Water Committee Torpedoes Bipartisanship

by Assemblyman Kevin Jeffries - North County Times, Sept 27, 2009

Californians rightfully expect their political leaders to rise above partisan differences to solve major threats to stability of the state. That is why I was honored to participate in a recent effort at bipartisanship ---- The Joint Legislative Conference Committee on Water Legislation.

At our first meeting, the committee agreed to work together over Labor Day weekend to solve big water problems: Sacramento-San Joaquin delta environmental restoration, water storage, water conveyance and funding for all of the above. Sadly, the promise of "working together" was quickly crushed, as was any chance of passing this legislation by the legislative deadline.

It began with Democratic leaders, who control the committee process, restricting the selection of bills to be discussed.

Proposed Water Bond Sinks from Lack of Leadership

Posted in today's Flash Report:

President Ronald Reagan was no stranger when it came to making tough choices. He was a true leader not only in words, but in actions, and helped inspire a generation of new leaders.

He once told us that; “A leader, once convinced that a particular course of action is the right one, must be undaunted when the going gets tough.” This is the kind of leadership we need in Sacramento when it comes to crafting a solution to California’s water crisis.

Democrat Governor Pat Brown had that kind of leadership when he pushed for building the California Aqueduct, but unfortunately, that kind of Majority Party leadership hasn’t surfaced on the issue of water for many years.

We know – all too well now – what the problems are. A lack of water storage and an endangered species law that judges have used to restrict delivery of water supplies to users south of the Delta resulting in a massive economic jolt to Central and Southern California this summer.

Unemployment in the Central Valley shot up and losses to agriculture-related businesses were estimated at $1 billion. 35,000 jobs were lost this year alone due to water shortages according to the Ag Water Council. Worse yet, the crisis is bound to repeat itself next year.

Leaders like Senator Dave Cogdill and the other Republicans I served with on the Legislative Conference Committee on Water know what needs to be done. We need new water storage. We need new reservoirs. We need a way to move that water to the consumers who need it. A water system built for 16 million people 50 years ago cannot provide for the needs of the 50 million Californians we’ll have in 10 years.

We know what we need. We know how to get the job done.

Unfortunately, we lack the Majority Party leadership needed to make those key decisions.

The series of hearings held by the Legislative Conference Committee drew input from every water-vested interest in California. And, like a scenario with too many cooks in the kitchen, what resulted from those hearings pleased no one. Senator Cogdill’s bond package, by far the boldest and most practical solution, was never considered. Ultimately, the five-bill package that came out of these hearings died from a lack of support on the final night of Senate session.

It failed for a variety of reasons. Several legislators from the Delta and the Bay Area and others representing coastal areas found the proposed bills did not go far enough on behalf of the environment. Other legislators voiced strong objections to unrealistic conservation mandates spelled out in AB 49, while others, myself included, were concerned about the protection of critically-important water rights.

No Republican was prepared to support the proposed bond on the final night of Legislative Session because it did not carry any guarantee – let alone language – that would have resulted in the construction of one new reservoir. Let me make this point very clear: you cannot conserve your way out of this water crisis. Additional storage is the only answer to solving the water shortages facing users south of the delta and it’s the only answer for the environmental problems facing the Delta.

This is a hard pill to swallow for the interests who oppose any new reservoir construction in California, but it is bitter medicine that must be taken.

Interestingly, we did have the water. During a “Fabulous February” of winter storm activity last year, the inflows at Folsom Lake were so strong that it would have filled a 2,000 square foot home from top to bottom in one second. In the space of just two weeks, the major reservoirs in my Northern California district were nearly at full capacity after they had sunk to levels not seen since the 1977-1978 drought.

What happened to most of that water? The sad thing is – most of that February rainfall went to waste. It washed into the Northern California rivers and streams that feed the Sacramento River, flowed into the Delta and out to sea.

We could have just as easily captured that water. It could have been stored in a proposed off-stream reservoir project called Sites Reservoir in Colusa County. It could have been saved and stored for later use in another proposed facility called Temperance Flat Reservoir in Fresno County. It could have been stored in a vastly expanded Shasta Lake Dam in Shasta County.

Unfortunately, we missed that opportunity. If we are fortunate enough to experience another heavy rain event this coming winter, or a record snow pack in the mountains, much of that will go to waste as well.

Although last minute negotiations failed to produce an agreement on a water bond acceptable to all stakeholders, the fight isn’t over. Negotiations continue. The Governor, to his credit, knows what needs to be done, and he can call the State Legislature back into session to work on the problem once again.

All we need now is the leadership, from both sides of the aisle, to make it happen.

Senator Sam Aanestad represents the watershed that supplies 80% of the water going south through the Delta to southern California -- the 4th Senate District that covers 12 Northern California counties.

Aanestad Issues Statement Following Collapse of Water Bond Talks

SACRAMENTO: Senator Sam Aanestad (R-Grass Valley) issued the following statement after negotiations on a proposed water bond failed to produce an agreement during the final night of Legislative Session in Sacramento.

“I am disappointed that all stakeholders could not reach an agreement to alleviate the chronic water shortage that is gripping all of California."

Cogdill Disappointed Legislature Stalled Serious Action to End State Water Crisis

Senator Dave Cogdill (R-Modesto), who also serves as the vice chairman of the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee, today issued the following statement after legislative action on water stalled:

“We have an obligation to get a comprehensive water solution accomplished but what’s on the table is not a serious attempt to get water flowing in our state and help our economy get back on track.

Stakeholders Reject Water Conference Committee Report

California Farm Bureau Federation
(Excerpts from a letter addressed to the California Legislature)

Water Conference Committee Report – Oppose
September 10, 2009

“We support a comprehensive water package that includes new surface storage with continuous appropriation, improved conveyance, protection of existing water rights and public funding for environmental improvements.

Robbing Peter’s Water to Fill Paul’s Pool

SACRAMENTO: Senator Sam Aanestad (R-Grass Valley) says there are serious problems with the Conference Committee Report that was issued by the Legislative Conference Committee on Water late last night. Senator Aanestad, who served on the committee, says the report is not only missing key Republican proposals for new water storage and a plan to transport additional supplies to water users – the tough conservation mandates contained in the report do not apply to all cities in California.

Senator Cogdill Issues Statement After Water Conference Committee Issues Report Without Republican Input

Senator Dave Cogdill (R-Modesto) today issued the following statement after the water conference committee submitted its report without Republican input:

"The conference report is an unbalanced package of bills that ignores the need for a reliable water supply and only caters to the interests of extreme environmentalists. These bills will guarantee that we never improve the failing condition of California's water system. We had hoped that the Democrats had listened to the numerous hours of public testimony before drafting their conference report but it appears they haven't heard the cries of farmers, farm workers, businesses and residents throughout the state. As Republicans, we wholeheartedly agree that we must fix the fragile Delta while at the same time bolstering our economy. This package of bills disregards the co-equal nature of these goals and will do nothing to create jobs and keep water flowing in this state."