Glen Spain member of Klamath River Renewal Corp. ‘KRRC’ board and fisherman’s advocate said “Economics Not Salmon Is the Reason PacifiCorp is Removing the Dams”
YREKA, CALIFORNIA, UNITED STATES, August 5, 2021 /EINPresswire.com/ — Recently presented science and engineering documents prove that the key premise that has been vigorously promoted through propaganda distributed by the Klamath River Renewal Corporation (‘KRRC’) and their support-base of fishing-zealots is false and has been soundly debunked.
More about Mr. Spain’s flip-flop here: https://www.einnews.com/pr_news/546614530/compelling-facts-condemn-krrc-s-proposed-klamath-river-dam-removal-plan
Any unbiased and fully-informed review of KRRC’s proposed dam removal project renders the proposal a ‘non-starter’.
Lets examine why that is the case.
First of all:
Profiting the wealthy, privately-owned PacificCorp (made $23-Billion in 2020) via their relationship through KRRC by way of depriving Americans of their water, property rights, wildlife, tax-dollars, and devastating nature in the process is not acceptable under any circumstances!
These people are willing to destroy an amazing natural wonder for the sake of more profits!
NATURE, Not Man, Barred Salmon Migration On The Upper Klamath River Past Ward Canyon, site of present-day Copco 1 dam and Copco Lake.
Indisputable geologic and engineering records prove that nature had blocked fish migration via a series of several natural lava dams over the course of millions of years!
And one of these lava dams, which was 31-feet-tall, continued to restrict Salmon migration past Ward Canyon on the Upper Klamath River right-up until Copco 1 dam was completed. (SEE IMAGE – Drawing by J.C. Boyle)
Another of the several volcanic lava dams that blocked fish migration the Upper Klamath River for thousands of years, barring fish migration past Ward Canyon was 130-feet-tall, which held back Clammittee Lake, which at one time was 5-miles long and 1-mile wide, and virtually the same size of the present-day Copco Lake. The uneroded sides of that natural 130-foot high dam, which stood for thousands of years, can still be seen today at the site of Copco 1 dam, and was thoroughly detailed in the records related to the engineering plans for Copco 1 dam by J.C. Boyle. (SEE IMAGE ‘130-foot lava dam).
Moreover, when J.C. Boyle arrived at Ward Canyon on the Klamath River Canyon in 1911 to engineer and build Copco 1 dam, he witnessed the 31-foot-tall lava dam, which was one of several lava dams that blocked fish migration for millennia.
Mr. Boyle made a detailed drawing of that 31-foot-tall lava dam and described that natural dam and the natural lake behind that lava dam called ‘Clammittee Lake’, which was smaller in size than when the 130-foot-tall lava dam held back the larger version of the same lake.
Clammittee Lake is within the footprint of the present-day Copco Lake. Over millennia, a myriad of lifeforms evolved in and around this lake and the unique critical habitat that it provided. (SEE IMAGES and VIDEO)
So, it’s an indisputable geologic fact that these high lava dams, which stood for tens of thousands of years, made it impossible for any known fish, let alone Salmon that can only jump a maximum distance of 12-feet high under ideal conditions, to migrate past the area of Ward Canyon and the present-day Copco 1 dam.
This recently presented evidence dismisses the false premise related to Salmon for removing any of the dams in the area of Ward Canyon on the Klamath River.
The Klamath River Basin Compact Act (the ‘Act’) is controlling federal law with regard to the 45-Billion gallons of reserve water impounded by the Upper Klamath River dams and Copco and Iron Gate Lakes.
Legislators and other elected officials who have now been informed of these facts, as well as those herein below, must immediately act to halt the reckless rush to remove these vitally important dams based on a false premise and at great cost to the public and nature, as well as other very concerning issues related to orderly NEPA compliance, and other equally serious issues:
1. Failing to obtain Congressional approval for draining the 45-Billion gallons of reserve fresh water contained in the Klamath River Lakes behind the dams, that is provided by the Klamath River Basin Compact Act (federal law) for the beneficial uses of the public; and,
2. KRRC’s proposed dam removal budget of $450-M is grossly inadequate given that is was calculated half a decade ago and not been properly adjusted for inflation over that period. Nor has it been adjusted for Covid Economic impacts that have been experienced by the construction industry over the past year, where said costs related to this unsound dam removal project have doubled in many areas related to labor, fuel, equipment, insurance and materials that are used during any dam removal project; and,
3. The project places the health, safety and welfare of millions of Americans at risk via the potential illegal taking of the 45-Billion gallons of reserve fresh water that is impounded behind the Upper Klamath River Dams. Aside from generating clean, non-polluting hydroelectric energy for about 80,000 homes and businesses in Jackson County Oregon and Siskiyou County, California, these dams also provide unrestricted amounts of eaily -accessed water from fire suppression for scoop-aircraft and helicopters, as well as for fire-engines and tankers.
More about the importance of lakes for firefighting and ‘Scoop-Aircraft’ here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuLk5hXMRZY
The upper Klamath dams also provide some important flood control features that help protect the bridges homes and towns down-river from catastrophic flooding as is experienced on the Klamath River every 50 years or so.
4. In the process of this ill-conceived and reckless dam removal enterprise, willfully ignorant people propose to burden California and Oregon taxpayers to the tune of $1-Billion dollars in up-front costs to remove the dams!
Added to the initial bill for project costs, will be the untold costs for liability that KRRC is trying to shoulder-upon taxpayers! This costs related to liabilities stemming from KRRC’s proposal could easily mount into the $-billions of dollars.
Such liabilities would include, but not be limited to:
a) Damage to local economies, property values, reduced or lost water-well production; and,
b) Individual and/or class action litigation for air and noise pollution resulting from extreme construction and trucking activities related to dam removal over years; and,
c) Litigation by environmental groups for the devastation of the local flora and fauna in the area around Ward Canyon and the lakes. As well as for the collapse of the Klamath River ecosystem that will result form 20-million cubic yards of polluted sediments being intentionally sent down the Klamath River by KRRC’s project, which will result in the silting-in the spawning grounds for existing salmon and trout down the length of the Klamath River.
5. The destruction of the Klamath River dams and the lakes behind them will also destroy the critical habitat for the myriad of life-forms that have evolved around Clammittee Lake over the millennia.
Today, the eleven-miles of the Klamath River Canyon around Copco and Iron Gate lakes contain an amazing diversity of wildlife, including 89 species of birds, dozens of reptiles and amphibians, several species of fish and 71 species of plants including trees, grasses and forbs. Some species of this localized flora and fauna are threatened or endangered.
There are also numerous species of resident and migratory birds that are strictly protected by California law (AB-454) against any incidental taking!
More about that law here: https://ca.audubon.org/news/victory-audubon-sponsored-bill-protecting-californias-migratory-birds-signed-law
6. The improper transfer of the operating license for the Klamath River dams that was in conflict with settled NEPA law.
7. KRRC’s proposal was originally being funded with private-money that was collected from PacificCorp’s electric consumers in Oregon and California. However, very recently, it has morphed into what is now a ‘public project’ due to the use of hundreds of $-millions of tax-dollars, which now requires legislative oversight by both Califronia and Oregon legislatures.
Siskiyou County, California, through its legal advocates have filed a legal brief and request for a ‘REHEARING’ with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).