By: Richard Alves
November 6, 2003

NRC Klamath Report Recommendations Include Dam Removal
By: Dan Bacher

The long awaited, 300 plus page, National Research Council Klamath Report was released by the Department of the Interior last week. The implications of implementing its findings were clouded by a clear vision of what needs to be done first to begin the restoration process, and a flurry of other reports being released contradicting NRC findings; such as the Oregon Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team's report on the Klamath Reclamation Project and the USFWS report on the 2002 Fish Kill which was leaked to the press by an employee the same day the NRC report was released.

Most stakeholder groups hailed the report as a blueprint for what needs to be done in the basin. "There's something in there for everyone," was a common phrase I heard from those who had read the report. Irrigators in the Upper Klamath Basin said the report may act as a catalyst for change on a large-scale level. Local Congressmen Wally Herger, California (R), and Greg Walden, Oregon (R), both issued statements claiming the report exonerated farmers from responsibility in last years fish kill.

The timing of the report's release led many conservationists to question the Bush Administration's sincerity in restoring the health of the Basin's fisheries. Michael Ives from Humboldt State University said, "Reports favorable to the Bush Administration position get rolled out on the red carpet and exulted; reports unfavorable get buried on some bureaucrats desk (i.e., USFWS 2002 Fish Kill) or get stalled because of contract 'disagreements' (i.e., Hardy II)." It was very convenient and fruitful to delay the release of the USFWS report until after the NRC report was finalized. That way the NRC could save face and still give Bush and friends what they wanted (i.e., no conclusive evidence that low flows contributed to the fish kill).

According to the Associated Press, Peter Moyle, one of the scientists who wrote the research council report, said one reason the council's report took so long to be released was that scientists were waiting for the Fish and Wildlife report. They never got it. He said while the data on the fish kill is scant, it would have helped the council in drafting its conclusions.

Both the USFWS report and the Oregon IMST report say low flows were a major contributing factor in the 2002 fish kill.

Although the remainder of the report has so far held up to scrutiny by the scientific community, the failure of the report to include pertinent data will certainly prove to be its Achilles heel. What other information wasn't included in the report? Is a question that will certainly be asked by the Congress when funding is requested to begin restoration, and by lawyers representing any group in disagreement with implementation of the report's findings.

The report focused on three distinctly different geographical areas: Klamath Lake and the upper basin tributary rivers, the main stem and tributaries from Iron Gate to the confluence with the Trinity, and the Trinity River.
Top of Page

Upper Klamath Lake and Basin

The Klamath Lake findings concentrated on restoration of the c-wam and kuptu (short nosed and Lost River Suckers) fisheries. Detailed chemical and water studies of the lake illustrated how high levels of naturally occurring phosphorous augmented by sewage treatment for Klamath Falls and fertilizer run-off, combined with additional sunlight due to a loss of wetlands, created a change in algae blooms from historic norms. Natural wind conditions create toxic conditions for fish when the lake turns over.

The report calls for the removal of the Chiloquin dam to open up historic spawning habitat and provide refuge for the c-wam and kuptu when poor naturally occurring water conditions are present in Klamath Lake. Although lake water levels were found not to be a factor in the annual algae blooms, reducing the amount of fluctuation between high and low water from 6 feet to 3 feet during the season could help reduce the blooms during dry years.

Miles of riparian zone restoration along the Sprague and Williamson rivers would be required to provide suitable habitat. A reduction in irrigation along those rivers would be required to provide suitable water temperatures during the summer.

The largest agricultural area in the Klamath Basin, the Klamath Water Project, is in the Klamath Falls and Tule Lake region. The report concluded that the leases to farmers of irrigated game refuge property should be discontinued and hydrology studies be done to determine the effects of pumping ground water on the basin's aquifier. The report's non-finding on low flows virtually left the KWP farmers off the hook for having to take on any restoration efforts or reduce water use in their farming practices.
Top of Page

Main Stem

The report's focus shifted to requirements for successful coho salmon restoration from the Iron Gate dam to the river mouth. The reported noted coho fry live in the system for a year before they migrate out to sea. Their survival is dependent on being able to find cool enough water to survive the summer.

Historically, flows in the main stem are warm because of the wetlands and the shallow depth of Upper Klamath Lake. Coho depend on the cool water of the main tributaries in the mid Klamath to provide suitable habitat in the main stem and to provide access to the high mountain streams crucial to juvenile survival during summer.

Three principal sources of cold water have been cut-off since the mid 1930s. The Shasta and Scott Rivers in California were diverted for agricultural use; the adjudication required no water be held for wildlife. Jenny Creek was diverted to supply water for both the agriculture and urban areas of Southern Oregon.

The report found if coho are going to survive, significant amounts of cold water had to be returned to the system. In calling for the removal of Dwinnell dam, on the Shasta River, the report noted the reservoir it creates, Lake Shastina, seeps more water into the ground than it provides for agriculture. Scott River farmers were told flows of cold water had to remain in the river throughout the summer. The Scott is usually dry by mid June due to Ag diversions and, because of the structure of the aquifer, pumping of ground water drains the river. The only way to get colder water out of the Scott is to drastically reduce Ag requirements. For both rivers, riparian restoration of the rivers and their tributaries is called for to provide habitat and cool the water.

The closing of the Iron Gate hatchery for two coho life cycles, 6 years, was called for on an experimental basis. The report claims hatchery steelhead and chinook feed on wild coho fry. The report also called for the removal of Iron Gate Dam to provide additional spawning habitat.

The deterioration of salmonid fisheries on the Salmon River was blamed on past logging practices, which have contributed to frequent wildfires. Road building for logging was blamed for sedimentation of the river. Placer mining was named for damaging the river bed. The prescription for restoration is to change logging practices, decommission roads and restore riverbed habitat.
Top of Page

Trinity River

The NRC recommended immediate implementation of the Record of Decision, now being held hostage in court by Westlands Water and Northern California Power Authority.

In General

The report acknowledged over-allocation of water rights in the Klamath Basin and recommended compensation to farmers for water. Farmers can choose to sell or lease all or parts of their farms and/or water rights. A water bank will be established in which water can be bought or sold. Farmers could be compensated not to grow irrigated crops.

The report calls for better cooperation between all California, Oregon and Federal agencies having jurisdiction in the Klamath. It also calls for a Basin wide approach to fixing the region's problems.
Top of Page

Missing in Action

Although the detail of the report was almost overwhelming, strangely missing was a single word about how the fish are supposed to survive until the report's findings are implemented. I guess we can just flip a switch and cold water will flow year round in the Scott and Shasta.

The report was very weak on what needs to be done first. Tasks are categorized to be accomplished soon, later, and very later. Both the hatchery closure and habitat restoration were placed in the soon category. Shutting down the hatchery before suitable coho habitat is restored would be a disaster. The roadmap for how to proceed with the restoration process doesn't exist!

Water districts were hammered for management practices, lack of hydrology studies, lack of records, and in some districts lack of a water master. Other than a cursory mention in the lengthy chapter on "Adaptive Management", current fishery record methods, such as return and take by all stakeholder groups, were not criticized and very few improvements were suggested.

A study of fish passage by the dams currently obstructing the river from Iron Gate to Kalamth Falls was not suggested. A detailed explanation was provided about how toxic water conditions (for fish) could develop in John Boyle Reservoir, but only in support of their reasoning for removing Iron Gate Dam. By ignoring this possibility, they didn't have to address the pollution of Lake Ewuana by Boise Cascade in Klamath Falls, the Jenny Creek Diversion, or having to restore wetlands in Lower Klamath Lake. In fairness to the NRC, steelhead and redband trout are not on the endangered species list yet so fish passage is a peripheral issue at the moment.

The report did not call for a feasibility study for the recently proposed Long Valley Reservoir.

Population growth in California and Southern Oregon and the demands for water it will create in fifty years or a hundred years was not addressed.

When the Trinity dam was built a study was done and surveys carried out for diverting water from the Copco area south to the Sacramento River. The route would be suitable for diverting water used by the Klamath Water Project, from which the report asks nothing, to the Scott and Shasta River farmers, which would lose all their water. It would be a way to more fairly distribute water to the entire Basin's Ag community. If you grow potatoes for Frito-Lay use as much water as you want. If you're a small farm...

The electricity generated by the Trinity diversion could also be used to pump water to the Scott and Shasta Rivers from Trinity Lake (Clair Engle) but this would mean less water for Westlands Water (read large Agri-business), currently decommissioning their farms because of boron poisoning and selenium run-off, to sell to Los Angeles at a profit of $800.00+ per acre-foot. NCPA, Northern California Power Authority, would also lose some very cheap power.
Top of Page

Lost In Space

Because there is no suggested timeline for implementation, or they don't have high expectations of implementation, the report's cost analysis is way off. The report projects costs, exclusive of removing Iron Gate Dam, at $25-30 Million over 10 years. I did some simple math using a figure of $2,000.00 per acre, a figure close to what BLM has been using for land buyouts in Southern Oregon. The cost for purchasing riparian land 200 feet on either side of the Scott, Shasta, Williamson and Sprague Rivers would cost $30 million. Cost for restoration would be at least double that.

With 600,000 acre-feet of water being shipped to Westlands Water per year, at a commercial value of $800 per/af, the value of water being exported from the Klamath Basin is in the range of $480,000,000.00 per year.

Liberal cost projections for restoration of the Basin are in the $1 billion range over the first 25 years. In comparison to the value the Klamath Basin Eco-system is contributing to the economy, it's miniscule.

The issue is not whether we have the resources to restore the Klamath Eco-system, but whether we have the will to demand some of those resources be used to clean up the mess we've created over the last 150 years rather than be used to make a few people like Bill Jones filthy rich.

The Thompson bill, introduced to address some of the issues covered by the report, languishes in congress. A supposedly independent scientific panel spends 20 months to develop a report jaded by political influence and whose findings are weighted to the benefit of major corporations. Alameda (liberal unless it's going to cost us something), an NCPA member, cannot swallow a $10.00 per house per year cost of dropping support for the Westlands Suit. A summit meeting between California and Oregon governors, such as the one that led to restoration of the Rio Grande River (Scientific American: Restoring the Rio: Efforts to keep the Rio Grande filled with water) can't be called because California hasn't had a governor for months! Supervisors of the largest county in the Klamath Basin don't believe there is a problem with the fishery. And to top it all, Senator Gordon Smith, (R) Oregon and the main beneficiary of last year's fish kill, called for immediate funding to begin implementation of ALL the report's recommendations...mmmm

As good as the report's recommendations are, I found what the report didn't say more interesting. By allowing the politicians to control them, the NRC and their report lost all credibility. That is a tragedy. One can only hope that people get mad enough about endangered species being used as a political football to do something about it!

To put a new spin on an old Star-Trek line... The needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many.

Top of Page

More Articles by Richard Alves