Activist’s Corner

Utility could face scrutiny over water quality
Associated Press - 3/21/08

GRANTS PASS, ORE. — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has listed toxins from blue-green algae as another pollutant of the Klamath River behind the hydroelectric dams that Indian tribes, fishermen and conservation groups want removed to make way for salmon.

The algae toxins in the Iron Gate and Copco reservoirs now must be considered along with other pollutants by the California Water Board as it considers whether to grant the Clean Water Act certification needed by the Portland-based utility PacifiCorp to get a new operating license for four hydroelectric dams on the Klamath.

“Now PacifiCorp will have to clean up the toxic algae in the Klamath River,” said Klamath Riverkeeper Regina Chichizola, whose lawsuit against EPA led to reconsideration of the issue. “The state will have a hard time giving them certification.”

The EPA finding did not point to the dams as the source of the algae toxins. That is an issue for later consideration. But it did note that toxins were found at unhealthy levels in the reservoirs behind the dams, and not in the river downstream. Low levels have been found in fish, but not enough to warn people against eating them.

Maintaining that the algae has been found in the river since before the dams, PacifiCorp spokesman Paul Vogel said the utility company did not anticipate the toxins being a significant problem to getting clean water certification.

“We see it as a part of the process, and it is certainly an issue we study,” Vogel said. “We are looking at it and take it very seriously.”

The California Water Board is waiting for a specific proposal on modifications to the series of dams straddling the Oregon-California border before going ahead with the environmental analysis on certification, said board spokesman Bill Rukeyser

“The state of California is fairly concerned about the toxins from blue-green algae on the Klamath,” Rukeyser said. “Our Northcoast Regional Water Board has had to post the reservoirs and portions of the river for those toxins. That has been a concern of ours for several years.”

Alexis Strauss, EPA water division director for the Western states, said she did not think the algae toxins by themselves would prevent clean water certifications, but she noted they come on top of problems with warm water temperatures, low dissolved oxygen, and nutrients from agricultural runoff.

The toxins come from the blue-green algae known as Microcystis aeruginosa. Testing by the Karuk tribe showed levels exceeding World Health Organization guidelines in the Copco Reservoir in 2001. The Copco and Iron Gate reservoirs are regularly posted with health warnings, and last summer warnings were posted far downstream.

Microcystis aeruginosa commonly blooms in warm, slow-moving waters with high levels of phosphorus and nitrogen, nutrients commonly running off agricultural land. The toxin affects the liver and can harm people and animals that swim in or drink tainted waters. The EPA noted there was a report of a dog suffering liver damage after swimming in Copco Reservoir.

Eureka Times Standard - 3/20/08
By Greg King, executive director of the Northcoast Environmental Center

Not long ago, my neighbor said he’d seen me on TV discussing the Northcoast Environmental Center’s opposition to the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement. He seemed puzzled.

“I thought you guys wanted dam removal,” he said. My heart sank. Of course the NEC wants to tear down four Klamath dams. The NEC is an original proponent of dam removal, as we’ve long worked to restore populations of fish and other wildlife along one of America’s greatest rivers.

We want the dams out to open up more than 300 miles of former salmon and steelhead habitat, and to improve the abysmal water quality currently released by the reservoirs behind the dams. But dam removal is only one step, however significant.

The agreement’s most controversial provision allocates to farmers 330,000 to 340,000 acre-feet of water during dry years, and 385,000 acre-feet in wet years. (An acre-foot is literally that: The amount of water it would take to cover one acre of land a foot deep.

This allocation can be renegotiated only during “extreme drought” years, but this “drought plan” will not be created until after the settlement agreement is completed, one of the many unsettling provisions of the agreement.

Also, this allocation is about 10 percent more than farmers currently get during dry years under court-ordered Endangered Species Act protections.

Two species of salmon (chum and pink) are already extinct on the Klamath. Spring Chinook runs are at dangerously low levels. Klamath Coho salmon are listed as “threatened” under the federal Endangered Species Act. Dam removal alone is not enough to prevent further declines. Scientists tell us that the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement may not provide enough water for salmon to avoid extinction, owing to significant allocations to farmers.

The NEC supports farmers. They provide our nation with food, and in many places productive farmland can forestall development and preserve open space. So we hope farmers in the upper Klamath basin are able to secure adequate water supplies, but not at the expense of salmon.

This occurred in 2002, when farmers received 400,000 acre-feet of water and 68,000 adult salmon died in the lower Klamath. Would the agreement prevent such an excessive allocation? Probably. Would an allocation of 330,000 acre-feet also be excessive during even dryer years? Good question.

Last year the NEC hired Dr. Bill Trush of McBain and Trush, and Greg Kamman of Kamman Hydrology, to examine the complex scientific modeling of flow allocations contained in the Agreement. Trush’s primary conclusion was that once dams come out and ag gets its water, there still might not be enough water in the river for fish.

Last month the NEC again hired Trush, this time to create an alternative path that scientists working on the agreement could follow to better ensure fish recovery on the Klamath River.

In that paper, Trush wrote, “The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement relegates salmon and the Klamath River ecosystem to the status of junior water users, while Upper Basin irrigators become the senior water users. This premise squarely places onto the salmon and the river ecosystem any risk inherent in the conclusion that flows contained in the agreement will actually provide enough water for recovery of the species.” (The Trush and Kamman reports are available at http://www.yournec.org.

At the same time, the NEC’s Board of Directors hosted a phone conference with Dr. Thomas Hardy, associate director of the Utah Water Research Laboratory at Utah State University. Hardy’s analyses of Klamath River hydrology are considered to be the best available science for evaluating the river’s fishery.

Hardy confirmed Trush’s conclusions: “Agriculture gets all the guarantees, and everything related to the environment is left to somewhat vague processes and committees.”

In dry years, said Hardy, agriculture in the upper basin will be “taking too much water from the system.” An acceptable agreement, he said, would “guarantee flows for fish first, then other water uses.”

The NEC’s rejection last month of the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement was intended to make it better, and to aid the recovery of the entire Klamath River ecosystem.

We are still negotiating. Already the NEC has spent some $60,000 to review the science and legalities contained in the 256-page agreement, and we’re not done yet.

If we agree to support the settlement, it will be because dams will come down and fish will get the water they need to thrive. That’s our promise to our members, and to the fish.

Greg King, executive director of the Northcoast Environmental Center, lives in Arcata.