‘Definite Plan’ for Klamath Dam Removal Filed with Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

This is a press release from the County of Humboldt:

Humboldt County Seal 2017The Klamath River Renewal Corporation (KRRC) filed the Definite Plan for Klamath Dam removal with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) [on Friday]. The Definite Plan provides specific details regarding the removal of the lower four Klamath River dams, the largest such effort in U.S. history. At over 1,500 pages, the Definite Plan provides comprehensive analysis and detail on project design, decommissioning, reservoir restoration, and other post-deconstruction activities.

“The release of the Definite Plan represents a major milestone in the effort to remove Klamath dams and restore fisheries on the North Coast,” said Fifth District Supervisor Ryan Sundberg. “Humboldt County continues to be a strong advocate for Klamath dam removal and we support the collaboration of agencies and organizations working hard to make dam removal on the Klamath River a reality.”

The plan to remove Klamath dams stems from a 2010 Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (later amended in 2016) signed by Humboldt County along with the Governors of California and Oregon, Karuk and Yurok Tribes, dam owner PacifiCorp, conservation groups, and other parties. Humboldt County was an active participant in settlement negotiations and is the only county government that is a signatory to the Agreement.

Pursuant to the Agreement, PacifiCorp proposes to transfer ownership of the dams to the non-profit KRRC for removal in 2021 pending regulatory approvals by FERC and the California State Water Resources Control Board. The cost of dam removal will be covered in part by PacifiCorp and in part by the state of California.

A comprehensive review of the benefits of Klamath dam removal by the Interior Department in 2012 concluded that Klamath dam removal would dramatically improve water quality in the Klamath River and increase Chinook salmon populations by 81%. These reports were peer reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences and are available at www.klamathrestoration.gov.

A link to the Definite Plan and more information on the benefits of dam removal and the timeline for regulatory approvals can be found at www.klamathrenewal.org.

For more information, contact Hank Seemann, Deputy-Director, County of Humboldt Public Works at (707) 445-7741.

  • Laytonville Rock
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestmail

13 comments

  • This is huge and will be great for the Klamath.

    It could happen on the Eel too. Don’t be afraid to push for it.

  • Thar has been no fish in the Eel since i was a kid and that was the early 70s

  • >”Thar has been no fish in the Eel since i was a kid and that was the early 70s”

    Eh ? Fishermen used to line up at the 12 th street hole.
    Snagging ‘black’ fish out of there.

    They weren’t edible… big 40-60 lb fish. Wasted spawning run.

  • Know what else is bad for fish? Warm water. Like caused by global warming… caused by burning fuels instead of using clean hydroelectric power. But, no, let’s only consider the short-term…

    • Alt Right For Life

      Nuclear power is the cleanest energy. Putting a few reactors around would ensure energy at a low cost.

      There is plenty of room for nuclear power plants around the area and they should be constructed as the dams are removed.

      • You just caused me to blow coffee out my nose. That’s some funny sh** there. Just ask the people in and around fukishima how cheap that power is. You too funny.

      • Nuclear power plants can only be built in particular areas. Obviously the plat at Fukushima should have never been construed. There MAYBE some site in our country that are appropriate but with our seismic activity, it is questionable.

    • In my 1911 I trust

      Hydroelectric power has been proven to be one of the most inefficient ways of providing energy. Plus its not clean or “renewable” since it requires almost killing whichever river the dam is placed on. That has been shown time and again. Good old oil is better than a dam. One should push for solar or wind energy rather than a dam. Some people actually value a nice, full, healthy river and clean water.

      • How are you defining it as inefficient? It has no fuel input, and produces power. And modern (within the last 80 years or so…) turbines and generators get just about every watt out of the water that’s physically possible. It’s also the most cost-efficient, if that’s the definition you’re using – it’s the cheapest $/watthour of all energy sources, including construction and maintenance costs. It’s both clean, in that it produces no pollution, and renewable, in that it does not depend on nor deplete any finite resource. It also can respond quickly to load changes, and generates all the time, not just during the day or during high winds, which are both important things to have connected to the grid. Or, with suggesting oil is better, are you just trolling?

        • The rivers themselves, and the fish are resources, and only renewable by removing the dams. Polluted sediment is concentrated behind the dam and must be dealt with.

  • This is great news for people on the river.

  • Michael Bailey

    As things in the Eel river, in my back yard heat up and get better it is a relief to see this happen. I want to see the end result, when the fish do come back 80%. For me that will be the gauge to measure the success of this operation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *