If you read a Breitbart News story earlier this month about the Klamath River, you’d be excused for thinking those of us who live along the river are doomed to die in watery graves as soon as the largest dam removal project in U.S. history is complete.
You’d also be very wrong, both for taking a Breitbart story at face value and for thinking dam removal will have any substantial impact on flooding along the Klamath River.
The basic premise of the Breitbart story is that the planned removal of four old hydroelectric dams on the Klamath — slated to be completed by 2020 — would make the river more prone to catastrophic flooding.
Consider the story’s first sentence: “While America was distracted as 500,000 cubic feet per second of water flooded over the Oroville Dam, the Klamath River flooded in what could have been a catastrophe if Gov. Jerry Brown had already completed his funded plan to tear down four of its dams.”
There are a number of problems with this sentence. First of all, the plan isn’t Brown’s — it was an accord reached primarily between a private company, Pacificorp, the federal government, the states of Oregon and California and a number of local tribes. While Brown and his administration were certainly supportive, no one involved would point to him as the driving force behind the agreement, which stemmed from a pact reached in 2010 by a host of Klamath stakeholders, including tribes, ranchers and farmers. (That deal crumbled when it failed to get congressional approval.) But the main problem with this sentence is that none of the four dams slated for removal does anything substantial when it comes to flood control — it’s not what they were built for, but we’ll get back to that later.
The story then notes — inaccurately — that the Klamath River surpassed flood stage on Feb. 10 (it actually happened Feb. 9, but that’s probably an honest mistake) before receding in the following days. The story then states that additional rain in the forecast will “probably cause another flood.” It did not, according to National Weather Service meteorologist Reginald Kennedy.
Speaking to the Journal, Kennedy said the river has actually continued to recede since reaching its high point of 41 feet, recorded just upriver from the Klamath River Bridge on U.S. Highway 101. But the larger problems begin in the next paragraph, when Brietbart reporter Chriss W. Street references that the plan to “tear down four sustainable hydroelectric dams” comes because Pacificorp is unable to “modernize the structures due to the Brown administration and environmentalist lawsuits.”
In fact, the modernization requirements come from federal law and from a federal authority — the Federal Energy Regulation Commission — and the dams are, in fact, unsustainable, according to Pacificorp, which has determined it isn’t in the company’s financial best interest to continue operating them because “modernizing” them would cost more than removing them and the dams simply are no longer a cost-effective way to produce power.
Street then notes, accurately, that North Coast counties have always been susceptible to flooding before once again straying from the truth. “That is why the Klamath River Project, built in the early 20th century, featured a system of seven dams and a network of sustainable hydroelectric power stations to slow the raging flood waters,” Street writes in what can only be considered a pretty substantial distortion. Now, to be fair, it’s unclear whether Street is referencing the Klamath Project or the Klamath River Hydroelectric Project but either way he’s wrong as neither was built with the primary intention of controlling flood waters.
The Klamath Project — featuring seven dams, a series of canals and pumping stations — was designed to divert water from the river into an irrigation system that allowed for the transformation of hundreds of thousands of acres of rangeland into farmland. The Klamath River Hydroelectric Project, meanwhile, included eight dams — including the four slated for removal — and, as its name attests, was aimed to providing cheap hydroelectric power to farmers and ranchers in the area.
Now, Link River Dam, built in 1921 in Klamath Falls, Oregon, and a central piece of both projects, does have a deep reservoir with a capacity to hold 873,000 acre feet of water, but it isn’t one of the dams currently slated for removal. Those dams — Iron Gate, Copco 1, Copco 2 and John C. Boyle — have virtually no flexible storage capacity.
Some dams are used quite effectively for flood control. These are dams with reservoirs capable of storing large amounts of water that allow people to control river flows by letting the reservoir fill during extreme weather events and then letting additional water downriver when the storm subsides. Shasta Dam on the Sacramento River, for example, has a reservoir that holds up to 4.5 million acre feet of water. Closer to home, Trinity Dam on Trinity River has a reservoir — Trinity Lake — with the capacity to hold more than 2.4 million acre feet of water.
In contrast, the reservoirs attached to the four Klamath River dams slated for removal have a flexible storage capacity of about 11,000 acre feet, according to Karuk Tribe Natural Resources Policy Advocate Craig Tucker, who’s been working on Klamath dam issues for decades.
“The fact is the Klamath dams don’t really do much for flood control,” Tucker said. “They don’t.”
Bob Gravely, a spokesman for Pacificorp, agreed. “In general, the reservoirs for the Klamath dams are not really there as flood control,” he said. “There’s some minimal ability to (affect flows), but that’s not what they’re there for. If there was any type of serious flood event, you wouldn’t be able to stop that.”
Interestingly, Tucker pointed out that the original Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement — the one scuttled by congressional inaction — would have actually increased the ability for flood control on the river, as it provided for the restoration and expansion of upper Klamath Lake and would have added almost 100,000 acre feet of water storage capacity.
That gets no mention in Street’s piece, which somewhat comically goes on to talk about the devastation caused by flooding in 1955 and 1964, pointing out that the ’55 flood caused 74 deaths and $200 million in property damage in all of California. He then moves on to the 1964 flood, which did devastate swaths of the North Coast, including Klamath, knocking out the former U.S. Highway 101 bridge over the river. However, the flood came after all of the Klamath dams were in place, a fact that goes unmentioned in Street’s story.
Street links devastation from the flooding to then Gov. Pat Brown’s loss in the 1966 governor’s race to Ronald Reagan, saying Brown had provided very little in the way of flood control infrastructure on the North Coast, which “tarnished” his reputation. This is a stretch, but probably the subject of a different article.
Street wraps his piece up with a doozy of a kicker — one that both overstates the facts on the ground and offers a fictional hypothetical:
“The un-noticed Klamath River, even with its dam system still in place, is expected to flood and potentially cause serious damage to the North Coast when the rains hit. If four of the seven dams were already torn down, the flood and destruction from the Klamath River would likely have been epic.”
Again, the Klamath was never expected to flood to the point of causing serious damage at any point this month. And, looking back, the only inconvenience even caused by flooding along the Klamath this month came from flooding tributaries, which necessitated a few road closures, according to Kennedy.
In short, Breitbart’s coverage of the Klamath is fatally flawed — so much so it’s fair to wonder what the motive is, especially given the fringe news organization’s ties with the new administration occupying the White House. Could this be the first sign that President Donald Trump is thinking about trying to scuttle the new dam removal deal, which would be the biggest restoration project in U.S. history?
If so, Tucker said Trump would seemingly be working against all he stands for.
“All I can say is, they don’t want the government telling corporate America their business,” he said. “Pacificorp wants to remove these dams. Are you really going to tell them they need to continue to operate them? Are you really going to tell them they need to continue losing money on them? That’s the most un-capitalistic thing I’ve ever heard.”
But maybe we’re just reading too much into this. After all, the story came from a news organization that has run headlines like: “Planned Parenthood’s Body Count Under Cecile Richards is up to Half a Holocaust,” “Birth Control Makes Women Unattractive and Crazy,” and “Gay Rights Have Made Us Dumber, it’s Time to Get Back in the Closet.” So, yeah. But it also must be pointed out that just Friday Breitbart had a seat at a press briefing with White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer while CNN and the New York Times were barred from attending and labeled as “fake news.”
Editor’s note: This story was corrected from a previous version that incorrectly listed Craig Tucker’s job title. The Journal regrets the error.
Related Stories
This article appears in Last Night at Roy’s.
As I remarked the other day, the dodgiest part of that whole sad article is that allegation regarding the Pat Brown-Ronald Regan election hinging on North Coast flooding:
“It’s laughable to suggest that big city California voters gave any fucks whatsoever about the conditions of life on the North Coast, whether in 1966 or today.”
In reading Mr. Greensons condescending opinion piece reply to That Dam Breitbart Story, I am heartened that Breitbart readers may be excused by Mr. Greenson for daring to agree with something other than Mr. Greenson’s paid-for-print activism. My question is, who will forgive Mr. Greenson?
It sadly seems that unaccountable self-assured intellectual arrogance and assumptive ignorance all too often walk hand in hand.
We are 4 generations on and in the Klamath River at the focal point of dams impact rhetoric, before and after Iron Gate, though apparently not encompassing the profound knowledge of Mr. Greenson writing 180 miles downstream. Of course, we must also apparently defer the resident majority regionally affected experience, documentation, and current studies to the paid-for-agenda predefined position for which Mr. Tucker was imported to promote.
Iron Gate releases average approximately 12% of the volume at the estuary, and the flood conditions destructive to the upper river that Mr. Greenson so easily dismisses often occur with levels comprising less than 3-10% of those typical to same time estuary non-destructive winter flows. We experienced the almost yearly inundation, riparian erosion, sedimentation, environmental degradation, and regional losses that occurred prior to the needed added capacity which Upper Klamath Lake and Copco alone were unable to quell. Those pundits regurgitating agenda constructed bullet points for the uninformed, such as no flood protection, should consider reading the engineering completed years ago supporting regional reality by describing a debris capturing minimum 9 hour attenuation period provided by those reservoirs during high flow events. Though he may be forgiven for stating Upper Klamath Lake averaging less than 8 feet in depth as a deep reservoir, Mr. Greensons solution of increased Upper Klamath Lake capacity to compensate for loss fails to consider the lack of Agreement assured funding or even a practical ability to do so, or the often far greater flood contributions added to the canyon between Link and Iron Gate. None of the profound regularly experienced damages to our region have occurred in the years since Iron Gate, a large part of why it WAS and is still supported by locals.
Virtually EVERY original profiting special interest assured bullet point fabricated in the creation of secret and exclusionary dams removal imposition Agreements has been subsequently shown by experiment and currently monitored data to be completely unsupported and defective in premise. However, NONE of that public rhetoric or orchestrating biological opinions are being allowed alteration until AFTER the hydroelectric/water storage/hatchery facilities are slated for destruction to secure a rewilding agenda. Nearly 80% of those most affected and knowledgeable concerning the facilities now proven environmental benefits have officially voted to keep the dams, but of course Mr. Greenson is infinitely wiser. Current data is now revealing facilities profound and irreplaceable benefits regarding unameliorable natural Upper Basin conditions including biological nutrient sequestration, mircrocystin, and temperatures, and yet none of that is currently allowed in the frenzied maneuvering to forcing environmental/public/private loss and uncompensated confiscation upon the majority most affected before the uninformed become aware or care. Impairments have now been proven benefits, and volitional passage for millions of salmon to hundreds of miles of previous habitat has been refuted not only by ignored pre-Project historical documentation and majority multi-generational experience, but now by proponents own paid studies trying to prove the opposite. Freedom of PacifiCorp choice was NOT the mantra uttered prior to continued threat of seated members proponent lawsuits and specifically altered 401 permits to effectively force Agreement acquiescence, nor does it address the impacts to the unrepresented public/private affected interests in a quasi-public entity facility. A myriad of documented examples exposed by diverse whistleblowers proving the extent of corruption to achieve pre-defined policy directives is available to any who wish to research. Multiple PROVEN alternatives to removals of dams certified in EXCELLENT condition have been repeatedly presented for a FRACTION of removal costs, damage, and risks, but NONE are considered in the face of this one outcome special interest agenda refusing to amend now proven defective FERC EIR mandates. None has said Governor Brown STARTED the removals, but his Water Crisis Management Plan policy directed order that ALL his appointed agencies, including DWR, DFG, and CPUC, WILL do whatever is required to facilitate Klamath Dams removals (which they have) is hardly exculpatory. But then, Mr. Greenson obviously knows all this. Even stranger, had he examined equally available statistics of salmon returns to the dams region over the last hundred years, he might find it not only suggests no pre-Project statistical decline, and in fact productive consistency, but a significant INCREASE of returns with the addition of Iron Gate artificially further enhanced downstream conditions.
Hopefully, Mr. Greenson, I will be another one that the readers might forgive. However, in your accusation to the prior author, whom I dont personally know, questioning his possible motive, I find it interesting throughout this debacle, I have yet to hear of ANYONE from the most knowledgeable and affected majority speaking in opposition to the environmentally and regionally destructive removals who is paid or reimbursed for their moral obligation to do so. On the other hand, in their attempt to divide and conquer a previously trusting regional community, I have also yet to hear a SINGLE locally knowledgeable PROPONENT for removals who ISNT personally profiting from their position, and absolutely NONE who are willing to be held liable for the damages caused. Are you the exception, Mr. Greenson? I thought not.
Hey COZ. Thanks for that rambling TL;DR pile of shit. “Paid-for-print activism”? Sorry, you’re projecting; that’s what Bretshit does; paid-for-propaganda. This article clearly pointed out a bad piece of journalism that came out of Breitbart and backed it up with facts that contradicted claims made by Chriss Street. It’s not Mr. Greenson’s fault that you’re a brainwashed idiot. You also provide no sources for your claims in your comment, so I’m going to assume you’re full of shit.
Dear Wow?
Thanks for your insightful and articulate response, especially for profiling me as a brainwashed idiot piece of s***. Certainly cant question your intellectual perspective or Klamath expertise.
Brainwashed has been defined as subjected to intensive forced indoctrination resulting in the rejection of old beliefs and acceptance of new ones. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/brainwashed
It is difficult to claim that someone has been brainwashed whose beliefs were formed by actual experiences. Even today being in the water over 50 times a year, I virtually lived in the Klamath at our location before and after Iron Gate, as my grandfather before me. As a youth, I spoke with a number of my grandfathers senior acquaintances born in the region as early as the 1870s, Tribal, mixed, and offspring of settlors. Though inquired separately, they were yet virtually unanimous in their recollections of pre-Project and post Project conditions. Every local multigenerational resident I have spoken with since has remarkably presented almost the exact same renditions, of which many of those facts have been further supported by historical documentation and archeological evidence. Our personal experiences and current studies have continued to confirm those earlier observations. Obviously, your experiences in this most dams impacted region must be equally extensive and in conflict for you to hold such profound response.
As to the references you refer, you obviously must be a person who revels in the certainties of academia. I have read each of the following in the past and much more, many of them multiple times. No doubt you have as well. If you are someone who can actually make a difference in this process, I would be happy to discuss any or all of them.
Have a great day.
Your faithful Brainwashed Idiot Piece of S*** (BIPOS)
References
1. Atlas of Oregon Lakes , Johnson, et al. 1985) (Upper Klamath Lake eutrophic conditions)
2. Spatial and Temporal Dynamics of Cyanotoxins and Their Relation to Other Water Quality Variables in Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon, 200709, By Sara L. Caldwell Eldridge, Tamara M. Wood, and Kathy R. Echols, Scientific Investigations Report 2012-5069 USGS/BOR
3. Upper Klamath Lake Basin Nutrient-Loading StudyAssessment of Historic Flows in the Williamson and Sprague Rivers, By JOHN C. RISLEY and ANTONIUS LAENEN U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 984198 1999
4. CAUSES AND EFFECTS OF NUTRIENT CONDITIONS IN THE UPPER KLAMATH RIVER Klamath Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 2082) PacifiCorp Portland, Oregon November 2006
5. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microcystis_aeruginosa microcystis aeruginso
6. Recreational exposure to microcystins during algal blooms in two California lakes Lorraine C. Backer,*, Sandra V. McNeel b, Terry Barber, Barbara Kirkpatrick, Christopher Williams, Mitch Irvin, Yue Zhou, Trisha B. Johnson, Kate Nierenber, Mark Aubel, Rebecca LePrell , Andrew Chapman, Amanda Foss, Susan Corum, Vincent R. Hill, Stephanie M. Kieszak, Yung-Sung Cheng 2009
7. Comment for July 8, 2010 Klamath Hydro Settlement NEPA Federal Hearing on Klamath Dams Removal – Gail Whitsett (sediment study biased invalidation)
8. NUTRIENT LOADING OF SURFACE WATERS IN THE UPPER KLAMATH BASIN: AGRICULTURAL AND NATURAL SOURCES, K.A. Rykbost and B.A. Charlton, March 2001 (failure of marshes in less water and higher phosphorus)
9. Paleolimnological evidence of change in a shallow, hypereutrophic lake: Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon, USA, J.M. Eilers, J. Kann et al, March 2003 (Shift of algae to aphanizomenon flos aquae, no total cyanobacterial increases, little chemical changes, change in N:P ratios he assumes to agriculture/forestry when current association more likely temporary condition of prior drained marsh organic decomposition with humic acid shift)
There are 225 references I attempted to post with the last message and several more times without success. As with this message, not sure if they will show up later or not at all. Let me know if you wish to see more and I will continue to try.
Thadeus does a good job, for the most part, debunking “problems” with Breitbart’s Klamath dams story. He relies on the Karuk Tribe’s Craig Tucker for his facts. Craig knows a lot about the Klamath but apparently there are some things he does not know or wishes to misrepresent. Here are “facts” which the article got wrong:
1. The Klamath Irrigation project did not, as claimed, transform “rangeland into farmland” via irrigation water. In fact, much of the 200,000 acre Klamath Irrigation Project, including the most productive and profitable ag land, is in the diked and drained beds of Tule Lake (now 1/10th its original size) and Lower Klamath Lake (also now a fraction of its original size). While The Reclamation Act of 1905 was sold to Congress as “reclaim the dessert” all over the West it was mostly really “drain the wetlands” which is where the most valuable ag lands could be created just by diking and draining.
2. While the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement “provided for the restoration and expansion of upper Klamath Lake and would have added almost 100,000 acre feet of water storage capacity” that action would not, as Tucker claims, have “increased the ability for flood control on the river”. That’s because the KBRA would have locked in keeping Upper Klamath Lake full as early in the year as possible leaving little to no flood control ability to the US Bureau of Reclamation using Upper Klamath Lake. Furthermore, federal appropriations for lake expansion would and will be sought with or without the KBRA or any other water deal cooked up in the back room. Tucker knows this but apparently he can just not let go! To learn about the rest of the bad things in the KBRA – like its 19 pages of “Regulatory Assurances” designed to relive federal irrigators of the burden of ESA and state fish and wildlife laws – see http://www.KlamBlog.blogspot.com.
The article also omitted important facts, for example, the fact that in winter Lost River flows are diverted to the Klamath River to prevent flooding of the ton of Tulelake and surrounding farmlands which are in the bed of the original Tule Lake.
Most importantly, the article did not mention how the US Bureau of Reclamation actually does prevent sending flood waters (which would also take out Iron Gate Dam) down the Klamath River. When necessary, Reclamation uses its irrigation infrastructure to spread the water onto the bed of the former Lower Klamath Lake before that water can flow into the Klamath Canyon. With the exception of some wildlife refuge wetlands, those lands are now used to grow grain and as pasture for livestock. The grain fields benefit from flooding and the livestock are moved to higher ground when that area must be flooded to save the dams below.
Once the dams are removed (and they will be because it is in the interest of PacifiCorp and its owner Berkshire Hathaway Investments that they be removed) Reclamation will still be able to divert potential Klamath flood waters into the reclaimed bed of Lower Klamath Lake. As long as the US Bureau of reclamations manages the water properly, no Klamath River flooding will come from the Upper Basin. One should bear in mind, however, that Upper Basin flows controlled by Reclamation are only a fraction of total Klamath flows. Rain on snow in the Klamath Mountains west of Interstate 5 drives the Klamath’s major floods.
Thadeus, you really should have called Reclamation about the flooding; Mr. Tucker is knowledgeable but even he does not know it all.