Since it was announced last week that a deal had been reached for the probable removal of four dams on the Klamath River, I’ve been ecstatic. The Klamath dams have been the cause of massive fish kills, are owned by the richest man in America Warren Buffett, do not provide green energy, have shut down west coast fisheries, and have hurt the Native American culture.  Of course, since the Bush administration negotiated the deal, I am wary there may be a hidden agenda for this once mighty river in my neighborhood.

Should the nonbinding deal go through, this would be the largest dam removal project in US history.  The alternative for PacificCorp to re-license the dams was to build fish ladders mandated by federal biologists costing $300 million. Dam removal is the cheapest option and the best decision for the health of endangered salmon on the Klamath River. The California Energy Commission reported PacifiCorp could save $101 million over the next 30 years if the dams were removed and replacement power bought.  As part of the deal, ratepayers will foot $200 million in removal cost, and California will ask voters to approve a $250 million bond.  Studies and analysis will occur until 2012, at which point the dams could be removed in 2020.  Under the deal, PacificCorp would receive immunity from the dams’ environmental liabilities.

Bush wanted the deal to remove the dams, yet his administration has always backed farmers in the dispute over water rights, such as when irrigation was shut off to under the Endangered Species Act in 2001. Even after the Klamath dams’ removal deal was announced on November 13, 2008,  Bush released a statement saying, “Together, we have produced an agreement that will greatly reduce the risk of future shutdowns of the irrigation system.“  Already, the Klamath deal is under attack for supporting farmers over fish. Many suspect the deal will shut down California water quality hearings that may have doomed the dams anyway.

Read more of this story »

After being chided by both Democrats and Republicans over remarks he made this summer about renegotiating the Colorado River Compact, Sen. John McCain said at a recent Colorado campaign stop that he would “never, ever” try to take more of Colorado’s water.

“As a citizen of the great state of Arizona, I want to say on behalf of all my fellow citizens: Thank you for the water,” said McCain to a group of about 2,000 supporters in Pueblo, Colorado.

In August, McCain said the Colorado River water compact should be renegotiated because of the added pressures of growth and development. The comment brought immediate attacks from the state’s top Democrats and even a surprisingly strong response from Republican candidate for U.S. Senate Bob Schaffer who said the compact would only be renegotiated, “Over my cold, dead, political carcass.”

As The Straight Talk Express rolled through the swing-state of Colorado this past week, Sen. McCain went out of his way to reiterate that his August comment was taken out of context. In an interview with the Denver Post and in recent stump speeches, McCain made a concerted effort to mend fences wrought by the gaffe - but will that effort stick? Some are not so sure if it will.

John Orr writes at the Denver Examiner:

“Voters will have to decide if McCain’s current position really reflects his views. He has done an about face on many issues over the summer in an attempt to shore up his faltering campaign. Which statement contains the “straight talk,” renegotiate the compact to provide more water to Arizona or never, never, renegotiate?”

States in the upper Colorado River Basin are extremely sensitive about the water compact they have negotiated with lower basin users (California, Nevada, Arizona).  In Colorado, “renegotiation” is considered synonymous with reallocation, and that is something most Coloradoans—regardless of their political affiliation—consider fighting words.

Image credit: jdnx via flickr under a Creative Commons License