Be the Spark!

contribute now

John DeVoe's comments:

on The Biomass Question

Thanks for asking the question about water, but the question, while valid for most biomass/green energy type projects (ethanol anyone?) was really designed here for the Boardman discussion.

posted 2 years, 3 months ago
view in context

on The Biomass Question

Ask the water question.

I've heard that this cane crop would require 100,000 irrigated acres using 3 acre feet of water per acre to supplant coal at Boardman.

300,000 acre feet of water in the Boardman area, assuming this invasive species "crop" would be grown locally? Really?

That water is not simply not available unless 1. the cane crop replaces existing food crops (which won't happen) or 2. Biomass promoters overturn programs designed to protect migrating salmon in the Columbia River (leagally, politically and culturally unacceptable) or 3. some massive water storage project is constructed that uses winter water from the Columbia when salmon are not migrating. (Fiscally irresponsible) Promoters will no doubt want the public to pay for some or all of this storage project.

Putting aside all of the other concerns about this proposal, this project is not feasible or environmentally sustainable from a water perpective. Like many other "green" energy proposals, this one also fails to consider the water footprint of the process when claiming sustainability etc.  

posted 2 years, 3 months ago
view in context

on Agreement on the Klamath River

Larry,

As you no doubt know, having run the models yourself, in the late summer and fall, the KBRA would reduce streamflows in the Klamath River as compared to current requirements for coho salmon under the ESA. In fact, the low flows contemplated under the KBRA model are less than half of current flows required for coho and well below flows in 2002, the year of the tragic fish kill on the Klamath. That's not balance, that's unacceptable.

The KBRA delivers more water to the Project irrigators than they get under the current Biological Opinion for coho. In order to claim a reduction in ag deliveries of water, as you and others have done, you must use an artificially constrained historical record of water use that DOES NOT INCLUDE the years when coho have been listed under the ESA. Thus, the KBRA represents a rollback of the streamflows called for by the best available science.

Of course, Hardy only supported the KBRA in a highly qualified manner after he initially expressed serious concerns with it that have not been addressed.

To say that these deals are not about politics. . . . sorry, I think we all know that politics are playing a major role in this process.

posted 4 years, 6 months ago
view in context

on Agreement on the Klamath River

Yes, but the deal attempts to route BPA power at cheap rates to the basin. There are also credits that are power subsidies in the KBRA. The contracts, pursuant to rulings of the Oregon and California Public Utility Commissions, were terminated but rates are now in the process of ramping to normal rates.

posted 4 years, 6 months ago
view in context

on Agreement on the Klamath River

Vainix, As you no doubt know, the Hoopa tribe has not joined and does not support either the AIP or the KBRA.

posted 4 years, 6 months ago
view in context

on Agreement on the Klamath River

The question Vainix, is what is sustainable agriculture in the basin? It is not sustainable to provide guarantees of water for agribusiness in the Klamath Project while providing NO guarantees for flows in the Klamath River or lake levels in Upper Klamath Lake and listed fish under the ESA. This will not solve the conflict and does not represent a balanced solution. This deal continues the root cause of the crisis - which is that too much water has been promised to too many interests. Until we bring demand for water back into balance with what nature can provide, legitimate interests, including ag, tribes and fish, will suffer in the basin.

posted 4 years, 6 months ago
view in context

on Agreement on the Klamath River

Like the draft KBRA released in February, the agreement in principle with PacifiCorp is defective. Few seem to want to discuss the hard details of either of these agreements. Perhaps that is precisely because the deal points are troubling when actually examined and interfere with the feel good story that is often promoted.

Let's be frank - just as the President was in his Klamath press release today when he concluded the release by stating - "Together, we have produced an agreement that will greatly reduce the risk of future shutdowns of the irrigation system." That, and delivering other guarantees and sweet heart deals to the administration's agribusiness supporters in the basin, is in large part what these two deals have been about. But the Klamath is about much more than agribusiness.

This administration did not suddenly get religion on salmon and river health. Look, the house has been foreclosed upon and the administration is in the process of stripping the fixtures. Why we would applaud that is a mystery.

Just what does the AIP do? Well, the AIP

1. does not remove any dams but does suspend operation of the Clean Water Act and California's Environmental Quality Act as to these dams for many years. Oregon and California's Clean Water Act "401 certification" processes are now halted by the AIP. The dams need to be removed, but not at the expense of other important conservation values in the basin. The FERC relicensing process that has now been short circuited was a huge opportunity to see that result in our lifetimes.

2. does not remove any dams but does attempt to force Bonneville Power to the table to deliver cheap electrical power to Klamath Basin irrigators, in effect overruling the decisions of the Oregon and California Public Utility Commissions ramping those irrigators to 21st century power rates over time.

3. does not remove any dams but does provide multiple "off-ramps" from the pathway to dam removal that reduce the likelihood of the result being touted - dam removal - from ever occurring.

4. does not remove any dams but does "indivisibly" link the AIP with the seriously flawed Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement that provides guaranteed water for agribusiness in the basin but NO guarantees of water for fish and wildlife in the Klamath River. The KBRA does NOT mandate that ag get by on less water (the plug above gets it wrong again) IF the baseline one uses for comparison is the existing requirement for Klamath River flows under the Endangered Species Act - which is really the only relevant baseline for comparison because it is the only currently legal baseline for river flows.

5. does not remove any dams but does attempt to lock in 22,000 acres of commercial and environmentally damaging farming on Lower Klamath and Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuges for the next 50 years. These were historically two of the premier waterfowl refuges in the United States. They are the only two refuges in the country that allow large scale commercial farming. With the AIP and the KBRA, the status quo will prevail for another fifty years on these refuges. We will be managing large parts of these refuges as commercial farms, not as national wildlife refuges.

6. attempts to immunize PacifiCorp from liability associated with the dams.

7. saddles ratepayers and taxpayers in Oregon and elsewhere with costs that ought to be paid by PacifiCorp.

9. attempts to saddle the Obama administration with various directives and procedures for addressing Klamath issues in the future.

Let's be clear- environmentalists were NOT at the table during the negotiation of the AIP. The AIP was negotiated in secret by the feds, PacifiCorp, Oregon and California. The final AIP was only rolled out to the so-called conservation caucus YESTERDAY (Wednesday) and was essentially presented as a done deal. Oregon's governor signed the AIP within a few brief hours of the AIP being presented to the participating conservation groups. If that is the "national precedent" your intro above refers to, we're in for a heap of trouble.

One basin west, in the Rogue River Basin, multiple dams have been and are being removed without the sweet heart deals or the scientifically suspect guarantees being made in the Klamath. I suggest if you are looking for a national precedent, and a place where dams have actually been removed and are in the process of being removed, the place to look is the Rogue, not the Klamath.

posted 4 years, 6 months ago
view in context

Thanks to our Sponsor:
become a sponsor
Web Analytics