KLAMATH FALLS, Ore. - A plan for the Klamath Basin water-use agreements may have expired in Congress, but at least part of it was resuscitated this week.

The states of Oregon and California, the utility PacifiCorp and two federal agencies, the Commerce and Interior Departments, say they're moving forward to amend the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA) to remove four dams in the basin by 2020.

For tribes and sportsmen in the region, it's one more chance to restore native fish runs. Congress couldn't agree on it before last year's session ended, so Klamath Tribes' Chairman Don Gentry says a new approach was needed.

"It's an attempt to keep this in the hands of the states and PacifiCorp and the parties," says Gentry. "The opposition was to federal authorization for dam removal, and so this is basically keeping it out of the hands of the federal government, so it won't require legislation."

Gentry notes it's been almost 100 years since the first dam was built in the region, which cut off migration of salmon and steelhead to the tribes' treaty-rights fishing areas.

Taking out dams is only one phase of a larger, more complex water-rights picture. The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA) is the part that expired at the end of December without congressional approval. That leaves all the parties to that agreement facing all the same concerns about how to share a scarce resource.

But Brian Johnson, the Klamath and California director for Trout Unlimited, says they realize they're still in it together.

"For the master water-sharing, nobody really knows how we'll do it," he says. "But irrigators, ranchers, tribes, conservation groups - we all still see a need to work those issues out and believe that cooperatively is better than fighting about it."

He says all parties will also have a chance to weigh in on the dam-removal proposal as it unfolds.

So far, the states and agencies have agreed only to embark on this new path, the details are still to be worked out. No federal money is needed for removing the dams; PacifiCorp and the State of California will cover it.


get more stories like this via email

The State Water Board now says it will take another two years to finalize the San Francisco-San Joaquin Delta water management plan, and it is proceeding with voluntary agreements with water agencies in the meantime.

Conservation groups spoke out at a workshop held by the board late last week - and some are asking the board to scrap the voluntary agreements.

Ashley Overhouse - California water policy advisor with Defenders of Wildlife - said a new plan to put more water into the estuary is crucial since four species of native fish have made the federal endangered species list since 1992, bringing the total to 6.

"At this point, we're trying to avoid extinction for most native fish populations that rely on the Bay-Delta," said Overhouse. "We're talking about not just delta smelt, we're talking about all runs of salmon, longfin smelt, and sturgeon. They would be completely wiped out."

Over-pumping of freshwater, pollution and climate change contribute to poor water quality. Multiple water agencies pump water from the delta and send it to the farms of the Central Valley and to cities in Southern California.

Other agencies are resisting entreaties to release more water into the delta. The group representing public water agencies, the State Water Contractors, spoke out in favor of the board's decision to move forward with the voluntary agreements.

Overhouse said the whole process has dragged on far too long.

"One of the reasons why this has been held up is due to political reasons," said Overhouse. "Water agencies have delayed the planning process significantly in order to negotiate the amount of water that they would have to release."

The water board is taking public comment on the report that establishes the scientific basis for the voluntary agreements, now through February 8.

The Bay-Delta plan is supposed to be updated every three years but the last major update took place in 1995.

Disappearing mussel species and threatened water quality from development have prompted advocates to push for increased protections for Ohio's Big and Little Darby Creeks.

The Environmental Protection Agency's Outstanding National Resource Waters classification is the highest level of protection under the Clean Water Act for waterways with exceptional recreational or ecological significance.

Chris Tavenor, associate general counsel with the Ohio Environmental Council, said the deadline to submit public comments on the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency's review of the Darby Creeks is January 31.

"Ohio currently has no rivers, lakes or streams that received this level of protection," said Tavenor. "Essentially, the designation would significantly limit all future new point source pollution into the streams."

Submit comments online at 'theoec.org.'

Forty-one species of freshwater mussels live in Darby Creek waters - eight of which are on Ohio's endangered list, according to the state Department of Natural Resources.

The Pew Charitable Trusts says the federal government has been slow to use the special designation, despite mounting evidence of worsening pollution in the nation's freshwaters.

Environmental groups recently appealed the approval of a new wastewater permit that would double the amount of polluting discharge the Plain City water treatment plant is allowed to release into Big Darby Creek.

Tavenor said the "outstanding" designation would likely block any future discharge permits.

"It wouldn't change how things have been permitted in the past," said Tavenor, "but it would limit and change how any future permits would go on and make it very, very difficult for any new point sources to be created."

According to an Environmental Integrity Project Report published last year, 51% of assessed river and stream miles across the nation - around 700,000 miles of waterways - are polluted.

This story was produced in association with Media in the Public Interest and funded in part by the George Gund Foundation.

Arizona's drought conditions are improving.

Erinanne Saffell, state climatologist, said it is important to note Arizona evaluates short-term and long-term drought, both of which have recently improved.

Saffell explained when looking at short-term drought, things like precipitation, soil moisture and vegetation are essential in understanding short-term effects. For long-term drought, Saffell pointed out she evaluates precipitation trends over 24, 36 and 48 months, incorporates temperatures, and essentially looks at how thirsty the atmosphere is.

"Both of those give a sense of where we are," Saffell remarked. "We've seen improvement with the short-term drought and the long-term drought, but some areas of the state remain entrenched in that drought. "

A map relating to short-term drought from the agency's Twitter feed showed a majority of the state is currently experiencing no drought or abnormal dryness. Some parts of Mohave and Coconino counties, however, still remain under a severe drought.

Saffell noted the last time these kinds of conditions were seen in Arizona was more than two years ago, and said a state which values water as much as Arizona should be happy to see the current levels.

She added while the monsoon season of 2020 was disappointing, the 2021 and 2022 monsoons brought significant rainfall. But more times than not, the water does not make it into the state's aquifers. Saffell emphasized what really leads to the recharge of Arizona's aquifers is the winter precipitation, which comes in the form of snowpack.

"Fortunately, snow water equivalent -- and that's kind of how we measure that snowpack here in the lower Colorado region and the lower Colorado Basin -- we are at 200% right now of our median at this time," Saffell reported. "Hopefully we can continue that, but we will see what happens."

She added according to projections, Arizona was expected to have a drier winter season but has so far been experiencing more moisture.