Or maybe it could be, depending on the perspective. We’ve seen at least one study that puts the worth of the annual economy of the Klamath River Basin at somewhere around $10 billion. And more than $2.5 billion of that is derived from agriculture, timber and fishing — things related to natural resources where a water settlement would come into play.
That’s $2.5 billion ... annually. Take that out a generation, or, say, 50 years: $125 billion. We don’t think the one-time costs of dam removal, or the annual loss of the value of the energy they produce could come close. Remotely.
Still, PacifiCorp is important to us. We appreciate the community orientation of its local representative, and realize that the private power company is vital to economic growth and to the long-term viability of irrigated agriculture. We want them to come out well in this deal, so here are some thoughts:
Since the agreement came
out, PacifiCorp’s official public stance seems to be an
adversarial one. Its Portland spokesperson was insulting
right off the bat; soon, the company started using the
local rep to speak on the issues and that was a smart
move, because the folks involved in the agreement should
be treated like neighbors, not court case villains.
PacifiCorp leadership should huddle up and come back to
the line with a spirit of collaboration. They could be
leaders in this cause; they don’t have to be detractors.
• When they talk about loss of green power, they should
acknowledge that there are more ways of looking at green
than just whether production creates carbon emissions.
They should acknowledge costs to the river system and
fisheries. They should acknowledge the worth of the
Basin’s entire economy and think of themselves as a cog in
the system, not the whole system. They should realize that
community members — the customers they like to tout — are
going to realize that.
• They should fess up to the idea that they’re not just
worried about ratepayers, but also about stockholders.
There’s nothing evil about that. That done, this could be
a good deal.
The cost and benefits of relicensing the old dams versus
working to strengthen the Basin economy could bring them
out ahead in a few different ways — costs and units sold.
• They should continue talking about doing what is right
for their customers. We believe them. Given that
predisposition, they should be working through
negotiations to gain some federal and state considerations
to keep them whole.
• PacifiCorp should immediately drop the idea that
stakeholders, through this agreement, have “put the cart
before the horse,” because that’s just silly. In a spirit
of collaboration, a fantastically diverse group of
stakeholders got together and negotiated a settlement ...
you don’t think they needed to know what they wanted to
come up with before they could chart how to get there?
Actually, the cart analogy is sort of popular:
“We had to build the cart,” says Greg Addington, Klamath
Water Users Association executive director. “And it’s
right where it needs to be.”
“It’s a cart full of solutions,” says rancher Luther
Horsley, president of Klamath Drainage District.
• They should also drop the line that they were surprised
by the proposal that dams be removed. Negotiators say they
think that’s a disingenuous remark; it sure appears so.
PacifiCorp, after all, primed the negotiations with dam
relicensing and stakeholders say that they’ve kept the
power company informed of developments all along.
• They should be mindful that this isn’t about just dam
removal, or just about power rates, or just about them.
Besides the multitude of other issues addressed in the
agreement, it is also about the total costs of dam
relicensing ... which could go on forever.
“Collaboration works a lot quicker,” says Steve Kandra,
Klamath Water Users Association board member.