Klamath River Dam Removal and Restoration

link to page 1 link to page 1



Updated March 3, 2022
Klamath River Dam Removal and Restoration
The Klamath River Basin (Figure 1)—a 12,000 square mile
Figure 1. Klamath River Basin and Proposed Dam
area on the California-Oregon border—is a focal point for
Removal Project Reach
discussions on water allocation and species protection.
These issues have generated conflict among farmers, Indian
tribes, fishermen, water project and wildlife refuge
managers, environmental groups, hydropower facility
operators, and state and local governments.
Background
Multiple people and species rely on Klamath Basin waters.
Irrigated agriculture in the Upper Klamath Basin is
supported in part with water from the federal Bureau of
Reclamation’s (Reclamation’s) Klamath Project and in part
with off-project supplies. Further, six national wildlife
refuges rely on basin waters to sustain migratory bird
habitat and several Native American tribes historically
depended on lower and upper basin fish species.
Mitigating the effects of water management, habitat
alteration, and other factors on listed species under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 U.S.C. §§1531 et seq.) is
a perennial issue in the basin. Two species of upper basin

fish are currently listed as endangered under the ESA—the
Source: Klamath River Renewal Corporation, 2018.
Lost River sucker and the shortnose sucker. In the lower
Note: The figure identifies four dams proposed for removal.
basin, the coho salmon is listed as threatened. Conflicts in
the basin first came to a head in 2001, when, as a result of
Klamath Settlement Agreements
previous biological opinions, Reclamation severely
In 2010, the Secretary of the Interior, governors of Oregon
curtailed water deliveries to the Klamath Project to provide
and California, PacifiCorp, and 44 other parties announced
more water for endangered fish. Subsequent issues,
two interrelated settlement agreements intended to resolve
including a major fish kill of Chinook salmon on the Lower
long-standing issues in the basin: the Klamath Basin
Klamath River in 2002, resulted in federally led settlement
Restoration Agreement (KBRA) and the Klamath
talks in the 2000s.
Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA). The KBRA
proposed actions to restore Klamath fisheries and
The basin contains seven dams on the Klamath River and
assurances for water deliveries to wildlife refuges and
its tributaries, built between 1918 and 1962. Six of these
project irrigators, among other things. The KHSA laid out a
dams were owned by PacifiCorp, a regulated utility. These
process for removal of the four Lower Klamath Project
dams are known collectively as the Klamath Hydroelectric
dams (Figure 1). After a secretarial determination on dam
Project (KHP). Historically, all but one of the dams have
removal, the dams would be transferred to the Department
produced hydroelectric power for the basin, including low-
of the Interior (DOI), which would oversee
cost power for Klamath Project irrigators. The original
decommissioning. The dam removal project would be one
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license to
of the largest and most complex ever undertaken in the
operate the KHP expired in 2006. In 2004, PacifiCorp
United States. A third agreement involving off-project
applied for relicensing of the project, and, in 2007, FERC
irrigators in the Upper Klamath Basin was finalized in
staff issued a final environmental impact statement for the
2014.
application. FERC analyzed various alternatives for the
application, ultimately recommending a new license with
The Klamath settlement agreements were contingent on
mandatory prescriptions to create fish ladders that was
passage of federal legislation authorizing numerous new
projected to cost hundreds of millions of dollars to
federal activities and expenditures in the basin. Legislation
implement and to result in net operating losses for the
approving the agreements was introduced and received
project. At this time, PacifiCorp has entered into basin
hearings in the 113th and 114th Congress but was not
settlement negotiations with stakeholders and continued to
enacted. Despite this, some work under the KBRA and
operate the project under temporary annual licenses.
KHSA occurred under existing authorities: studies by DOI
to inform the KHSA secretarial determination on dam
removal were completed (although a formal determination
https://crsreports.congress.gov

Klamath River Dam Removal and Restoration
was not made, due to lack of authority), and some actions
improve water quality. Further, DOI noted that removal is
under the KBRA have been implemented under existing
expected to lower mortality at the generators, eliminate
authorities. After widespread acknowledgement that
reservoirs that produce temperature and dissolved-oxygen
Congress appeared unlikely to enact the agreements,
problems for salmonids, and avoid the need to implement
removal of the Klamath River dams moved to a separate
other costly mitigation measures. Some scientists question
track that no longer requires congressional enactment, as
these points and suggest that conservation benefits
discussed below.
associated with dam removal are uncertain. Removal of the
Klamath dams also has been opposed by some, in particular
FERC Transfer and Removal of Lower Klamath
some local groups and officials in Oregon and California.
River Dams
Opponents argue against the loss of hydropower,
In 2016, the parties amended the KHSA to no longer
recreational, and flood control benefits associated with the
require the transfer of dams to DOI, thus avoiding the need
dams and worry about flooding, pollution, and other
for congressional authorization. The amended KHSA lays
hazards related to removal.
out a process for PacifiCorp to transfer the dams slated for
removal to a new nonprofit entity, the Klamath River
In 2016, then-Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell voiced
Renewal Corporation (KRRC). Under the KHSA, KRRC is
DOI’s formal support for the 2016 FERC applications to
to be funded by PacifiCorp surcharges in Oregon ($184
transfer and remove the KHP dams, in part based on federal
million) and California ($16 million), as well as bond
studies of dam removal dating to the 2010 KHSA. These
funding from the State of California ($250 million). KRRC
studies analyzed dam removal alternatives and impacts and
is led by a 15-member board appointed by the governors of
informed dam removal plans by the KRRC. The most
California and Oregon, the Karuk and Yurok tribes, and
recent dam removal plan before FERC was laid out in a
conservation and fishing groups.
revised Definite Plan Report in KRRC’s 2020 amended
surrender application. Under the plan, the KHP reservoirs
In 2016, PacifiCorp and KRRC applied for FERC approval
would be drawn down over the course of 2-3 months, with
to transfer the license for the Lower Klamath Project to
the four facilities removed simultaneously over the 20
KRRC and to surrender and decommission the Lower
months thereafter. Restoration would occur for at least the
Klamath Project. KRRC’s timelines originally anticipated
next five years. The timeline and approach in the report are
FERC approval in 2019 or 2020, with dam removal
intended to minimize high suspended sediment loads with
beginning in 2022. On July 16, 2020, FERC issued an order
the potential to negatively affect aquatic resources.
conditionally approving a partial transfer of the license for
the Lower Klamath Project to KRRC but required that
Costs are another concern associated with dam removal. As
PacifiCorp remain a co-licensee. On November 17, 2020,
of early 2020, total dam removal project costs (including
KRRC and PacifiCorp filed an amended application for
project reserves) were estimated at $445 million, although
surrender of license and removal of project works. They
some argue these figures are out of date. However, prior
stated that they were not accepting co-licensee status, as
analyses have suggested the cost of upgrading and
approved by the commission’s July 2020 order, and would
maintaining the dams for fish passage (most recently
instead file a new application to transfer the Lower Klamath
estimated at $515 million in 2021 dollars, plus $77 million
Project from PacifiCorp to KRRC, the State of Oregon, and
annually for operations and maintenance costs) would
the State of California as co-licensees. The new transfer
exceed the removal costs.
application was filed on January 13, 2021, and approved by
FERC on June 17, 2021.
Significance of Klamath Dam Removal
Removal of the Klamath Dams would be a historic
The amended surrender application remains pending before
undertaking and has received widespread attention due to
FERC. In it, KRRC proposed to decommission and remove
the project’s magnitude and complexity. Never before have
most project facilities and to implement management plans
so many large dams been removed from a single river at
that detail the specific methods that would be used to draw
one time in the United States. Many are interested in the
down the reservoirs, remove the dams, and restore lands
project as a proof-of-concept for other major dam removals.
occupied by the dams and reservoirs, among other things.
Some have expressed hope that the model—in which a
Based on its review of the management plans, FERC is to
private dam owner transfers dams to states and/or
decide whether to approve the licensees’ application to
nonprofits for removal in exchange for liability
surrender the license for and decommission the Lower
protections—might be used for similar projects.
Klamath Project and, if so, what conditions should be
included in any surrender order issued. On February 25,
Congressional interest in dam removal relates to what role,
2022, FERC issued its draft environmental impact
if any, the federal government should have in studying and
statement of the application, as required under the National
executing specific projects (and any associated restoration),
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. §§4321 et seq.).
FERC’s role in approving the removal of certain
nonfederally owned dams, and what, if any, federal
Dam Removal Considerations
incentives or authorities should be available for the removal
KHSA parties and other interests support the removal of the
(or maintenance) of aging dams.
Klamath dams due to the potential benefits for basin
fisheries, habitat, and water quality. In its dam removal
Charles V. Stern, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
studies, DOI projected that removal would open more than
Pervaze A. Sheikh, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
420 miles of historic salmon spawning habitat and would
https://crsreports.congress.gov

Klamath River Dam Removal and Restoration

IF11616


Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF11616 · VERSION 5 · UPDATED