The Klamath Dams Deal
Submitted by Aguanomics Blog
Last week, farmers, indian tribes, enviros, and a power company announced a deal to remove four dams on the Klamath River [read Aquadoc’s view]. The idea is that greater water flow will improve life for fish and the tribes, at a cost to the farmers and power company.
I am pretty ignorant of the details, but I did notice that the power company was going to receive $450 million as compensation for finding other sources of power. I also know that farmers were paying a pittance for power under contracts signed long ago.
So what are the farmers getting? Apparently, they are getting better water rights.
I think that everyone’s unhappy because they are getting (to them) uncertain benefits for certain costs.
Besides the big question (dams or not), I think that the remaining questions (water for fish, tribes or farmers?) should be resolved in a looser manner, i.e., by allocating water in annual markets where — subject to minimum environmental flows — everyone gets a fair shot at buying water.
But I could be wrong. Tell me if the deal’s a good idea or bad idea, if it’s going to go through (it’s now a voluntary letter of understanding), and what alternative structures might make more sense.
Bottom Line: Pending!
hattip to Am for being persistent!
We want to hear your thoughts on conservation so we make this a better world. Register on Conservation Blog now and get published within minutes. Before posting, it is recommended that you review our posting guidelines.
