The Governors of Oregon and Washington hope to put to rest some of the nagging doubts over plans for a new I-5 bridge between Portland and Vancouver.
Kulongoski and Gregoire say they’re forming an outside panel to review the project – better known as the Columbia River Crossing. The panel’s job will be to make sure the work can be done on time and on budget.
With words like “disaster” and “offensive”, it’s not hard to see what Northwest environmental groups think about President Obama’s plan to expand offshore oil drilling.
Governor Kulongoski even had something to say, although it’s hard to tell from the press release if he thinks this is a good or bad idea.
While no one is using the “D” word yet, officials at the state, federal and local levels are bracing for what could be the worst drought ever in the Klamath Basin.
Governor Kulongoski was in the region this morning for a meeting with area officials about what needs to be done now to prepare.
Senators Wyden and Merkley added to the urgency with a letter to federal officials warning of a “crisis of historic magnitude”, and asking the feds to take immediate action.
HUD Secretary Donovan. Photo from HUD.
Saying that, “everyone wants to be like Portland,” Housing Secretary Shaun Donovan came to this city to announce he’s creating a new office of Sustainable Housing and Communities.
Donovan told a group at Portland State University that this office will lead Housing and Urban Development’s new emphasis on building stronger and more sustainable communities across the country.
He also says that sustainability – including more energy efficient homes and apartments, as well as access to mass transit – needs to be made more affordable.
The State of Oregon, and NOAA Fisheries, have joined the call for a new hearing on the Jordan Cove LNG terminal and the Pacific Connector gas pipeline.
Oregon’s decision is no surprise. Governor Kulongoski said he’d file a rehearing request a month ago when the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved the licenses for the two projects.
But NOAA’s involvement? No so expected. And it raises questions about whether something fundamentally wrong with how LNG issues in Oregon are decided.
Add Governor Kulongoski to the list of supporters for the new Eastern Oregon logging agreement that was announced this week.
The deal was negotiated by timber and conservation groups, with the help of Senator Wyden’s office. Wyden will introduce legislation to make it happen.
“The forests of eastern Oregon have reached a crisis condition as has our wood products industry,” says Kulongoski in his statement. “Our communities and rural economies are stressed beyond tolerance and Senator Wyden’s bill is the kind of solution to this triple threat that Congress should adopt as quickly as possible.”
The bill has been described as historic, and for good reasons.
Early this afternoon, Governor Kulongoski issued a statement calling on FERC to reconsider its decision to approve the Jordan Cove LNG project and the Pacific Connector Pipeline.
Kulongoski writes, “Today’s decision by FERC does not address Oregon’s very real concerns about the environmental impact of the pipeline associated with the proposed LNG facility. The information guiding this decision is woefully inadequate to license a project with such profound potential impacts on the lives of Oregonians and we will appeal to FERC to ensure the people of Oregon’s concerns are fully addressed.”
In addition, he says it was wrong for FERC to approve the license before the project had obtained state permits under the Clean Water and Clean Air acts, as well as the Coastal Zone Management Act.
The statement adds that if Oregon will appeal the decision to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals if FERC continues to support Jordan Cove LNG.
Today’s decision to approve the Jordan Cove LNG project is an important step, but not the final word in the long running battle over LNG in Oregon.
Let’s start with the headline of the moment. This morning, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved the Jordan Cove project, and the Pacific Connector Pipeline, on a 3-1 vote. The plant would be built on Coos Bay. The pipeline will transport the gas more than 230 miles to a connection with an interstate gas pipeline near Malin, Oregon.
Almost immediately, a coalition of environmental groups said they would appeal.
The big unanswered question for now, what will Oregon do? Tony Green with the Attorney General’s office says discussions are underway this morning with the Governor’s office on a possible appeal by the state.
A few clues to how the Governor might decide.
The Gov made two newsworthy environmental headlines today.
This morning, he kicked things off with an announcement that Oregon Iron Works has scored a contract to build a wave energy buoy for Ocean Power Technologies of New Jersey. OPT hopes to build a wave energy farm off the coast near Reedsport. Another nine buoys could be added to the contract.
See coverage from OregonLive and OPB.
Later he went to Seattle for a Clean Energy Forum with EPA Administrator Linda Jackson and Washington Governor Chris Gregoire. The main message from the event? The U.S. needs to move away from carbon based energy quickly, but doing so will help create green jobs.
See coverage from Climate Solutions.
I’m no expert on dams, hydropower, agriculture or fisheries. Keep that in mind as you read further. But after taking some time to digest the draft agreement to remove dams from the Klamath River, I find good reason to be skeptical about whether this deal is really going to happen.
The Copco 1 Dam on the Klamath River. Photo courtesy U.S. Fish and Wildlife.
Lots And Lots Of Loopholes.
Let’s take a look at what has to happen to make this work. Interior Secretary Salazar has until 2012 to decide if removing the dams is in “the public interest”. Oregon and California have to come up with about $450 million to pay for it, and if the costs go higher, no one knows where the extra money will come from. Plus, Congress has to come up with another $500 million. Finally, the nearly 30 groups that signed on to this draft plan have 60 days to think things over and reconsider their support.
That’s a lot of “ifs” and “buts”.
The only serious progress shown so far is here in Oregon. The state has come up with its share of $200 million by letting Pacific Power (which owns the dams) collect the money from its Oregon customers through a special surcharge. But California is expected to raise $250 million, mostly through bonds, and so far legislators south of the border are having second thoughts about that idea. Considering the budget mess in Sacramento, it’s questionable whether California will come through.
This deal is contingent on approval of a Klamath Basin water sharing agreement. This is a separate and far more controversial process, pitting agriculture against fishermen, environmentalists and other salmon advocates. Oregon Wild, for example, thinks the tentative water sharing deal is far too generous to agriculture and does little to make sure there’s enough water for salmon. Opposition to the water sharing plan could kill any chances of removing the dams, unless somehow the linkage between the two plans is broken.
What’s also not clear to me is what kind of veto power local governments, industry, tribes and environmental groups will have. It’s hard to imagine a coalition of 30 holding together without any dissent. But will a single holdout be able to block the whole deal?
The Deadlines Are Far, Far Away.
Let’s say everything goes according to plan. Even then, work on removing the dams doesn’t begin until 2019 or 2020. That’s long after Obama has left office, even if he wins a second term. A new “dam friendly” Administration or Congress would have time to unravel the agreement. We’ve seen how waiting things out can dramatically change the outcome of big environmental decisions. When the timber industry objected to the Clinton logging plan for the Northwest, it was able to wait until the Bush Administration took over to get better terms for harvesting old growth forests in Oregon. Now that Bush is out of office, that logging plan has been put on hold. So sometimes this strategy works for you, sometimes against you.
Plus, Secretary Salazar has 2 and a half years to decide on removing the dams. His ruling could be influenced by the results of the 2010 elections.
Is The Obama Administration Really Committed To Removing Dams?
The Interior Department had a chance to show some kind of interest in dam removal when it released its plan for salmon recovery in Columbia and Snake rivers. Many environmental groups say removing four dams from the Lower Snake River is essential to help salmon populations bounce back over the long run. Governor Kulongoski says breaching the dams should be considered now, with deadlines to take them out if salmon numbers don’t recover.
This Administration won’t go that far. Instead it only agreed to study how it would study removing the dams. There’s no guarantee that the dams will come down, even if the Obama salmon plan fails.
There are a lot of differences between what’s happening on the Columbia and Snake rivers and what’s happening on the Klamath River. Columbia Basin dams have far more political support than Klamath dams, they produce far more power and provide much more water for drinking, industry and irrigation. There is more widespread interest in removing the dams along the Klamath.
But all of the above suggests Interior is easily influenced by political pressure on the issue of dams. That’s worrisome because it may take strong federal leadership to keep the Klamath dam removal deal from falling apart. I’m not sure the Obama Administration is up to the task.
We have an opportunity to create a 300 mile, dam free stretch of the Klamath River. It will serve as a proving ground to see just how well removing dams will work for salmon, agriculture, and the communities that rely on the water. It could restore one of the great salmon rivers of the West. And if all goes well, will serve as a model for possibly removing dams in the Columbia Basin.
