Document text
Dam vote leaves issue of process By PETER WONG The chairman of the Grants Pass Irrigation District board and one of GPID's leading critics agree that Tuesday's vote was a mandate for removal of the Savage Rapids Dam on the Rogue River. They disagree, predictably, about what should happen next. "We did get what we consider a strong mandate for dam removal, and we will proceed to get the funding necessary to do it," said board chairman Don Greenwood. Of the 6,720 patrons mailed ballots, 1,821 favored the district's proposal for removal with several conditions attached, and 1,088 opposed it. "For the first time ever, patrons were given a voice in the Savage Rapids debate," said Bob Hunter, a Medford lawyer who spoke for WaterWatch of Oregon, an environmental group. "They said loud and clear the dam has got to go. "Unfortunately, district leaders have tied dam removal to an unrealistic plan that has little chance of success." Hunter said Congress is unlikely to accept the proposal's price tag of $27 million, which goes well beyond the $11.2 million that the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation estimated in 1995 for removal of the dam and replacement with electric pumps. He also said the proposal lacks any means of enforcement. But Greenwood said the proposal's higher price tag also covers power for the pumps, removal of sediments behind the dam, restoration of stream banks along the river and economic losses to landowners stemming from dam removal. He said once those costs are more fully explained, the district may stand a better chance of getting more money than critics say. "They would lead people to believe that we are ironclad in our proposal, spears at the ready, and will not accept anything but $27 million," he said. "But if you think your house is worth $50,000 and you ask $100,000, you have room to work with. That is what we are doing here. "There will be a better understanding of our position as a board, what the real consequences of dam removal are, and what amount we can discuss with Congress about what it is willing to provide to the district for dam removal." Hunter said WaterWatch and other environmental groups hope the GPID board proceeds with removal. But they are concerned it will back away if every condition in its proposal is not fulfilled. He mentioned the district's 1994 agreement with the state Water Resources Commission for a supplemental right to pump more from the Rogue, tied to its progress toward dam removal. The commission revoked that right in 1998. GPID has appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals. Greenwood said the district linked the 1994 proposal to federal or state grants that did not materialize. "It would be tragic if GPID's board ignores their patrons and continues to delay real action," Hunter said. "We cannot afford to run out the clock on the wild salmon and steelhead of the Rogue." The district offered its latest proposal as part of the negotiations toward a settlement of a 1998 suit that the National Marine Fisheries Service filed against it in U.S. District Court in Medford. The suit alleges that the dam, which was completed in 1921, violates Endangered Species Act protection the government approved in 1997 for south coast runs of coho salmon. Greenwood said the GPID board will meet in closed session Wednesday, and in a public session, to review its next actions. Today's Edition : News | Sports | Business | Weather | Tempo | Classifieds Mail Tribune Copyright � The Mail Tribune 2000, Medford, Oregon USA