Document text
Realism says dam will topple photo by Bob Pennell The churning water of the Rogue River stands as a metaphor for the political turbulence surrounding the possible removal of Savage Rapids Dam. A mail-in vote that ends Tuesday will show whether Grants Pass Irrigation District patrons support the district's plan to try to force the federal government not only to pay for removal, but to compensate property owners and guarantee water rights. But GPID wants expense to fall on government By Paul Fattig of the Mail Tribune GRANTS PASS -- Don Greenwood freely admits the dam is about to burst. He sees pressure mounting from Gov. John Kitzhaber, from state and federal agencies, and from local and national environmental groups to remove Savage Rapids Dam on the Rogue River immediately upstream from Grants Pass. "We have to be realistic," acknowledged the chairman of the Grants Pass Irrigation District. "We know that if we stand up to the environmentalists and Gov. Kitzhaber, then we are going to be faced with very, very expensive legal fees that the district simply cannot afford. "In effect, we're doing what the environmentalists want us to do: remove the dam," he added. He was referring to Tuesday's mail-in vote by the 6,720 district patrons on a proposal to have Uncle Sam pay $27 million for removing the dam, installing and operating pumps to replace it, restoring riparian zones along the reservoir, disposing of sediments behind the dam, and improving recreational facilities along the river. Becklin "We believe the dam is going to be removed and should be removed," added immediate past board chairman Dennis Becklin. "But only under the right circumstances that would protect the river, the community and the district and its patrons. "The district is offering this as a unilateral way to take this matter to Congress, to look for the funding and to come up with a responsible way to remove the dam," he added."We are unequivocally standing behind this resolution. We want it to pass." Whether it will pass won't be known until after the votes are counted, a task that begins Tuesday evening and is expected to continue until Wednesday morning. By midweek, about 1,700 ballots had been returned. The ballots had been sent out less than a week earlier. But there does appear to be a crack in the support. District patron Leon Guillotte carefully studied his ballot before making his decision. Removing Savage Rapids Dam would mean the end of this popular lake above the dam. The Grants Pass Irrigation District wants the federal government to pay for improving recreational facilities alon the river if the dam is removed. "I threw mine in the trash," said Guillotte, a former appointed board member who served the last half of 1997. "If you voted `yes,' that meant you asked for $27 million worth of pork," he explained. "And if you voted `no,' that means you support saving the dam and squandering $8 million or whatever it takes in legal fees." Guillotte, who is moving out of the district, said the issue could have been resolved had the district's board taken advantage of a proposal by former U.S. Sen. Mark Hatfield to resolve the dispute in 1994. "When the government offers to remove the dam, and put in pumps and give the district a third more water than it's entitled to, that's a no-brainer," Guillotte said. "But the dam is an icon and no one wanted to be the bad person who removed it." District patron Laird Funk, who, along with his wife, Lynn, owns a nursery in Grants Pass, also decided not to cast his ballot. "I burned it -- I wasn't going to waste a stamp on it," Funk said. "In a word, this entire exercise is a charade. The patrons are being asked to choose between two outrageous positions." Funk, who says the proposal contains contingencies that can never be met, is urging patrons to boycott the election. "And I don't see any reason for the district to try to extort from the federal government what is twice the reasonable amount to remove the dam," he said. "It seems that pork is out of favor these days, except in Grants Pass." District patron Judy Gove, who was installed earlier this month as a newly elected three-year board member, has been receiving calls from patrons asking for advice on how to vote. "I had quite a few saying they don't like it," she said of the proposal. "I tell them I would like to see them vote `yes,' but that they should hold the board's feet to the fire." Gove said she had several concerns about the proposal, including the fact it didn't have the backing of state and federal agencies involved in water issues. "But I couldn't vote `no,"' she said. "I'm concerned that we're headed into federal court now." A longtime area resident who lives just outside the urban growth boundary in Grants Pass, Gove worries that the focus on the dam overlooks other issues in the district. "A lot of energy is being wasted fighting over the dam," she said. "The dam is just a small part of the district." For instance, 70 percent of the district is now within the city's urban grown boundary, she said. "It's shortsighted to just dwell on the dam," she said, noting the district has other problems which include leaking canals and related issues. "We need to get educated and try to find workable solutions and not get into brinkmanship," she said. "When the issue breaks down and gets more personal, we lose sight of the real problems." While there is disagreement over how the problems should be resolved, most agree the district faces a rising flood of problems. In the past two years alone, the district has spent more than half a million dollars in legal battles. The National Marine Fisheries Service sued the district in 1998 for failing to meet Endangered Species Act requirements over threatened coho salmon. The Oregon Water Resources Commission canceled a supplemental water right the same year after deciding the irrigation district had failed to make progress on a 1994 agreement to remove the dam and replace it with pumps. The district appealed the action to the Oregon Court of Appeals, where it is pending. In the midst of that, the district is in a legal wrangle with about 30 patrons who, unhappy over rising water costs, have tried to get out of the district by canceling their water rights. There is also concern about the impact removing the dam will have on 191 properties bordering the seasonal lake upstream from the dam that are valued at $25.6 million in appraised market value, according to Jackson County tax records. The proposal calls for compensation. Finally, there are the problems of the aging 8,000-acre district being encroached by urban sprawl. Where farms and ranches once stood, neighborhoods are now popping up. Yet Becklin, who has one year remaining on his three-year term, and Greenwood say too many people have forgotten the benefits the district has brought to the region. "This irrigation district provides benefits to a very large area, and there is nothing out there to replace it," Becklin said. ``It delivers irrigation water. It recharges the aquifer. It provides storm drainage." "The impact of this district on this community is far greater than most people realize," Greenwood said. "What the board is doing is its very best to protect the district in the face of tremendous political and environmental group pressure." The board originally voted on Jan. 5, 1994, to remove the dam, providing that several conditions were met, including requiring the federal government to pay for the removal and the pumps and provide compensation for taking property. "The board has never changed its position on that," said Becklin, who had chaired the 16-member Savage Rapids Dam Task Force. Becklin was appointed by Kitzhaber. The task force also included Greenwood. The task force had recommended restoring the dam and modifying it largely because it was concerned about the heavy metals and other toxic materials contained in the sediment immediately upstream from the dam. But neither the 1994 board decision nor the task force plan was implemented in the ensuing debate. "Back in 1994, the board knew this was too big a project for the district to fund," Becklin said. "They knew then that it's a very expensive project. And the only place you can get that kind of money is from the state government or the federal government." If approved, the district will be able to present the vote as a mandate to Oregon's congressional delegation, Becklin said. "Our congressmen and senators will not get behind any plan until they see a vote of the people," he said. "They know where the power is. The vote is critical." If it passes, the district will spend $50,000 on lobbying for federal money for dam removal. And if it fails? "If our patrons decide to vote `no,' they need to know that this district is then committed to defending the dam," Becklin said. "It's going to cost an awful lot of money to do that, probably $250,000 a year for the next two or three years as this matter works its way through the courts." Although the district has some $400,000 in its legal warchest, it's not enough, Becklin said. "If the patrons say they are not going for this deal, we're going to be forced to pass a supplemental levy, probably $25 an acre, to raise another $200,000 to $250,000 a year," Becklin said. "We know this legal battle is going to come if the patrons say they want to keep the dam," Greenwood added. "We want to avoid that battle." SEE ALSO : Politics looms large in debate Details of the GPID proposal Savage Rapids timeline Mail Tribune Copyright � The Mail Tribune 2000, Medford, Oregon USA