logo
Blue Creek

Blue Creek

Yahoo28-03-2025
This story was produced by Grist and co-published with Underscore Native News.
Anita Hofschneider and Jake BittleIllustrations by Jackie FawnGrist
PART IV — Blue Creek
Amy Cordalis was on maternity leave, but she spent her days on phone calls and in Zoom meetings. The deal to remove the four Klamath River dams, which had inspired her life's work for nearly two decades, was falling apart. Again.
It was late summer 2020, just months after the COVID-19 pandemic forced massive shutdowns across the globe. Millions of people were out of work and more than 100,000 people in the United States alone had died from the novel coronavirus. On the Yurok Tribe's reservation in northern California, the nation had closed all government offices and schools and barred nonessential visitors from entry. A record-setting wildfire season heightened the community's challenges, as thick wildfire smoke turned the sky orange and made every hour feel like dusk. Swaths of forest in the Klamath Basin burned.
Cordalis' days were a blur of breastfeeding, interrupted sleep, and troubleshooting her newborn's cries. But when she learned that the dams' owner, PacifiCorp, was threatening to pull out of the agreement to transfer its dams to a state-backed entity for demolition, she knew she needed to return to her role as the tribe's lawyer.
For four years, Cordalis and other tribal attorneys had been working on finalizing PacifiCorp's dam removal plan with FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. But the agency's makeup had changed after Donald Trump was elected president in 2016. The new commissioners decided that PacifiCorp, and the states that the Klamath ran through, needed to put up more money to fund dam removal on top of the $450 million they had already pledged. The commission also contended the company needed to keep its name on the dam licenses — a requirement PacifiCorp had long rejected, fearing it would subject the utility to potential lawsuits if anything went wrong during removal.
'Here we go again,' Cordalis thought.
Without PacifiCorp, the tribes would have to restart the relicensing process they'd been pursuing in the early 2000s.
The process had gone on so long that many of the people at PacifiCorp and in the federal government who had negotiated the original 2016 deal were no longer around. That left Richard Whitman and Chuck Bonham, the lead environmental officials for Oregon and California, to try to hold together the collapsing dam removal settlement. The two bureaucrats raced to come up with a new legal arrangement that would satisfy both FERC and PacifiCorp, even offering more money from their two states for dam removal if the company would match it. But PacifiCorp refused to give any more than the $200 million it had already promised. California Governor Gavin Newsom even wrote an open letter to Warren Buffett, head of Berkshire Hathaway, and urged him not to pull out of the deal, but the company's position did not change.
In a last-ditch effort at diplomacy, leaders of the Yurok Tribe, Karuk Tribe, and Klamath Tribes emailed Buffett to invite him to the Yurok reservation to talk. Buffett declined, but he agreed to send a cadre of his top executives, including Greg Abel, vice chairman of Berkshire Hathaway and former CEO of Berkshire Hathaway Energy; Bill Fehrman, the president and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway Energy; Stefan Bird, the CEO of PacifiCorp's power plant unit; and Scott Bolton, a PacifiCorp vice president. The Yurok Tribal Council passed a resolution to open the COVID locked-down reservation just for the executives.
Cordalis and the others came up with a plan for the meeting: They would take the executives up to Blue Creek — the southernmost cold-water tributary on the Klamath, the first stop for salmon heading upstream, and one of the most precious places on the river. There, they would persuade them to re-sign the deal. It would've been easier to meet at the reservation's hotel, but they felt like they needed to do more to win over company officials. The executives needed to see the kind of ecosystem that the dams had destroyed.
The executives agreed to go up the river.
Chook Chook Hillman, a Karuk Tribe citizen, knew Berkshire Hathaway well. He had been 23 years old when he confronted Warren Buffett at the 2008 Berkshire shareholders' meeting in Omaha. Company representatives had come to his house in California and asked him to stay away from the annual gatherings while PacifiCorp hashed out the details of the dam settlement.
Chook Chook and other activists had toned down their Omaha protests slightly after that. But they remained committed to their goal, forming a group called the Klamath Justice Coalition. 'Direct action is the logical, consistent method of anarchism,' they wrote on their Facebook page, quoting the Lithuanian-born author and anarchist Emma Goldman, who embraced confronting injustice with uncompromising force.
While tribal officials negotiated with federal bureaucrats in conference rooms, Chook Chook and other activists trained youth in nonviolent direct action and spoke at public hearings about Klamath water issues. In 2014, several members even flew down to Brazil to show solidarity with Indigenous peoples of the Amazon fighting against the construction of a dam.
By 2020, Chook Chook was 35 with a family of his own, and had spent countless hours bringing his kids to meetings and protests over the years. He was not about to let the dam removal deal fall apart. Tribal leadership had not invited him and his fellow Klamath Justice activists to the meeting on the river, a move that Chook Chook saw as an attempt to appease Berkshire's executives. But he knew when and where the meeting on the river would take place, and that was information enough. They decided to make their presence known, invitation or not.
'They're not going to meet with us as people, then we've got to do what we got to do,' he said.
The executives' planned tour of the river immediately went awry. Just a quarter-mile into their trip to Blue Creek, the boat carrying Cordalis and some of the masked-up Berkshire Hathaway executives broke down, right in front of Cordalis' family fishing hole. Another boat carrying PacifiCorp executives Bird and Bolton as well as Yurok biologist Mike Belchik ran aground in shallow waters and started overheating. Both groups had to hop in other Yurok tribe boats in order to continue up the river.
After another mile and a half, they were forced to stop again: The river was blockaded by protestors from the Klamath Justice Coalition who had draped a rope across it and stood in their boats holding signs saying, 'Undam the Klamath.' Balanced defiantly on their boats, the activists put themselves face-to-face with Abel, Fehrman, and the other Berkshire and PacifiCorp executives.
Chook Chook's son approached the executives first. The 11-year-old handed them a white flag. Chook Chook reminded them that his son had been just a week old when PacifiCorp executives first visited and promised to remove the dams.
'We've kept up our end of the bargain, we've given you 11 years to do it,' Chook Chook said. 'I don't know what you guys are going to decide at your meeting, but what needs to happen, has to happen. We don't have any more time.'
Activists handed Fehrman a jug filled with foul-smelling river water. 'Take the lid off and smell it,' said Annelia Hillman, a Yurok Tribe citizen and Chook Chook's wife at the time. The Berkshire executive opened the bottle and sniffed the algae-tainted water.
'Our fish are drinking that,' said Dania Rose Colegrove from the Hoopa Valley Tribe. 'They have to swim in that.'
'We understand that's a challenge,' one of the executives replied. Sammy Gensaw III, one of the Yurok youth activists, implored the executives to understand the stakes.
'This isn't just about the Klamath River. What goes down in the Klamath Basin will be echoed throughout generations,' Gensaw said. 'The rest of history will look at the decisions that we make here today.'
Gensaw's younger brother, Jon Luke Gensaw, spoke next. 'If this doesn't end, you're going to see more of us,' he said, surrounded by hundreds of people from all of the Klamath's tribes. 'I take my mask off because I want you to remember my face, because you'll see me again.'
Frankie Myers, the vice chairman of the Yurok Tribe, who was on the boat with the executives, reminded the younger activists that the tribal leaders shared their goals, and that they had a schedule to keep with the company. Myers' father, Dickie, had been one of the original dam removal campaigners who had traveled to Scotland more than a decade earlier. Chook Chook and the others felt they had made their message clear, and decided to let the executives through.
'We're sorry we had to do this, but you know, this is what we do,' Colegrove said as they parted. 'We didn't get invited to the meeting, so we invited ourselves. You have to hear the people — it's just how it is.'
The executives and tribal leaders finally made their way to Blue Creek. Myers urged them not to abandon the deal, and Cordalis presented an offer from the states and tribes to provide additional insurance and funding. Abel and the other PacifiCorp executives agreed to take a term sheet from the tribal campaigners, and responded to their entreaties politely, but they did not commit to meeting FERC's new demands.
It was a beautiful day: Salmon were swimming in the cool waters, and a bald eagle flew over Abel as he defended the company's position. Tribal leaders could not have picked a more serene place to make their case for what was at stake, but PacifiCorp didn't concede. After lunch, the group drove their boats back to the reservation and thanked the executives for coming. At the Yurok Tribe's debriefing meeting, the disappointment was so profound that some broke down in tears.
But a few days later, Cordalis got a call from Bill Fehrman, the Berkshire Hathaway Energy executive who had gone to Blue Creek. The voice on the other end of the line said something that stopped her in her tracks.
'Let's talk, we need to get the dams out,' Fehrman said, according to Cordalis' recollection.
A few months later, PacifiCorp and the two states announced that they had come to an agreement: The company and the states would each provide an additional $15 million, helping meet FERC's demand for backup cash, and California and Oregon would add their names to the dam licenses, resolving the company's demands about liability. Those two moves were enough to appease FERC once and for all.
For Cordalis, for Leaf Hillman, and for Jeff Mitchell, the fight was over at last. The dams were coming down.
In January of 2024, almost a quarter-century after the dam removal campaign began in earnest, construction crews began draining the reservoir behind Iron Gate Dam, the southernmost dam on the Klamath River. The official dam removal had begun the previous year with the dismantling of Copco 2, which was by far the smallest of the four dams, but the emptying of Iron Gate marked the real beginning of the end.
Belchik arrived early to watch the moment with Cordalis, who had wanted to get there at sunrise to pray. As Belchik waited for the drawdown to proceed, he noticed the group of PacifiCorp executives standing nearby. He thought they looked a little forlorn. Belchik approached one of them and started a conversation.
The executive revealed to Belchik what had happened after the trip to Blue Creek, which many campaigners had seen as the final blow for dam removal. After the executives boarded their company jet and left the river behind, Greg Abel, the vice chairman of Berkshire Hathaway, had turned to his employees and said that they needed to figure out how to get the dams off of the river.
Belchik had never understood until that moment why the company had made such an abrupt about-face, but now it made sense to him. 'Blue Creek changes people,' he said. At the start of the dam removal campaign, Ronnie Pierce had berated PacifiCorp executives for not knowing where the waterway was, and 20 years later, the company's leaders had fallen under its spell.
In a statement, a representative for PacifiCorp said the company 'remained steadfast in its goals to come to a resolution agreeable to all parties and reach the ultimate successful outcome.'
The dam removal process took the better part of last year. The first step was for engineers to drain all the reservoirs behind the Klamath dams, sending millions of tons of long-stagnant sediment downstream toward the Pacific. As crews opened these dams one by one, the river grew cloudy and brown before clearing up again. Demolition teams then used 800 pounds of dynamite to blast apart Copco 1, hauling away the wreckage with bulldozers. They carved apart the earthen mass of J.C. Boyle, the highest dam on the river and the closest to the Klamath Tribes, dismantling it one scoop of dirt at a time. They started to break apart Iron Gate, the downstream dam closest to the Yurok reservation and the last barrier to salmon passage.
Only then, in the fall of 2024, did tribal leaders get to watch the Klamath flow uninterrupted once more. The water tumbled downstream, from Upper Klamath Lake, where Jeff Mitchell had first joined his tribal government in 1975 and where the C'waam and Koptu suckerfish swam through placid water, to the forested mountainsides of the Yurok Tribe, where Cordalis had watched fish die in 2002 along the warm, weak waters of the lower river. From there, the Klamath wound to the vastness of the Pacific, where the salmon were waiting to come home.
This is Part IV of a five part series. This story was first published in Grist.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump's 'big beautiful' budget bill includes a new tax break worth up to $2,000—around 90% of filers could take advantage
Trump's 'big beautiful' budget bill includes a new tax break worth up to $2,000—around 90% of filers could take advantage

CNBC

time10 minutes ago

  • CNBC

Trump's 'big beautiful' budget bill includes a new tax break worth up to $2,000—around 90% of filers could take advantage

House Republicans on Thursday voted to pass President Donald Trump's massive budget bill, making good on a promise to deliver the legislation to the president's desk by July 4. The bill promises continuity for taxpayers by permanently extending the cuts from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act as well as a raft of new cuts, including breaks for tipped and overtime income. The new law also includes a throwback: an above-the-line deduction on charitable contributions. The bill allows taxpayers who don't itemize to deduct up to $1,000 for single filers and $2,000 for married couples filing jointly. "This could provide some tax savings for folks," says Erica York, vice president of federal tax policy at the Tax Foundation. "That could be something unexpected if you're not currently deducting charitable giving." Most people don't currently deduct charitable contributions — and it's not because they're not generous or don't want a tax break. Other than under the Covid-19 relief bill, taxpayers generally have had to itemize deductions in order to get a break for charitable giving. For most people, that doesn't make sense. Some 9 in 10 taxpayers take the standard deduction, which in 2025 is $15,000 for single filers and $30,000 for joint filers. You'd typically only itemize if the sum of your deductions would save you more money than just taking the standard deduction. In short, the new law allows anyone who donates to charity to get a tax break — not just the mega-philanthropists among us. Because these deductions reduce your taxable income, they're the most beneficial for people in the highest tax brackets. A $1,000 deduction from income is effectively worth $100 to someone in the 10% tax bracket. The same deduction is worth $350 to someone in the 35% bracket. You'll still have to follow the IRS' rules on charitable giving to get the break. Donations must be made to qualifying charitable organizations — donations to political campaigns, crowdfunding efforts and, in the case of the proposed tax break, donor-advised funds won't be eligible. Before you make a donation you plan on deducting, check the IRS' search tool to make sure the organization is tax-exempt. And be sure to get a receipt for your donation; the IRS generally requires written acknowledgement of any donation in excess of $250.

9 Questions About the Republican Megabill, Answered
9 Questions About the Republican Megabill, Answered

New York Times

time28 minutes ago

  • New York Times

9 Questions About the Republican Megabill, Answered

President Trump's sprawling domestic policy bill has passed the House and Senate, and now awaits the president's signature. Below, some answers to questions you may have. This bill is truly enormous, in terms of its: Scope: There is no modern precedent for a bill that simultaneously cuts taxes and the social safety net while providing new spending for priorities like immigration enforcement. Tax cuts: $4.5 trillion over a decade, most with no expiration date. A major goal was to extend the Trump tax cuts that were passed in 2017 and set to expire, but the cost to the government is higher this time. Spending cuts: $1.7 trillion, including a 12 percent cut to Medicaid, an unprecedented reduction in spending on the federal-state health insurance program for poor Americans. New spending: $450 billion, including a 150 percent boost to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement budget over the next five years. Contribution to the federal debt: Nearly $3.4 trillion as written ($4.1 trillion including interest), and $5.5 trillion if temporary provisions are extended. That's more than the combination of the 2022 CHIPS Act, the 2021 infrastructure act and the two largest Covid relief bills. Number of provisions: 309. Among them are a new $250 fee for the issue of student or worker visas and a $1,000 government contribution to tax-advantaged savings accounts for babies called 'Trump accounts.' A lot depends on your individual circumstances. Do you have a parent in a nursing home who uses Medicaid? Do you have a child who is going to need a student loan? Do you make a lot of money in tips? Do you plan to put solar panels on your roof? The bill has provisions that affect all of these things and many more, some positive, some negative. In general, most Americans will pay less in federal income taxes under this bill than they would if the tax cuts passed in 2017 were instead allowed to expire. But Americans at the bottom of the income spectrum will see many of their benefits cut. Most poor Americans don't pay federal income taxes and won't get a boost from the tax cut. The bill reduces spending on food assistance and Medicaid, which many poor Americans rely on. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

Companies caught in digital services tax crossfire as CRA won't issue refunds
Companies caught in digital services tax crossfire as CRA won't issue refunds

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Companies caught in digital services tax crossfire as CRA won't issue refunds

The Canadian government has been introducing tax policy by press release for far too long. Sometimes it's inevitable in order to restore fairness to the system or to curb perceived abuses. Lately, however, these press releases have been the tool du jour. For example, during COVID-19, tax practitioners were often glued to their screens waiting for the next press release affecting the steady stream of tax measures and extensions. An extension to the filing deadline for the 2022 Underused Housing Tax Returns was made by press release. The same for bare trusts in 2023. Then came the capital gains inclusion rate proposals in the 2024 federal budget. Fraught with problems from the start, the proposals were first 'deferred' until Jan. 1, 2026, by a Department of Finance press release on Jan. 31, 2025, and then apparently killed by Prime Minister Mark Carney through an unusual press release through the PM's website. Now, the digital services tax (DST) was rescinded by a press release on Sunday. The DST applies to certain large corporations and was passed into law in June 2024, retroactive to 2022. The first collections of such tax were required to be made by affected corporations on June 30, 2025. Carney, when questioned about the timing of the announcement, said it 'did not make sense to collect a tax and then remit the revenue back.' In other words, if you're going to repeal it, then do so before it requires payments to be made by taxpayers. But what if affected companies had already paid their otherwise required remittances? I'm aware of some companies that made remittances amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars before the June 30 deadline. Can they now get a swift refund? Well, notwithstanding that the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) has said it will not require the filing of DST returns or enforce DST payments, it also said it has no legal authority to refund such amounts until the DST legislation is formally repealed. On its face, that may be correct, given that the DST legislation is still valid law, despite the June 29 press release killing it. However, if correct, on what legal authority does the CRA have to not require filing and collection? Where is the symmetry? More importantly, is that fair? It isn't. Why? Let's start with CRA's long-standing policy to administer proposed tax legislation as if it were law. This approach was recently debated during the capital gains debacle: the proposals were on life support, but the CRA was still administering them as if they were law. This caused havoc amongst taxpayers and their advisers. Earlier this month, the proposed one per cent personal tax rate reduction was introduced as a bill to Parliament, but did not pass before it recessed for the summer. In other words, the cut still has substantial legislative hurdles to overcome before it becomes law, retroactive to July 1, 2025. But the CRA is administering this as if it were law and the government is trumpeting the reduction. One of the common threads is that the CRA will administer proposed tax laws if there is legislative intent before Parliament, such as a Notice of Ways and Means Motion or a bill. But a press release? No. It's apparently not good enough when it comes to refunding amounts paid before the press release, but good enough to not require filing and remittance after the press release. Sometimes, common sense needs to prevail, and that was part of the problem with the capital gains debacle. With respect to the DST, we need some common sense. Parliament won't sit again until mid-September, so by the time a bill is presented for repeal, it could be months before the refunds are finally issued. Some solutions? The Digital Services Act provides a refund mechanism under subsection 60(1) as follows: 'If a person, otherwise than because of an assessment, has paid any moneys in error to His Majesty in right of Canada, whether by reason of mistake of fact or law or otherwise, and the moneys have been taken into account by His Majesty in right of Canada as taxes, penalties, interest or other amounts under this act, then an amount equal to the amount of the moneys must, subject to this act, be refunded to the person …' This would seem to give the CRA some wiggle room, but it doesn't seem to agree. Perhaps it is fussed with the opening language of the provision since it is debatable whether such amounts have been paid 'in error,' given the act is still valid law. But if that is the reason, why not continue to enforce filing and collection? This appears to be inconsistent. One tax practitioner has suggested the government should grant a remission order that would instruct the CRA to swiftly refund amounts remitted by those companies. That's a great idea. A remission order is an order issued under the Financial Administration Act that requires the government to pay back taxes and other amounts where the collection of those amounts is unreasonable or unjust or not in the public interest. Given the late June 29 announcement and Carney's apparent agreement that remittance and refunds don't make sense, it would be logical for the government to find a quick solution for those companies that diligently complied with the DST and made their required remittances before the government's press release. Tax by press release may be convenient, but it breeds confusion, undermines confidence and leads to inconsistent tax administration. The CRA's rigid application of its administrative policy doesn't always serve fairness. It's time for both to be re-evaluated. It's just common sense. Kim Moody, FCPA, FCA, TEP, is the founder of Moodys Tax/Moodys Private Client, a former chair of the Canadian Tax Foundation, former chair of the Society of Estate Practitioners (Canada) and has held many other leadership positions in the Canadian tax community. He can be reached at kgcm@ and his LinkedIn profile is __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store