Family near former Condit Dam fights with PacifiCorp to keep home
»Play Video
NEAR WHITE SALMON, Wash. - It was one of the most amazing displays of the power of water.
When workers punched a tunnel through the bottom of the century-old Condit Dam near White Salmon, Wash. last October water exploded downstream in a White Salmon River canyon at more than 11,000 cubic feet per second.
Behind the dam the now former Northwestern Lake emptied like a bath tub with the drain plug pulled, and the shoreline around the lake started crumbling away into the river. Thousands of tons of clay and sediment that built up over the past hundred-plus years just disappeared.
Several homes on the lake began to move as the earth below them disappeared, according to the owner of the land where the homes sit.
PacifiCorp, which rents the land to the homeowners, has condemned at least two homes and threatens to condemn another, because the company says the houses are in danger of sliding into the river.
The company's spokesman, Tom Gauntt, summed it up in four words: "It's just a safety issue," he told KATU. Gauntt went on to say, "We just want to make sure that nothing is going to happen to the structure or anyone in the structure."
A family that has owned one of the homes for almost 40 years doesn't believe their house is in jeopardy. They say the home and the property held up after the dam was breached and even after one of the wettest winters on record. Lance Cyphers told KATU's Thom Jensen, "We got hit hard with water (during the winter and spring) without redirecting any of it, and I think we're in good shape since we made it through that."
Cyphers, his father and his sister are now in a legal fight with PacifiCorp to save their home. They say they have been requesting documents from PacifiCorp that proves the home is in danger for more than eight months, but they say PacifiCorp has not provided a shred of paper as proof. Lance says, "They're a large corporation - and we're a small guy. You know? And - it's hard to know if you're getting the truth out of them."
The Cyphers family hired a geotechnical company named Terra Firma to do its own research. A staff member who secured other homes in danger behind the former dam says the Cypher home can be saved.
Chris Gordon says bedrock is only 10 to 15 feet below the home and that his workers can tie the foundation right into the bedrock. Gordon told KATU, "We're going to drive right down into the bedrock itself - and tie right into it." He said other homes, which have already been shored-up were in much more peril.
The Cyphers say it's worth the effort. Krista Lee Cyphers says there are too many memories to just give up the home, "It's hard to put into words what it means to us."
She added, "After all of the blood, sweat and tears that we put into this place - to not - to just lay down and let them have it would be foolish."
Lance and Krista's father, Lawrence Cyphers, told KATU, "I want the cabin fixed. I want to stay here. I've been coming up here all my life."
Lance says it was always the plan to keep the home in the family for generations to come. As he put it, "I want to save this place for the great grandkids that I am never going to meet."
The Cyphers have become suspicious, wondering why PacifiCorp wants their home. They asked if there could be an ulterior motive.
PacifiCorp's spokesman says it's just a safety issue, and that's it. He told KATU that experts determined the home wasn't safe, not PacfiCorp managers. Gauntt says, "The engineers and the geo-tech folks; that's their business to make those kinds of determinations of, you know, can this safely stay where it is."
The Cyphers say they’re still waiting for the proof from those experts, and they will continue to fight for their home.
 @MarkKpic A Federal agency, NMFS mandated a fish ladder & fish mitigation in the application PacCorp made for relicensing the dam in 1992. PC asked FERC to rule on a combined operation license with a surrender if FERC didn't accept the Settlement Agreement it entered into with State agencies, Tribes, and American Rivers et al. without input from local jurisdiction. This Settlement Agreement was signed while PC had an active relicensing application. The dam removal option was arrived at "behind closed doors" without two local Counties or any improved property owner/ leaseholders knowledge. American Rivers fronted the collaberation of "environmental groups", and agreed to support the relicensing applications for PacCorps dams on the Lewis River in exchange for Condit Dam's removal. The legal and environmental process took 12 years to finalize the decision for dam removal. PacCorp's Project Director, Todd Olson, states in an Oregonian article it was the result of a business decision.
 Claims for damages to wells and improved property are a lease contractual term in the 29 year lease signed in 2010 acknowledging dam removal, however negotiations have been stalled over the last 7 months by PacCorp's top down decision making-bottom up information/ communication management matrix. Well owners on private land as well as leased land have expressed frustration at PacCorp changing compensation to less than what was initially offered, requiring private water rights,  not compensating for quantity of water lost by dam removal, disputing necessary Contractor expenses, and other delays in reaching settlement over damages.
The Cypers battle with PacCorp to obtain its supporting documentation has required the engagement of an attorney, who also has been unsuccessful in obtaining PacCorp's cooperation. Why the non-disclosure, the stalling tactics? PacCorp will not only lose lease revenue from removing permanently Cyphers personal property/improvements, the infrastructure it does not own, but it would remove what gives the land its market value. PacCorp has not compensated any owner of a damaged structure at what its market value was before dam removal. It brought in its own real estate appraiser and made offers at "damaged goods" rates.
I have first hand knowledge of these "negotiations" which more closely resemble what we (PacCorp) offer ends the "negotiations"!
Bethel- Thank you for the fact-based reply. A few thoughts;
Â
1) It sounds as if Pac Corp is doing what businesses do in legal tangles. Holding their proverbial 'cards' close to their vest. Not a big surprise considering that there is ongoing litigation. It also sounds like they are engaging in the age old 'big money' practice of financial warefare over legal issues. They have deeper pockets for legal fees, so they bog the whole process down in the courts in an effort to exhaust the availible funds for the opposing parties. Abysmal practice. Not surprising, but certainly not atypical.
Â
2)The business (legal) model is founded primarily on cost/benefit analysis of any legal process. The first question I would come up with is what would/could PacCorp do with the land if it were unoccupied that would grant them revenue? Logging/windmills/'carbon offset' tax credits. Instead of only expending effort (and money) on the primary front of the battle, try to look at the flanks and head them off.
Â
3)Disputes over 'fair compensation' are as old as private property rights. They typically come down to he said/she said discussions. As someone once said, there are 3 sides to every story. Mine, yours and the truth. All 3 will share elements, but only one is the truth.
Â
You make my point for me in your statements about the process/reasons for the Condit Dam removal. They (PacCorp) had retrofitting mandates put in front of them by environmental laws and regulations that grandfathered in existing structures. PacCorp made a cost/benefit analysis and decided that removal was more fiscally sound than retrofitting. I stand by my assertation that (at least in part) the Cyphers (and any other plaintiffs) have the environmental groups (you mention American Rivers) to thank for the mess. I imagine that over the 12 years of legal wrangling, PacCorps fleet of lawyers wrote holes just big enough to drive a truck through into the agreements. Hence where things are today.
Â
As I said below, I'm sure that Pac Corp is engaging in (typical, expected) legal manuvering that is as much about exhausting legal resources as it is about socially conscious and responsible decision making. Unfortunately for the Cyphers, it's their land. A lease is not an ownership agreement, and in the courts it's pretty rare for property ownership decisions to be overturned by leasee contractual arguments. I wish the Cyphers Godsspeed in their efforts.
 So sad there is no recourse for people ruined by dangerously run amok agencies such as PacifiCorp, the EPA, etc. without bankrupting themselves in the process.
It's going to continue with gov agencies hi-jacking the consumers with their blatant and unscrupulous workings...why not? As long as they don't personally have to bear the brunt of responsibility and personal monies to go toward righting their wrongs they will continue to run roughshod over the little guy. It takes years to process any grievance.
I am no staunch advocate of 'corporate America', but the land is leased, correct? I'm relatively certain that, buried somewhere in all of that lease mumbo-jumbo legaleze is a paragraph about the OWNERS (as in, PacCor) right to terminate the lease based on apparent or perceived hazards to persons or property.
I realize that this is probably not going to be a popular position, but I don't see where PacCor are 'the bad guys' in all of this. If they had SOLD property to someone, and their removal of the dam created a hazard, I could justify the venom and bile they are receiving here. The fact is, they LEASED the property. Leases are generally not considered to be perminant arrangements. The Cyphers knew that they were (proverbally) building their castle on a pillar of sand, and they chose to do so. So long as PacCor pays them a reasonable amount for the improvements to THEIR property, they are only doing what they (legally, rightfully) have been able to do under the terms of the lease.
I do feel badly for the Cyphers. But, again, I don't see (other than the obvious 'heartstring pulling' angle) why this is a good guy/bad guy situation. The only thing certain in life is change. Your home could have just as easily been consumed by a wildfire, or distroyed by a mudslide. In this circumstance, at least you get to keep your stuff.
@MarkKpic
Mark-I think you have missed the point of the story and what is unfolding now on the White Salmon River. Sure I have a dog in this fight and I may have somewhat of a jaded view but I do know most of the facts. The Cyphers along with all of the rest of us are running into a wall when it comes to communication with PacifiCorp. We all know that the land is leased but we have legal rights that are stated in those leases. The main point the Cyphers are making is that they have been told that the cabin is unsafe and must be condemned without providing a shred of documentation supporting their claim. The Cyphers hired an independent expert who evaluated the structure and claims that it can be saved.  PacifiCorp wonât accept that and has not provided any supporting reports from their expert.Â
All of us have been impacted by the dam breach. We have been trying to get reimbursed for a well that we had to replace. The well was ours and registered through the county. We had to pay to have a new one drilled and we are offered a fraction of what it cost us and then transfer ownership and water rights to PacifiCorp. The negotiation has gone on for over nine months with no end in sight. Their legal team is huge and we would have to invest tens of thousands of dollars in the fight if it goes to court. Thatâs just us. Last I heard there are at least 16 other wells that have been lost. Our problems are petty compared to the Cyphers and what they are up against. Take some time and look into some of the shady practices PacifiCorp has been involved in and draw your own conclusion.Â
$.02- Thank you for some clarification on the elements of the situation. Again, I'm much more inclined to side with property owners (leasees) than with megacorp, Inc.
Â
I've made no hard evaluations or conclusions about the whole of the situation, but I keep coming back to the question of ownership. Yes, all parties in the situation have legal standing and rights. I guess another question that comes to mind is one of money. PacificCorp is currently making money off the leasing of the property, by evicting tennants, they are actually making the property less valuable to their company. That begs the question, to me, of 'why?'
Â
The liability (saftey) issues is one potential answer. Another is that they are being sued over things like wells and such, and would rather just reclaim the property than continue to be saddled with expenses related to liabilities incurred by continuing to lease it.
Â
The Condit Dam was not breached because the company decided it would be profitable to do so, it was breached in response to environmental laws/regulations imposed upon it (them) related to the property (dam). They decided that it would not be cost effective to bring the dam up to environmental code, so they breached it. Indirectly, some of the venom being heaped upon them could accurately be leveled at those individuals/groups who pushed through the revisions to the environmental code related to the dams maintainance. Why not also bring them into the lawsuit? Arguably, they are at least partially responsible for the net effects of the dam being breached.
Â
The central issue is veracity. PacCorp has not honored contractual terms of it's leases with land leaseholders in the past or present, so there is no certainty it will do so in the future. It's nationwide legion of lawyers shield it from accountability for its actions. No one group of individuals has the resources to fight in the courts against a subsidiary of Warren Buffet's empire. It's one mandate from the top down is to make a profit, stay within budgetary proposals, and ethics is the casualty of this type of corporate management. PacCorp has lied, bullied, and manipulated to obtain the result it desires. The Cypher family and other leaseholders are collateral damage. The dam was removed for business reasons, i.e., it was a cost effective alternative. It has plans to remove future dams using any least cost methodology. The residents and homeowners who will be affected should protest any plan that doesn't require PacCorp to be financially responsible for all consequences for dam removal without a cost cap. There should be a no cost mitigation procedure for impacted residents that doesn't require contractual enforcement through the civil court process. FERC accepted falsified and misleading contracted studies by regulatory government agencies such as WA Dept. of Ecology's SEPA. The local government abdicated its oversight function through the permitting process to save litigation costs and were pressured by non-local groups with a dam removal ideaology. Everything went PacCorp's way-Big money talks and walks where it wants to when the local people's will is subverted by fully funded special interest groups and when local government economies are restrained by no growth idealogy.
I have been a fully participating citizen in the FERC intervenor process to hold PacCorp accountable for dam removal activities at Condit Dam. The bottom line has been protecting profits rather than just doing the right thing.
I've watched the Cyphers work on this cabin as they have built it, over the years. They have put their heart and soul into it. The least that PacifiCorp can do is make the data available, that they used to determine the safety of this structure. Safety is not an exact science and if the cabin is anchored to bedrock, only a landslide of soils above it could present a hazard. It is unlikely that draining the lake would affect the landslide potential of slopes behind the cabin that are well away from the prior lake edge.
If PC broke the dam, then PC is responsible for the outcome. Let these folks stay and pay to shore up their cabin or prove that it is unsafe and pay enough for them to move and buy something comparable, perhaps on a lake that still has water.
Found more on the stolen plans story here: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/money/54163321-79/pacificorp-power-usa-plant.html.csp
Â
The Oregonian has a good article on May 24 2012. The title of the story is "Jury finds PacifiCorp stole plans". A Salt Lake City jury has awarded a Texas company $134 million after finding that Pacificorp poached its design for a power plant.... REALLY!!.. that's not what you call good business practice. Pacificorp really needs to clean up their image and set a good example for once.
 @JJ218 Why set a precedent? I mean, it's not like it's THEIR money after all. ;-)
Tom Did a great job on this story. We're in cabin 40, just about 1/3 of a mile up river from Cypher's. We've only had our place for 16 years, but we feel the same way...and so far, we're getting the same response regarding repairs from Pacificorp. Our place is not in nearly the danger Cypher's is, but since Pacificorp chose to take out the lake, they should have to clean up their mess. Part of that mess means restoration of wells, and structures. If it costs, it costs; they got to draw electricity out of the lake, and rents from those of us who lease from them for over 70 years. We as cabin owners don't want the moon...we just want to be made whole again. Â
I'm no lawyer so what is/isn't in the lease would be beyond me. However, just the simple fact that Pacific Corp isn't giving them any hard copy documents saying that it isn't safe as per their geo-tech's professional assessment doesn't make any sense to me unless there are no such documents or assessments. Seems like it would be simpler for a large corporation to just keep making things difficult for this family until they give up and sell out instead of work with them.
Long term land leases are common and the current lease is 30 years with an understanding that it would be renewed or the land sold to the cabin owners so the argument that those who live on leased land have no right to complain is incorrect.  PacifiCorp has a myopic view of their world - everything is justified as "did it benefit the shareholders" or "did it eliminate every risk".  The cabin owners are viewed as a problem, not customers with rights.
Â
For this cabin, when it was built the lease was a few hundred dollars a year and "forever".  Since PacifiCorp became the owner the annual lease has escalated and the regulations increased to manage the problem (cabin owners).
remember the old dude that said Mount St. Helens would never blow and he wasn't going to evacuate.....
I agree that breaching the dam was the right thing to do. However, I don't think Pacific Corp. has honored it obligation to the leasee, nor do they appear to be as honest or as forthcoming as they should be with the homeowners. On the surface, this has the appearance of a large corporation taking advantage of the "little guy". In this case, though, they appear to have picked the wrong family to mess with.
Â
Maybe they should get Warren Buffet's home phone number and complain to him - Pacificorp is one of his companies.
I would respectfully add to those who think they "own" their land, be careful what you wish for....been there, done that for 30 years...there is no "right" way anymore people, just look around. We all can lose what we think we have.
Well, It has been interesting reading the comments people have made here. There are many assumptions regarding the "lease situation" what we have out here with Pacific Corp. Our lease was well fought for and is legal...there are "rights" for us as home owners that many of you do not understand. I too was hesitate at the idea of owning on leased land, but this situation out here is completly unique and less like other leased lands that many of you are familiar with. There are obligations on Pacific Corp, pertaining directing to our propertyl. We have our rights and they have theirs .What happened out here was a calculated situation and all parties were well aware there would be an aftermath to occur. It's just no one could predict the devetating outcome to the personal property and essential services. So, some commentors are right...it is their land...and their liablity...and their finacial decision to remove the dam (right or wrong in your view) and so now it is their responsiblity to make the best restitution they can to their leasees...who they make money from, who they have a 30 year lease with , who have endured the entire length of time deconstruction has been taking place and etc. There is a mutuality in this relationship with PC. It is legal, fair for both sides when the terms are honored and up-held, financially beneficial to both sides, and a very unique place and community. It is worth working to save a home that you have built and lived in for generations, or work out how you will now get water because it has disappeared with the water table. This is our special place and just like any place in which someone lives, rented, owned, leased...it is home and deserving of respect for essential needs met..
The bottom line is that he built that home on a land that was formed by sediment buildup from a dam that is no longer there. Now this sediment will, over time, wash into the river and end up in the Columbia where it will have to be dredged out of the shipping channels.
Â
The house was built after the dam had been there for 60 years and lots of sediment had built up by then. The sediment will go away and the house with it. Just a matter of time.
Â
If they could secure the house to the bed rock the house may end up being an island that sits on top of concrete posts which would put it in danger of collapsing from a landslide from above the house.
Â
Nature will always win.
@RalphCramden The Cyphers built their home at the edge of the lake, not on sediments deposited by lake action.
 @BillP The lack of erosion secondary to the reservoir allowed that sentiment to build up over the decades. Now that the reservoir is gone natural erosion will come into play. Because of the artificial environment that allowed the sediment to build up the erosion will be accelerated in the coming years.Â
"The company's spokesman, Tom Gauntt, summed it up in four words: "It's just a safety issue," he told KATU."
Â
I can sum this up in two words. Really poor copy writing.
This is not a copywriting issue. Tom Gauntt is just not able to count. KATU quoted the guy, its not their fault if he cant count to five.
I thought I could add but this is confusing.
 @2012 Hope and Change If you went to Pertland Pubic Shcools then it would all make sense.
The homeowners do not own the land the cabin sits on. Â Much like the leased land up on Mt Hood, those forest service cabins have been in some people's families for generations - they don't own the land their cabins sit on either. Â If the FS decides to do something up there with the land, you are SOL. Â We looked into owning a forest service cabin, but why would you invest hundreds of thousands of dollars into something you don't really own? Â
Too bad the family can't afford to hire their own geologists er whatever and prove that the story they've been fed is a load-of-shiat.
I smell a skunk.. Why not prove to these people the house is unsafe if it is thus unsafe.. I would be suspicious as well.
That said, I wouldn't build on someone else's land ever, especially a big company since we all know they have no heart..
They should've invested their lives into their own property and nothing that is leased...they don't own the land so there isn't anything they can do legally.
Thats a dam shame.....
Â
IMHO, it was a stupid idea to breach the dam, it had be there over a hundred years, all was good except now some asinine regulations made it cheaper to destroy it.
Based on the article it appears Pacificorp owns the land. When anyone chooses to build on someone else's land they expose themselves to some level of risk that the land won't be made available to them forever. It is not difficult to understand Pacificorp's decision to condemn the structures that its consultants say are at risk. As a landowner they have specific liability related to that land.Â