The water rights issue currently facing the Klamath Basin is not about pitting one group against another. This is about solving a resource allocation problem and governmental transparency that assures all parties are involved and that all party’s interests are treated fairly. Moreover, that the claim for reallocation of the resource is reasonable and valid should be the first determination. Thereafter, the process must scientifically and fairly compensate and allocate to all affected parties, not merely silence the loudest or the most powerful claimant on a temporary basis. This process of reaching an agreement needs a lot of open discussion and notice to all of the possible adverse impacts to them. It is not possible for the few insiders to anticipate the needs or impacts of their decision on the public at large.

It seems to the Klamath Basin Alliance that people who bought land with the reasonable expectation of availability of water for their land should be entitled to such water. If we, as a society, have changed our priorities to say that the water rights should be limited or eliminated to various land owners in order to satisfy new river level goals, then all parties who will be affected should have a say in how the water rights are to be modified, limited, or eliminated.

Water levels in streams may affect traditional fish runs or they may not. That is a subject which is being continually debated. However, the reduction of water availability to the traditional farms of the Klamath Basin will definitely and adversely affect the property values and incomes of many people. That is not debatable.

The Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 539.100 thru 539.240) as well as (ORS 192.620 thru 192.690) make it clear that all affected people are to be given notice and an opportunity to have input in how changes, if any, will be made in a given community. Our society is based upon public participation in governmental decisions. Back room deals and political exclusion of interested persons is contrary to our constitution and is a violation of our Oregon State Statutes. In this case, the Shasta Indians have been excluded, sportsmen, businesses, and other groups who are affected have been excluded, and “off-project” irrigators have been partially excluded.

The water rights agreement that is proposed affects many people who have not been allowed to participate in the decision-making process. Back room deals at the exclusion of all affected parties smacks of preferential treatment. This agreement does not seem to be more than an appeasement to a threat, with no guarantee that the threat will not return in the future, requiring even more appeasement down the road. The proposed settlement should be widely distributed locally and regionally to encourage broad public review and input. Independent reviews for environmental and legal analysis of the scope of the agreement’s impact should be made available to the public.

Far too often, “feel good” deals and legislation are put together by limited coalitions of special interest groups without the knowledge, input, or analysis of the public at large. The results of such deals are almost always incomplete with disastrous consequences because there was no thorough investigation of the long-term impact. Just as suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem, so too is this proposed water settlement.

UPDATE (2/29/08):

Members of the Klamath Basin Alliance traveled to Iron Gate and Copco Lake to check out for themselves the number of people who would be affected if the dams were removed. There is quite a nice small community there with a store and fire department. Many of those behind the dams would be left literally high and dry while others below the dam would be flooded out during the spring runoff.

The local news media certainly doesn't address the devasting affects the water agreement would have on those people. And they have had no direct input during the negotiations.

Oregon State Rep. Bill Garrard appeared on the KFLS morning talk show "Klamath Talks" on Friday, February 29th. He stated that there were many problems with the draft. One important fact is that it is against the law for state agencies to meet behind closed doors and negotiate with Sovereign Nations.