The 26 “stakeholders” involved in the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement are to be commended for their work accomplished to date. But, the Agreement is far from finished. Parts of the Agreement are not good. And how can people be expected to comment within a short period of time on a document that was over two years in the making. Appearances are that comments or criticism is really not wanted. It is obvious that there may have been parties who should have been represented in the negotiations but were not invited to the table, perhaps inadvertently or perhaps purposely. Yes, the numbers get unwieldy for discussion purposes, but all that are affected or have interests should have been invited.
Who made the decision as to who would be involved in the negotiations? What authority do the negotiators have to make decisions potentially affecting all Klamath Basin citizens?
The Agreement involves and affects more than just the farmers, Tribal members and fishermen. By numbers, together, they are in the minority. Were the rest of the Klamath Basin citizens and their lives and interests in the Basin adequately represented?
Some points of the Agreement are beyond comprehension, presenting questions instead of answers. The following subjects may provoke additional thoughts:
| 1. |
What does giving the Tribe 90,000 acres have to with water quality or quantity? Why are we gullible enough to allow Klamath County citizens and all taxpayers to be blackmailed in a “land for water” deal? What is the Tribes involvement other than, a land for water deal, and assurances of millions of our tax dollars pouring in to provide “economic revitalization” for 3500 members? Who wouldn’t be economically revitalized with this kind of money coming into a bank account? Did anyone look into the fact that one of the prominent spokespersons in this deal has land interests within the 90,000 acres wanted by the Tribe? A conflict of interest, at least.
If the Tribe should get the 90,000 acres, what will be the consequences to Klamath County to have a large block of land under the control of a Sovereign Nation (the Tribe) within a sovereign State (Oregon) within a sovereign Nation (the USA)?
What would be the effect on 50 miles of adjacent national forest? According to the Klamath Tribe’s Economic Development vision they will be a “showcase how the Forest Service and the Tribes can collaboratively manage the forest while protecting and promoting the Tribe’s treaty rights and implementing the Tribe’s Forest Management Plan”. Why in years past has the Tribe interfered with the management (blocking proposed timber sales) of this adjacent national forest?
We cannot continue to try to “make right” the conquering of this nation by the Europeans. The Indians need to accept that fact. Granted, reservations were probably not a good solution to encourage assimilation. But we just can’t go back in time. It is history now. How many Tribal members would give up their cars to foot or horseback travel? How many would give up their homes for living in a stick framework covered with animal skins or tree bark? Would they be willing to give up the white man’s medicine and food supply? How about their electric lights and stoves? We can’t go back.
|
| 2. |
Removing the dams on the Klamath River is the utmost in stupidity. What in this world were the negotiators thinking? To remove one of the most efficient and environmentally friendly means of electricity production confirms an absence of logic in the negotiations. And then, after wanting to remove this great means of electricity production, to have the nerve to ask for a rate reduction for irrigation pumps !! As a ratepayer and / or taxpayer (somebody has to make up the deficit, investments are a little risky) there is good reason to be ticked off.
PacifCorp should not back down one inch. Don’t remove the dams. If the fishermen, tribes and FERC (oops, more tax money) want fish ladders, they can pay for them. It is pointless because you would be sending fish into water from a geologically dying Upper Klamath Lake. Logical thinking and experience suggests that if there ever were any salmon to make it this far, they were probably pretty beat up after having to gain over 4000 feet in elevation over a rough 250 miles of river. We have “experts” who have not lived here for a lifetime to tell us otherwise. Apparently, history handed down by white settlers in the Basin doesn’t count.
|
| 3. |
This item is going to step on some toes. How many times have we heard “this country is a nation of laws” and we must abide by them. OK, we have Oregon Revised Statutes concerning water rights. Why are these laws not being adhered to? The State needs to get off their duff and make the hard decisions we are paying them for. Yes, some with junior water claims are going to be without water and senior water claims will get their water first. Did you know the date of your water claim when you purchased your property? Water claims by a judge’s order for the Tribe have never been quantified. Is the Tribe afraid of what the adjudicated outcome might be?
Have you ever wondered why there was not a water problem with the Indians until they gained tribal status and could get their hands on federal dollars to hire attorneys to file law suits? When we had dry years in the past, everybody tightened-up their water use and we all got along. The suckers still thrived. Now our tax dollars, in effect, are being used so we can get sued. The Tribe(s) are literally biting the hand that feeds them. There is something wrong with this picture. The BIA is out of control and our federal representatives either won’t listen or don’t care about the problems being created. Are BIA appropriations to Tribes being used to lobby representatives for favorable legislation or dollars? It seems like these negotiations have been very favorable towards the Tribes and they have given up little.
|
| 4. |
If, by some slim chance, salmon were to ever become established in the Klamath River and its upper tributaries such as the Williamson River, this question needs to be asked: Do we relish the idea of even more state and federal controls over our water and land? Take a good look at the restrictions in place on salmon streams in western Oregon. Why would anyone in their right mind ask for such calamity on this side of the mountains? Can’t harvest timber here, can’t build a road there, can’t have cattle here, can’t build a house there and the list goes on. Another question comes to mind; Is there the possibility that the salmon have been “over fished”, thus creating shortages and sending the blame upstream? |
| 5. |
There were 26 negotiators at the table. A “consensus” (a tricky ploy to shame negotiators into agreement) was reached. There is absolutely no protection from an outside (the table) group from filing a lawsuit about some spotted salamander becoming endangered because of something to do with the water. |
| 6. |
About 50 plus years ago sprinklers began to show up on formerly flood irrigated land and land that was too high in elevation to get water by gravity. Supposedly, sprinklers are more efficient than flood irrigation to the extent you may get better water coverage and use less water. So, this question comes to mind; Has there been any credit given for this “less water used”, for all the sprinkler irrigated ground? The feds, through NRCS, were practically handing out wheel lines and center pivots after the 2001 shutoff. (To the taxpayer’s dismay, some have never seen a drop of water through them.) It would seem there are thousands of acres of farm and pasture ground using less water. Was this brought up in negotiations? There should be several thousand acre feet of negotiable water, it being the difference between flood and sprinkler irrigation. There might be more than enough to offset the proposed retirement of 30,000 acre-feet in the upper basin. |
It is easy to criticize and not always easy to offer solutions. In a simplistic form digest the following:
We keep hearing that the Feds “over-appropriated” the amount of water available here in the Basin. Was it the feds water to appropriate in the first place since the state claims ownership of most ground and surface water? Perhaps there is a “states rights” issue here. Aside from that, the negotiations agreement barely touched off-stream storage. The biggest part of the problem is lack of water to satisfy all parties at the negotiating table. We certainly can’t make more water, so why not store it for that less than rainy day? Jim Kerns, a respected Klamath County resident and businessman has advocated off-stream storage for half a century. We should have listened and done something about it. It is not too late. Why not take half of the billion dollars (if ever appropriated by congress) estimated cost to implement the Agreement and develop an area like Long Lake as has been proposed? How many thousands of acre feet are released down the river prior to letting Upper Klamath Lake fill to capacity for the irrigation season? We are dumping primarily what the argument is all about.
Then take the other half a billion dollars and work on water quality and additional quantity in Agency Lake and Upper Klamath Lake. Breaching more dikes, as has been done recently, should continue, but only with willing participants. A more serious approach to dredging should be undertaken. If the Columbia River can be dredged, so can parts of Agency Lake and Upper Klamath Lake. Perhaps some dikes could be raised a foot or two to gain additional depth and quantity. Generally, deeper equals colder equals quality.
Realistically, unfortunately, and pessimistically, there will never be enough water, no matter how much we conserve or store or restore. There will always be somebody down the line who wants more and they may or may not be connected to this agreement. The lawsuits will be filed and the process starts all over again. The only winner in the game is the attorneys. They still get paid whether they are writing or erasing.
|