New allies fear divisive effect of federal inquiry

Congress looks into possible role of Vice President Cheney

Mateusz Perkowski
Capital Press
August 03, 2007

Farmers in the Klamath basin are worried that scrutiny of Vice President Dick Cheney's alleged role in the 2002 decision to return water to irrigators in the region will reopen the rift between them and other basin stakeholders.

Growers, tribes, conservationists and government agencies are close to finishing a settlement agreement that will outline the future of water use and other issues in the basin, said Greg Addington, executive director of the Klamath Water Users Association.

However, there's a risk that the House Natural Resources Committee's July 12 hearing - called "Crisis of Confidence: The Political Influence of the Bush Administration on Agency Science and Decision-Making" - will aggravate tensions and disrupt the settlement process, he said.

"Nothing good could come of this," Addington said. "It's a political fistfight, and we're being drug into it."

The hearing focused on the influence Cheney may have exerted on officials at the Department of the Interior, steering policy to allow irrigation after the Bureau of Reclamation shut off water to farmers in 2001.

It was prompted by a Washington Post article published June 27 that linked his alleged intervention with a die-off of more than 70,000 salmon later that year, according to the committee's website.

Although the hearing didn't directly relate to the settlement process, which is primarily focused on the fate of four hydroelectric dams in the region, Addington is concerned that revisiting the 2001 shutoff and the 2002 fish deaths may result in finger-pointing among groups that have come to a tenuous peace.

If old allegations start flying in the media, "pretty soon we go right back to where we came from," he said. "We've worked very hard to not fall back in that mode of, 'I'm right and you're wrong.'"

The 26 organizations and government agencies have come a long way toward hammering out a deal, which should be completed by November, he said. However, the underlying issues are still sensitive - particularly when irrigators get cast in a negative light, Addington said.

"When people talk about mismanagement, we take that personally," he said. "What irritates people is the insinuation that if farmers get water, fish die. That's a very myopic view of the world."

Originally, the Klamath settlement group formed in 2005 at the request of the PacifiCorp power company.

In 2004, PacifiCorp had applied to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to relicense four dams in Oregon and California that currently block access to 300 miles of salmon spawning habitat. Obtaining the new licenses would likely entail building expensive fish passages.

To look for alternatives, the company "simultaneously offered the various regional representatives an opportunity to settle the dispute over the four dams," according to a press release from the Klamath Water Users Association and the Yurok tribe.

In time, the settlement process came to encompass a host of other issues besides the fate of the dams, such as affordable power and dependable irrigation water for farmers, Addington said.

Figuring out how to balance those needs with the ecological health of the basin - including fish habitat - hasn't been easy, but the settlement group is making progress, said Troy Fletcher, the Yurok tribe's lead negotiator with FERC.

To maintain their accord, the different groups involved in the settlement process have signed a confidentiality agreement not to discuss its terms.

"They're all very difficult (problems) and require this group to think outside the box," he said. "We do need to get it done. ... Communities are working their hardest to try to resolve this."

Not all available viewpoints are being included in the discussion, according to the Oregon Wild environmentalist group. "It's not that we're not participating," said Steve Pedery, conservation director for the group. "It was because we were excluded from the talks."

Oregon Wild and another environmentalist group, Water Watch of Oregon, were initially involved in the talks, but declined to sign onto a framework agreement they found several faults with, Pedery said.

Namely, the group felt that the framework was "backwards," securing irrigation water for farmers but not setting aside minimum stream flow for salmon, he said. The framework put agricultural interests above ecological health in the basin's national wildlife refuges, he said.

Furthermore, Pedery said, he doubts the current negotiations are making significant headway toward removal of the four PacifiCorp dams.

"It looks like these settlement talks are being used as an excuse to continue doing nothing," he said.

Staff writer Mateusz Perkowski is based in Salem . E-mail: mperkowski@capitalpress.com.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material  herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have
expressed  a  prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit
research and  educational purposes only. For more information go to:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

Source:  http://www.capitalpress.info/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=

34113&SectionID=67&SubSectionID=&S=1