|
Become a friend of the Klamath Bucket Brigade All donations are tax deductible |
|
This Website is Dedicated to Alvin Alexander Cheyne January 10, 1921 - June 17, 2005 |
GovTrack.us is an independent tool to help the public research and track the activities in the U.S. Congress, promoting government transparency and civic education through novel uses of technology.
No deal better than a bad deal in the Klamath Basin
Felice Pace
Guest Comment
Felice Pace
Guest Comment
Capital Press
December 18, 2008
Your lead editorial in the Nov. 28 edition calls the "Agreement in Principle" on Klamath dams "a step in the right direction." The main reason you give to justify your conclusion is that diplomacy and negotiations are preferable to conflict and litigation.
This reasoning is difficult to disagree with. In fact, all 28 groups which joined together over two years ago to negotiate Klamath water issues did agree with Capital Press editors - that is why they devoted countless hours to the negotiations.
As part of the Klamath Forest Alliance I supported the negotiations and KFA's river coordinator - Petey Brucker - participated actively in the endless meetings. Oregon Wild participated in the negotiations too until they - and Water Watch - were (illegally?) removed from the group. Northcoast Environmental Center and the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations remain in the Klamath Settlement Group but - like many off-project irrigators - they say they need changes in the water deal before their organizations could sign it.
Meanwhile, the board of directors of the Klamath Water Users Association - which represents irrigation interests on the federal Klamath Project - has passed a resolution saying that the water deal cannot be changed. The Klamath Tribes have made similar statements, and the lead negotiator for the Yurok Tribe suggested in a recent draft letter (which was mistakenly sent to the wrong person) that organizations should be forced to endorse both the water deal and the "Agreement in Principle" on the dams if they want to remain in negotiations.
All this points to a lesson which history has taught over and over: Whether an agreement produces peace and stability or more conflict depends on what is actually in the agreement. A prime historical example is the West's "settlement" with Adolf Hitler. The Munich Agreement of 1938 is widely believed to have abetted Hitler's drive to domination and therefore contributed to making World War II both more likely and more deadly.
Most of the "Off-Project" Klamath irrigators - those who do not get their water from the Bureau of Reclamation - oppose the Water Deal because it calls on them to give up 30,000 acre feet of water while "project irrigators" get a guaranteed supply.
I'm with these folks. If an additional 10,000 to 15,000 acres of land needs to be taken out of irrigation to reduce water demand, all farmers - "on" and "off" project - should share the pain. And there is only one reason why shared pain is not in the water deal. A small number of powerful irrigators want to continue to lease and farm vast acreages of private and public land and they want to keep lease prices low by keeping as much land as possible within the Klamath Project up for lease.
This is not the only problem in the water deal but it is the reason I call that small group of powerful irrigators the "irrigation elite," and it is one of many reasons why the Klamath Water Deal - if it ever becomes law - will create more rather than less conflict.
There are many reasons why the Klamath Water Deal as a whole should be scrapped and why a decision on what to do with PacifiCorp's dams should not be linked to a water deal which - because it requires new subsidies and exemptions or virtual exemptions from several bedrock state, federal and common laws - requires passage of state and federal legislation. One of those reasons is the agreement's unequal and unfair treatment of "off-project" irrigators.
No agreement is preferable to a bad agreement.
Felice Pace has resided in the Klamath River Basin since 1975. He has been active on Klamath River water and fish issues since 1986. Pace blogs on Klamath River issues at klamblog.blogspot.com.
December 18, 2008
Your lead editorial in the Nov. 28 edition calls the "Agreement in Principle" on Klamath dams "a step in the right direction." The main reason you give to justify your conclusion is that diplomacy and negotiations are preferable to conflict and litigation.
This reasoning is difficult to disagree with. In fact, all 28 groups which joined together over two years ago to negotiate Klamath water issues did agree with Capital Press editors - that is why they devoted countless hours to the negotiations.
As part of the Klamath Forest Alliance I supported the negotiations and KFA's river coordinator - Petey Brucker - participated actively in the endless meetings. Oregon Wild participated in the negotiations too until they - and Water Watch - were (illegally?) removed from the group. Northcoast Environmental Center and the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations remain in the Klamath Settlement Group but - like many off-project irrigators - they say they need changes in the water deal before their organizations could sign it.
Meanwhile, the board of directors of the Klamath Water Users Association - which represents irrigation interests on the federal Klamath Project - has passed a resolution saying that the water deal cannot be changed. The Klamath Tribes have made similar statements, and the lead negotiator for the Yurok Tribe suggested in a recent draft letter (which was mistakenly sent to the wrong person) that organizations should be forced to endorse both the water deal and the "Agreement in Principle" on the dams if they want to remain in negotiations.
All this points to a lesson which history has taught over and over: Whether an agreement produces peace and stability or more conflict depends on what is actually in the agreement. A prime historical example is the West's "settlement" with Adolf Hitler. The Munich Agreement of 1938 is widely believed to have abetted Hitler's drive to domination and therefore contributed to making World War II both more likely and more deadly.
Most of the "Off-Project" Klamath irrigators - those who do not get their water from the Bureau of Reclamation - oppose the Water Deal because it calls on them to give up 30,000 acre feet of water while "project irrigators" get a guaranteed supply.
I'm with these folks. If an additional 10,000 to 15,000 acres of land needs to be taken out of irrigation to reduce water demand, all farmers - "on" and "off" project - should share the pain. And there is only one reason why shared pain is not in the water deal. A small number of powerful irrigators want to continue to lease and farm vast acreages of private and public land and they want to keep lease prices low by keeping as much land as possible within the Klamath Project up for lease.
This is not the only problem in the water deal but it is the reason I call that small group of powerful irrigators the "irrigation elite," and it is one of many reasons why the Klamath Water Deal - if it ever becomes law - will create more rather than less conflict.
There are many reasons why the Klamath Water Deal as a whole should be scrapped and why a decision on what to do with PacifiCorp's dams should not be linked to a water deal which - because it requires new subsidies and exemptions or virtual exemptions from several bedrock state, federal and common laws - requires passage of state and federal legislation. One of those reasons is the agreement's unequal and unfair treatment of "off-project" irrigators.
No agreement is preferable to a bad agreement.
Felice Pace has resided in the Klamath River Basin since 1975. He has been active on Klamath River water and fish issues since 1986. Pace blogs on Klamath River issues at klamblog.blogspot.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