 |
| Garnett
Bowa, right, and other members of the Basin Alliance to
Save the Winema and Fremont Forests protest a proposal
to return Forest Service lands to the Klamath Tribes.
The protest took place in December 2003 outside the
Shilo Inn, where parties were meeting to discuss the
proposal. - Ron Winn photo |
 |
 |
| Garrick
Jackson, right, a member of the Klamath Tribal Council,
helps a young member make a bow at the Klamath Culture
Camp near the headwaters of the Williamson River last
summer. Terminated in 1954, the tribes launched a
comeback in the 1970s. The camp is in its 24th year. -
Gary Thain photo |
|
Water issues linked to tribal
quest for land
Dylan Darling
Freelance Writer
July 29, 2005
KLAMATH FALLS, Ore. – By definition,
“termination” means end.
But for the Klamath Tribes, the word is the start of controversy.
The 1954 federal termination of what was then called the Klamath Tribe
left the American Indian group that had been based in Chiloquin, Ore.,
without a reservation, some of its members with loads of cash, some with
land held in trust, and all members free of federal oversight.
A half-century after the end of the reservation, Klamath leaders are
talking about a restored reservation. Federal officials have been in
discussions with them about the possibility, fueling rumors and
speculation about what might happen in the perennially water-short
Klamath Basin.
The state of Oregon’s long-running adjudication of pre-1909 water
rights is dominated by how claims will play out for ranches, farms and
downstream water users. Claims arise from an 1864 treaty reinforced by
several federal court decisions.
Some say the deals made as a result of termination were cut-and-dried
sale of land – the tribes sold and the government bought, federal aid
ended, and members of the dissolved tribe got a bundle of cash.
But others say the termination process didn’t make sense to many of
those whom it most affected, the members of the tribe.
The Klamath Tribes want a reservation returned to them, and they have
identified a 730,000-acre chunk of national forest and wildlife refuge
land about the size of Rhode Island. Various groups around the basin are
opposed to the idea.
“We have the opportunity to have a better basin,” said Allen
Foreman, chairman of the Klamath Tribes.
The latest plan floated by the tribes involves buying back the land for
“fair market price,” but leaders have given no indication of what
that price would be or where the money would come from.
If not with money, the tribes may use water to get the land, or at least
to get the support of farmers and ranchers for the political deal needed
to get reservation restoration through Congress.
Water holds the key to many political debates in the basin, often
bringing various groups together while sometimes pitting one against
another.
The summer of 2001, when much of the federal Klamath Reclamation Project
was shut down for most of the growing season, widened the gap between
groups already divided, and further bound those already together.
Since then, there have been many efforts to try to get the groups
together, but the debate is still fierce and positions firmly
entrenched.
The 730,000-acre patchwork piece of federal land sought by the tribes
includes all land within the former reservation boundary that is now
under federal control. Most of the land in question is within the
Fremont-Winema National Forests in Klamath and Lake counties.
Tribal leaders say they won’t make any attempt to recover former
reservation lands now in private ownership.
In early March, Fort Klamath rancher Roger Nicholson and Foreman
traveled to Washington, D.C., to talk about an agreement to drop
challenges against competing water claims on about 280,000 acres of
agricultural lands above Upper Klamath Lake.
In July, project farmers joined Foreman as he presented the “fair
market price” concept to the Klamath County Board of Commissioners.
ISSUES OF THE PAST
The debate about the tribes’ future brings up issues of their past.
There’s argument about whether the tribes were swindled out of their
1.2 million-acre reservation, or if they willingly sold most it to the
federal government following termination in 1954.
Some tribal members argue there was a misunderstanding by those who in
1958 voted to withdraw. They say those favoring withdrawal thought their
vote would only end federal supervision of the tribe and the
reservation.
Critics say the tribal members knew that the deal meant the reservation
land would be sold, and that those favoring it simply wanted the cash.
Foreman said he is still optimistic about the possibility of the tribes
getting a reservation again, but he wouldn’t speculate on when it
might happen.
Bill Bettenberg, director of the Interior Department’s Office of
Policy and Analysis, was designated by the Bush administration in 2002
to meet with the tribes about the restoration of a reservation. But he
recently said he has been preoccupied with other issues and hasn’t had
a chance to focus on it.
There have been “a few phone calls, but no meetings,” Bettenberg
said. “Last time I was in the Klamath Basin was early last year.”
Bettenberg plans to retire in August. Interior hasn’t named a
replacement for Klamath tribal talks.
For the reservation to become a reality, Bettenberg said, it would have
to be part of a broad “basinwide” agreement that brings balance to
the water issues.
Closed-door meetings a year and a half ago that could have brought a
deal spurred opposition in the basin. Although the effort failed, the
opposition persists.
Called the Basin Alliance to Save the Winema and Fremont National
Forests, the group opposed to land return is made up of small
landowners, Upper Basin water users, forest recreationalists and others.
The alliance is ready to publicly oppose any proposals the tribes have
concerning a restored reservation.
“I think the possibility is always there – politics and money are
always there,” said Lynn Bayona, spokesman for the Basin Alliance.
Alliance board members say the group is concerned about possible
infringement of property rights for people who own land near and around
a new reservation. They call it a “land grab.”
In the meantime, other developments make the water issue ever more
complicated.
Irrigators are hoping Congress will change the Endangered Species Act.
That would ease restrictions on water in the basin. The tribes have a $1
billion damage suit against PacifiCorp over salmon runs cut off since
1918 by a hydroelectric project on the Klamath River. Downstream
American Indian tribes lead a push to get the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission to order removal of the hydroelectric dams as part of the
2006 relicensing of that project.
A FOREST IN DISARRAY?
Chuck Kimbol, a former tribal chairman, said a Klamath Tribes’
reservation would restore a forest left in disarray by the management of
the federal government, and the restored reservation would be a key
piece to a lasting solution to the basin water conflict.
“What gets me is, they are saying, ‘If you get it, what will happen
to it?’ Well, you had it, look what happened to it,” Kimbol said.
Figuring out the logistics of termination took several years, and it was
finally complete for the Klamath Tribe in 1961, when the federal
government paid off tribal members who voted to terminate. It was 1974
before remaining members got their payout after a 1969 decision to
liquidate a 135,000-acre timberland trust.
The release of the money started a flurry of spending.
Adjusted for inflation, the individual members’ payout would be
$276,600 today, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor’s inflation
calculator.
The money didn’t last long.
“They spent it everywhere,” said Glen Kircher, who started a
hardware store in Chiloquin with his uncle in 1954. “I’m sure the
businessmen in Chiloquin, Klamath Falls and around liked to see the
infusion of cash.”
Many of his customers paid off debts and bought something they had
always wanted. Some purchased houses or land; others invested in stocks
or education.
“And some threw their money away – partying,” Kircher said.
Clarence “Boonie” Jenkins, a member of the Klamath Tribes who
graduated from Klamath Union High School in 1961 after growing up in
Chiloquin and Klamath Falls, said he saw many members of the tribe go
through their money fast, buying new cars, expensive appliances and
other big-ticket items.
“If you go back, the root of the thing is these people were getting
$100 per month,” Jenkins said. “If you give someone $43,000, hell
yeah, they are going to buy a new car. ... The new car dealers were in
hog heaven because everyone had two or three.”
He said many members simply didn’t know what to do with that amount of
money. Mistakes ranged from bad business decisions to flat-out fast
spending.
Not all of the members of the tribe spent their money quickly or lived
dangerously. But even many of those who tried to spend their money
wisely didn’t escape harm.
Lawyers from the Native American Rights Fund, a nonprofit Indian legal
services organization based in Boulder, Colo., charged that merchants
had exploited withdrawing members.
In December 1972, Federal Trade Commission officials from the Seattle
regional office traveled to Klamath Falls for a public hearing.
The FTC concluded that members of the tribe were charged inflated prices
for cars, homes and other items compared with what white customers paid,
sometimes double the cost or more. Many were also bamboozled by
door-to-door salespeople who charged ridiculous prices for products with
exaggerated benefits.
THE TRUST FOREST PAYS
In the 1960s and ’70s, while many of the withdrawing members were
spending away, the remaining members of the tribe were still getting
per-capita payments. Part of the reservation continued to be held in
trust, administered by U.S. Bank’s Klamath Falls office.
The 474 remaining members ended up getting about $38,000 each from 1959
to 1974. The money came in the form of quarterly checks that ranged from
$200 to $3,000, depending on the success of timber sales from 135,000
acres of land held in trust.
Bob Mezger, who was the forest manager for U.S. Bank, said the goals of
the bank paralleled the goals of the tribe.
“There was always a focus of what was best for the Indian owners,”
Mezger said. He said the trust officials weren’t out to make money
from the remaining members. Rather, they wanted to get the most out of
their investment and manage the forest accordingly.
Remaining members voted to end the trust in 1969 and were paid $103,000
each in 1974 and then another $170,000 each in 1980 after a lawsuit
setting the federal government’s appraisal of the land.
After watching the experiences of the withdrawing members, many of the
remaining members invested their money well, putting the money in trust
funds, buying land and using other secure investments.
The real financial losers in termination were the descendants of members
of the tribe on the final roll of 1954.
Born after the roll book was closed on Aug. 13, 1954, the descendants
didn’t get any payments from the liquidation of the land, the claims
that followed or the liquidation of the trust, unless they inherited it.
But they shared in the hardships, and as they grew up, many resented
those who withdrew, those who pushed for termination, and, most of all,
the government that ended the reservation and the tribe.
Many descendants tried to forge a life in the area of the old
reservation, where the economy was poor, employment chances were limited
and social problems abounded. Many left in search of better
opportunities.
When the federal government terminated the Klamath Tribe, it ended the
flow of monthly payments that had been the sole source of income for
many of its members.
Gone, too, was the government’s help with health, education and
economic development.
The consequences of the U.S. Congress’ termination of the Klamath
Tribe were poverty, confusion and division among former tribal members.
“It created a chain of events no one expected,” said Allen Foreman,
current chairman of the Klamath Tribes.
Friction developed among the three categories of former tribal members
– withdrawing, remaining and descendants.
No matter what category that members of the tribe fell in or what
percentage of American Indian blood flowed in their veins, they were no
longer considered Indian in the eyes of the federal government, and thus
also by many other tribal governments.
Members of the tribe who tried to enter American Indian rodeos,
basketball tournaments and other competitions and gatherings were turned
down because they were no longer considered Indians.
“The loss of the land, and to have people tell you are not Indian any
more – it didn’t help your self-esteem,” said Gerald Skelton,
cultural director for the Klamath Tribes.
MAKING A COMEBACK
Fortunes began to change for the Klamath Tribe in the 1970s. Led by
Chuck Kimbol, head of the resurrected tribal government, members of the
tribe started the political fight for restoration of the Klamath Tribe
and its reservation.
Progress came in 1974 when a federal judge ruled that tribal members had
the right to hunt, fish and gather materials from federal land that
formerly lay within the tribe’s reservation boundary.
There were no formal tribal government meetings for a decade. But there
had been informal gatherings for years, with Kimbol emerging as the
leader. In 1973, Kimbol and others went to U.S. District Court in
Portland to argue that although their tribal status was terminated in
1954, their hunting and fishing rights spelled out in the treaty of 1864
were not.
They won. Treaty rights were restored to all members of the tribes whose
names were on the final roll of 1954. Those rights were extended to
their descendants in 1976.
The state of Oregon appealed. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the lower
court decision in 1979.
After the initial ruling, a Klamath tribal government was convened to
administer treaty rights. The first General Council, or meeting of the
tribes general membership, was held in 1975. An election for a new
executive committee was held soon after, and Kimbol became chairman.
A separate court case concerning water rights started in the 1970s. The
tribes won that, too. Water needed for treaty rights of hunting, fishing
and gathering were given the priority date of “time immemorial,” or
from the beginning. The ruling makes their claim superior to all others
in the Klamath Basin.
The ruling, however, did not specify how much water was needed to
satisfy the tribe’s claim. That’s what the adjudication process, now
nearly 30 years old, will settle.
But as the Klamath Tribe sought restoration of its tribal status, it
didn’t push for land.
Former Rep. Bob Smith, R-Ore., carried the restoration bill; the
tribes’ home was part of his sprawling Oregon 2nd Congressional
District.
He said he wanted to make sure tribal members had adequate health care.
From the time of termination to the mid-1980s, child mortality was high
and the life span of adults was about half the national average.
With restoration achieved, the Klamath Tribes saw federal money flowing
into their coffers to be used for health, education, administration and
other services.
Smith, though, drew the line at restoring a reservation.
THE LAND’S SOLD
“They sold that land,” Smith said in a February 2004 interview with
the Herald and News, a Klamath Falls newspaper.
In all, the federal government had paid withdrawing and remaining
members of the tribes about $209 million for the land in a series of
payments to various groups starting in 1961 and ending in 1980.
Kimbol, then-chairman of the Klamath Tribe, said Smith was good to work
with, but firm on the land question.
“He was all right, as long as we didn’t mention land,” Kimbol
said.
Still, land was the tribes’ quiet ambition. “If you build a
business,” Kimbol said, “you are going to buy a piece of land.”
In 1986, Congress passed Public Law 99-398 to restore federal
recognition of the Klamath Tribe. President Ronald Reagan signed the
measure on Aug. 27, 1986, restoring the Klamath Tribe as a sovereign
entity, but the now official tribe remains landless.
The goal of a restored reservation was a part of the tribe’s
self-sufficiency plan in 2000 and talk of it continues today. And as the
talk continues, so will the controversy in the basin.
|
