|
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 |
A
water settlement primer
By
TY BEAVER
H&N Staff Writer
There’s
a lot to it.
The
Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement addresses lots of issues affecting
lots of people in the
It
costs lots of money — implementation will cost $1 billion over a
10-year period. Most of that is expected to come from redirected or
reallocated funds already spent by state and federal governments in the
region; $400 million in new funding would be needed.
Portions
of the agreement, such as a limit to the amount of water available to
irrigators on the Klamath Reclamation Project, would be permanent. Other
portions would be up for renewal 50 years after it is implemented.
Some
of the most important points:
Hydroelectric dams
The
agreement calls for the removal of four PacifiCorp-owned hydroelectric
dams on the
The
dams provide enough power for 70,000 homes a year and were built between
50 and 90 years ago. PacifiCorp provides more than $1 million in
property taxes a year to Klamath and Siskiyou counties for the dams and
other assets.
Spokesmen
for PacifiCorp say the dams provide emissions-free, renewable energy, a
growing requirement in the Western states they operate in. The company
also doesn’t want to saddle ratepayers with the unknown cost of
removal.
“Whether
these folks can address these concerns we’ve raised, I don’t yet
know,” says Toby Freeman, regional community manager for PacifiCorp.
Negotiations
between the company and agreement stakeholders are continuing with no
indication of where they’ll end up. If PacifiCorp does not remove the
dams, it will be required to install fish ladders on all four dams at an
estimated cost of $300 million.
Migratory fish
Some
species of salmon and other migratory fish would be re-established
throughout the entire watershed, restoring fisheries that tribes say
were lost with the construction of dams.
Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife would operate a program to reintroduce
salmon and other species above the location of Iron Gate Dam (just south
of the Oregon-California border).
The
reintroduced fish would be monitored to ensure they develop into stable,
naturally reproducing populations throughout the watershed. Programs to
secure additional water for fish also would be implemented, and plans to
deal with drought and climate arranged.
“These flows get us away from minimum protections
for fish,” says Craig Tucker of the Karuk Tribe.
Regulatory
assurances
Steps would be taken to minimize risks to irrigators
resulting from salmon reintroduction.
A process would be established to exhaust every avenue
of resolution to secure the survival of fish before water would be shut
off to irrigators. The federal government would also aid irrigators and
irrigation districts with acquiring incidental take permits, reducing
their liability should fish die as a result of irrigation activity.
These measures are not a 100 percent protection.
Biologists and other wildlife officials say that federal legislation
such as the Endangered Species Act still takes precedence and could shut
off irrigation water. The agreement would significantly reduce that
possibility.
“We can’t change the Endangered Species Act
through this agreement,” says Phil Detrich, Klamath issues coordinator
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Water
use agreement
Irrigators on the Klamath Reclamation Project would
permanently limit their use of surface water for irrigation.
In exchange, the Tribes would quiet their claims
against the Project in the state’s water adjudication process and
agree to not call upon the Project’s water allotment in the future.
Irrigators would have between 330,000 to 385,000
acre-feet of water available to them each year, depending on the water
year. The allocation would be lowest in dry years, requiring on-Project
irrigators to idle fields or use groundwater to make up the difference.
Voluntary rights retirement
Off-Project irrigators above
While conversion methods vary, 30,000 acre-feet worth
of water is equivalent to about 18,000 irrigated acres of land.
Water adjudication claims and challenges would
continue unchanged between the Klamath Tribes and off-Project
irrigators. There is language in the agreement that would allow the two
groups to continue to work toward an equally acceptable resolution to
water adjudication issues during the next 18 months.
Affordable power for irrigation
The agreement would set aside about $40 million to be used as
investments, primarily in renewable energy, to offset rising power costs
for irrigators. Energy generated on the
Until the investments fully mature and provide the
necessary funds, an interim program to stabilize power rates would be
implemented.
The program has a goal of achieving a rate of 3 cents
per kilowatt-hour but there is no guarantee that will be secured.
“No one was going to give us $250 million for a
trust to buy down the rate,” says Steve Kandra, board member of
Klamath Water Users Association.
Irrigators on the Klamath Reclamation Project would
all fall under the power rates but only off-Project irrigators who sign
onto the agreement would be eligible.
Tribes’ economic development
An interim salmon fishing site would be established
for the Klamath Tribes on the
The Tribes also would receive about $20 million, or
two-thirds, of the estimated $30 million needed to purchase Mazama Tree
Farm property in central
The tree farm is comprised of more than 90,000 acres
of private forestland straddling a 24-mile stretch of Highway 97. It is
within the boundaries of the former Klamath reservation and is thus
subject to federal law requiring its timber be managed for production.
The Tribes also are looking at purchasing the former Crater Mill site
near Chiloquin to use for timber production on the land.
Tribal leaders say the tree farm would allow the
Tribes to move toward economic self-sufficiency while the salmon fishery
is being restored. The lumber activity also could help the entire county
economy, providing wellpaying jobs.
County compensation
Two
of the three counties involved in the agreement —
Removal
of the four hydroelectric dams could result in lost property taxes to
those two counties. There’s also a possible impact on property
adjacent to reservoirs and impacts to recreational industries such as
river rafting and fishing.
In
addition,
Approval process
“I want to remind everyone that this is a package,
not a menu,” Kandra says.
Many agreement proponents have sought to remind people
that the agreement can’t be picked apart, likening it to a set of
interconnected rings. Remove one of the rings and the whole thing will
fall apart.
Each group involved in drafting the settlement has a
different process to go through before officially signing it.
Board of directors from irrigation districts on the
Klamath Reclamation Project will decide for their constituents whether
to support the document. County commissioners and supervisors must hold
public hearings before voting whether to support it.
Tribal leaders with the Karuk and Yurok tribes have
already given tentative approval to the agreement, but are waiting to
see where discussions with PacifiCorp end up.
The Klamath Tribes required a vote of their General
Council, which is comprised of every tribal member 18 years and older,
to endorse the agreement. The General Council voted overwhelmingly to
support it.
Along with those three tribes, several irrigation
districts, environmental groups and state and federal agencies have
given their approval or indicated their planned approval of the
agreement.
Some proponents say that not every stakeholder group
will need to sign the agreement to move it forward. The settlement could
fail if not enough sign on or if the diversity of those that do isn’t
great enough to convince Congress to fund it.
Supporters and detractors
Supporters
of the settlement agreement include the Klamath, Karuk and Yurok tribes,
many on-Project irrigators and a few off-Project irrigators, various
environmental groups and state and federal agencies.
Those
opposed include the Hoopa and Shasta tribes, many off-Project and
several on-Project irrigators, a few environmental groups and some
county officials.
The
disagreements between the two camps comes down to whether a group can
live with portions of the document they don’t care for. Supporters say
there is something in there for everyone to hate, but they are willing
to swallow the bad portions because the overall agreement would provide
security and stability.
Opponents
are unwilling to move beyond certain issues. A few environmental groups
and the Hoopa say the agreement doesn’t do enough for fish. Some
irrigators say the agreement doesn’t provide enough assurances for
water supply and power rates. The Shasta Nation and some county
officials, especially those in
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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://pioneer.olivesoftware.com/Daily/Skins/heraldandnews