Both sides of KBRA issue spin meaning of 18-80 vote

Voters narrowly defeat measure, 52 to 48 percent 

By TY BEAVER

H&N Staff Reporter

November 5, 2010

   But opponents of the agreements say the vote — the measure was rejected Tuesday by a 4-percentage point margin — will show lawmakers there isn’t enough local support to justify federal funding.

   “Certainly there’s no mandate for Congress to spend $1.5 billion,” Frank Goodson, of the Klamath Conservative Voters PAC, said of the estimated cost to implement all aspects of the document.

   Klamath County’s Measure 18-80 asked if county leaders should discontinue their involvement in Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement negotiations.

   About 52 percent of voters indicated they wanted the county to remain involved.

   “I think people in Klamath County understand this agreement is about stabilizing our rural agricultural economy,” said Becky Hyde, an irrigator off the Klamath Reclamation Project.  

   What is the KBRA?

   The KBRA aims to establish sustainable water supplies and affordable power rates for irrigators, help the Klamath Tribes acquire private timberland and fund habitat restoration and economic development. It also advocates removal of four Klamath River dams. KBRA opponents urged the Klamath County Board of Commissioners to place the advisory measure, which is not legally binding, on the ballot. Commissioners Al Switzer and Cheryl Hukill have said they’d heed the voters’ decision.     

   Commissioner-elect Dennis Linthicum, who will take Commissioner John Elliott’s seat, has said he wants to be involved in the KBRA, but from a position of opposition.

   A final position on the issue won’t be taken until the new board is installed in January.

   Not the desired outcome

   Goodson said the nearly split vote wasn’t the desired outcome for KBRA opponents, but it still shows that a sizable number of county residents reject the document.  

   In the end, Congress will see the vote tally as a sign to not fund the KBRA, he said.

   Hyde said the vote did reflect opposition to the KBRA, and she believes supporters need to further educate residents on the issues.

   But, she said, the vote also showed improvement in perception compared to results of a 2009 KBRA poll commissioned by state Sen. Doug Whitsett, R-Klamath Falls, and state Reps. Bill Garrard, R-Klamath Falls, and George Gilman, R-Medford.

   That poll showed residents were strongly opposed to individual aspects of the restoration agreement.

   Seventy-three percent of those polled opposed that the document was drafted in closed meetings, and 83 percent said they were very or somewhat concerned the KBRA would give the Klamath Tribes too much control over the region’s water.

   Tom Mallams, president of the Klamath Off-Project Water Users, said the Measure 18-80 vote indicates there is still huge opposition to the document, even though the question was poorly worded.

   “It was a process-related question. It’s ludicrous,” he said. “They should have asked about dam removal.”  

   Happy with the vote

   Craig Tucker, Klamath campaign coordinator for the Karuk Tribe of California, and Greg Addington, executive director of Klamath Water Users Association, were happy with the vote, but said it could bring mixed results.

   Tucker said the vote showed progress in Klamath County, but wouldn’t overshadow the vote from a related advisory measure in Siskiyou County, Measure G, that asked if residents approved of dam removal.  

   Eighty percent of voters there said they didn’t want dam removal.

   Adding ton said the Klamath County vote showed there was still confusion about the KBRA.

Side Bar

Wording differs in Siskiyou, Klamath measures   

   Siskiyou County’s ballot Measure G asked if voters supported dam removal, and 80 percent of voters said they did not. Dam removal opponents in Klamath County wanted a similar ballot measure here. Klamath County’s Measure 18-80 asked if county leaders should discontinue their involvement in Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement negotiations.

   About 52 percent of voters indicated they wanted the county to remain involved.

   Frank Goodson, board member of the Klamath Conservative Voters PAC, said the group had a hard time reaching voters because of the way the measure was worded.

   “We spent far too much time answering questions,” he said.

   But Greg Addington, executive director of Klamath Water Users Association, said the measure used in Siskiyou was too narrow.

   “It’s not the right question,” he said. “The dams are privately owned and there’s a massive review process to determine whether it’s feasible.”

   Stark differences

   The counties, while sharing a border, have stark differences.

   A large portion of  Klamath County’s economy is based on irrigated agriculture. It only has one of the four dams proposed for removal.

   The economy of the northeastern corner of Siskiyou County is heavily based on irrigated agriculture, but the rest of the county is not. It has three dams proposed for removal and numerous residents who own private property around the reservoirs.