By TY BEAVER

H&N Staff Reporter

October 17, 2010

     The issue: Stakeholders compromised on various issues and needs in order to reach a final consensus on the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement.

   Why voters should care: Implementation of the agreement will have an impact on local economies throughout the Klamath Basin and those impacts will be the direct result of the conditions of the KBRA.

   What proponents say: No stakeholder received everything he or she wanted, but the KBRA will allow all stakeholders and their communities to continue in the future with stability and assurances.

   What opponents say: Some stakeholders received more from the negotiation process than others, and what stakeholders received is not guaranteed.

   Glen Spain says commercial fishermen on the Northern California coast didn’t get as much water as they wanted for salmon, but they believe future runs should improve thanks to the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement.

   In exchange for increased Klamath River flows and removal of four hydroelectric dams, the fishermen will help irrigators secure water and protection against environmental regulations and aid the Klamath Tribes in acquiring a land base for economic development.

   “It’s a lot more stability and a lot less conflict in the Basin,” said Spain, northwest regional director for the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations.  

   But Tom Mallams, an irrigator off the Klamath Reclamation Project, doesn’t see how any of the concessions irrigators made — reduction of irrigation supplies, tax dollars to provide land to the Tribes and removal of the dams — will lead to assurances of water, affordable power or other needs.

   “I don’t see anything,” Mallams said of benefits of the KBRA.

   Stakeholders — irrigators, tribal leaders, fishermen, environmentalists and government officials — spent years crafting the KBRA.  

   Conditions of the agreement

   Among its conditions is removal of the four dams, establishing sustainable water supplies and afford able power for irrigators, habitat restoration and conservation work for endangered fish species, funding for economic development and helping acquire more than 90,000 acres of timberland for the Klamath Tribes.

   The agreement is an interweaving of concessions and assurances.

   Don Gentry, vice chairman of the Klamath Tribes, said the Tribes surrendered the possibility of pursuing what tribal leaders considered a strong water claim in order to get help bringing salmon back into the Basin and in acquiring a tribal land base.

   Gentry said the Tribes did not try to manipulate stakeholders into helping them acquire the Mazama Tree Farm. The land is an important issue for the Tribes, he said, as it would provide an immediate economic impact similar to what other stakeholders would experience from the agreement.     

   One thing all stakeholders received from the KBRA was an end to constant litigation.

   “All the parties wanted to give up this legal battle,” Gentry said.

   The Hoopa Valley Tribe in California, though, said it was unwilling to make concessions necessary to sign onto the KBRA . Allie Hostler, a Hoopa spokeswoman, said her tribe was asked to give up fishing and water rights if they interfered with water deliveries for irrigators. In exchange, they would have been eligible for tribal economic development dollars.

   “However, we believe that no monetary value can be placed on our fish,” Hostler said in an e-mail.