|







|
Become a friend of
the Klamath Bucket
Brigade
Send
Donations Here
All donations are tax
deductible
|
|
This Website is Dedicated to
Alvin Alexander Cheyne
January
10, 1921 - June 17, 2005
|
|
|

Court:
Water shut-off OK in shortage
March 29, 2007
A federal appeals court Wednesday upheld a ruling forcing a federal
irrigation project to boost flows in the
Klamath River
to help threatened salmon even if it means shutting off water to
farms.
Winter
snowpack and reservoir levels this year hold enough water to provide
irrigation as well as flows to sustain
Klamath River
coho salmon, said Cecil Lesley, chief of the water and lands
division of the
Klamath
Basin
office of the U.S. Bureau
of Reclamation.
But the ruling by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals in San Francisco could set up a repeat of the 2001 irrigation
shut-off to farms on the Klamath Reclamation Project the next time
drought hits Southern Oregon and Northern California.
Officials
from the Klamath Water Users Association called the ruling frustrating,
but said it wasn't a shock.
“Last year we operated under these flows and this year we'll operate
under these flows,” said Greg Addington, executive director of the
association.
Bob Gasser, a board member of the association, agreed, saying farmers
will be able to “squeak by,” based on the type of year they've been
having.
“Under the current water year type, which is below average, we're
going to have adequate water, but it's going to be tight,” Gasser
said.
Addington said he's met with
Klamath River
stakeholders, seeking long term solutions with tribal members and
conservation groups.
Farmers had sought to lift an injunction imposed last year by U.S.
District Judge Saundra B. Armstrong in
Oakland
,
Calif.
, which said irrigators will
have to do without water in years when there is not enough for both
farms and fish.
‘‘We
hope that the end of this litigation is a sign that there will be
progress on working together toward a durable long-term solution,'' to
the region's water problems, said Jan Hasselman, attorney for
Earthjustice, which represented fishermen and conservation groups in the
case.
The
Klamath
Basin
has been locked in a bitter
struggle for decades over sharing scarce water between farms and fish.
2001 water crisis
Faced with drought in 2001, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation shut off
irrigation to most of the 1,000 farms on the Klamath Reclamation Project
to maintain water for salmon in the
Klamath River
, as required by the
Endangered Species Act. The next year, the Bush administration restored
full irrigation to farms, but some 70,000 adult chinook salmon died in
the
Klamath River
from gill rot diseases when
they were trapped in warm pools by low flows.
Last
year, salmon fishing was practically shut down on 700 miles of the
Oregon
and
California
coasts because returns of
Klamath chinook were low for three straight years.
Farmers decided to go ahead with the appeal despite warming relations
with fishermen, Indian tribes and conservation groups who want more
water for salmon. Last Saturday, some farmers, fishermen and Indian
tribes gathered in
Crescent City
,
Calif.
, for a barbecue.
Meanwhile, a summit
called for by the governors of
Oregon
and
California
to solve the
Klamath
Basin
's environmental problems,
including the issue of whether to remove four hydroelectric dams, has
yet to materialize.
Court rejects arguments
In a
five-page opinion, the appeals court sharply rejected arguments by the
Klamath Water Users Association, which represents about 1,000 farms on
the Klamath Reclamation Project, that the Endangered Species Act did not
require farmers to give up water for fish.
Klamath Water Users Association's ‘‘novel interpretation of the
(Endangered Species Act) is not shared by (the National Marine Fisheries
Service), which has explained that the proper environmental baseline
‘includes the past and present impacts of all Federal, state, or
private actions and other human activities in the action area,'' the
ruling said.
The
farmers' appeal, ‘‘fails to recognize that district courts have
‘broad latitude in fashioning equitable relief when necessary to
remedy an established wrong,'' the ruling added.
- From wire reports
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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://www.heraldandnews.com/articles/2007/03/29/news/local_news/local3.txt
|