Environmental dissent  

     Oregon Wild, the environmental organization formerly known as the Oregon Natural Resources Council, has been highly critical of the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement and Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement.

   Ani Kame’enui, the Portland-based healthy rivers campaign coordinator, said Oregon Wild is generally concerned about the Klamath River Basin ecosystem and specifically about management of the six Klamath National Wildlife Refuges.

   “What the settlement would do is manage the Klamath right back to a fish-kill and that wouldn’t be good for irrigators and it obviously wouldn’t be good for salmon,” Kame’enui said in a statement.     end refuge farming, but we do increase bird habitat. The KBRA not only ensures water deliveries to refuges, but increases the size of Upper Klamath Lake by 100,000 acre-feet and invests in riparian restoration of the Williamson, Sprague and Wood rivers. This is a significant expansion of migratory waterfowl habitat.

   “Oregon Wild is guilty of letting the perfect be the enemy of the very good,” he said.

   Benefits to refuges

   Ron Cole, the refuges’ manager, said the KBRA benefits refuges.  

   “Leaving the National Wildlife Refuges out of the KBRA would have left the refuges worse off than they have ever been before,” he said. “By having the refuges involved in the negotiations, the KBRA provides numerous benefits to the refuges they have never had since their creation over 100 years ago.”

   Cole noted these benefits: the refuges become a part, or purpose, of the Klamath Reclamation Project (they currently are not); the refuges will receive a water priority equal to agriculture (the refuges currently are below agriculture in priority); the agreement provides refuges their   own allocation of water separate from irrigated agriculture (the refuges now only receive water if it is in excess of the needs of agriculture).

   In addition, Cole said   “The KBRA water deal needs to be fixed. Salmon and farmers both need water, but the only guarantees in this deal are for irrigators. That’s not compromise.”

   Oregon Wild was originally part of the KBRA discussions, but was unable to reach agreement with other stakeholders and did not continue. Kame’enui said several major defects exist in the current drafts.

   A major concern, Kame’enui said, is that the KBRA “locks in commercial agriculture on Tule Lake and Lower Klamath National Wildlife refuges for 50 years, all but eliminating the possibility of restoration in the near future and for potential water storage.”

   Stakeholders in the discussions disagree. Glen Spain, the Pacific Coast   Federation of Fishermen’s Association’s Northwest regional director, said without the agreement, the refuges will be locked into the current status, which provides water to the Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge only after all other needs are met.

   Craig Tucker, Klamath coordinator for the Karuk Tribe, also challenges Oregon Wild’s claim.

   “I am no refuge expert, but I do know that the KBRA provides a strong assurance that the refuges will receive water greater than historic allocation,” Tucker said.

   “We don’t meet Oregon Wild’s need to completely   the refuges will receive 20 percent of the lease land revenue, which will be used in refuge conservation efforts. The revenue now goes to Bureau of Reclamation. He said the KBRA also gives the refuges “the ability to order water and apply it exactly when the refuge wants to. Currently the refuges receive water at times when it does not need it, often at times when it is harmful to wildlife management.”

   Dam removal

   Kame’enui, listing another criticism, said Oregon Wild is concerned that neither agreement requires removal of any dams.

   “The KHSA (Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement) is a planning process that merely might, after 12-plus years, lead to dam removal,”   she said. “The KHSA gives to the Interior Secretary the determination whether dam removal is ‘in the public interest,’ thus delaying action while unnecessarily duplicative federal and state analysis occurs.”

   KBRA proponents said the process is necessary to determine if dam removal is economically and scientifically feasible.

   Spain, who believes dams negatively impact water quality, predicts the process will provide information on why the dams should be removed and recommend the best removal methods to protect and preserve fish.  

   He also challenged Kame’enui’s claim that the KBRA will weaken the Endangered Species Act, noting that any changes to the ESA would require legislation in Congress.

   Kame’enui also discussed other several concerns, including claims the agreements come at the expense of fish and wildlife and not of farmers.

   Various KBRA supporters discount those concerns as ideological beliefs and are critical of Oregon Wild’s attitude.

   “The KBRA provides a collaborative balance that no litigation outcome could remotely approach,” said Larry Dunsmoor, senior aquatics biologist for the Klamath Tribes. “It provides flow improvements, a major reintroduction program for salmon and steelhead, a vitally important ecosystem   restoration program, and improved and firm water supplies for the refuges, among other important elements for effective resource management.”

   Tucker is also critical: “Oregon Wild has yet to offer any viable strategy to increase river flows, remove dams and increase bird habitat. They have throughout this effort played Monday morning quarterback while tribes, irrigators, fishermen and other conservation organizations have worked diligently to provide solutions that benefit all stakeholders.”