|
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 |
GovTrack.us is an independent tool to help the public research and track the activities in the U.S. Congress, promoting government transparency and civic education through novel uses of technology.
Groups: Deal has
greater benefits
Irrigators on the Klamath
Reclamation Project aren’t the only water users to
benefit from a recent settlement agreement between
on-Project water users and the Klamath Tribes.
The two groups reached a
tentative settlement last week that settled their
contesting claims in the Klamath Basin adjudication
process for water from Upper Klamath Lake. The
settlement establishes how much water from the lake
Project irrigators can use, based on the type of water
year, and seeks to fulfill the Klamath Basin Restoration
Agreement.
The agreement would allocate
water in the Klamath River Basin among fisheries,
farmers, tribes and conservationists.
Klamath Tribes water attorney
Bud Ullman said the nature of water law prevents the
Tribes from striking a deal with the Project. The Tribes
had to abandon their contests to claims on the lake from
1908 or before, which includes irrigators off and on the
Project.
“It protects an awful lot of
people,” Ullman said.
The Project was established in
1908.
Greg Addington, executive
director of Klamath Water Users Association, said he and
others representing Project irrigators have asserted
before that their settlement with the Tribes also would
benefit off-Project irrigators.
But off-Project representatives
said the recent settlement doesn’t resolve all their
concerns.
Tom Mallams, president of the
Klamath Off-Project Water Users, said the recent
settlement was already in the restoration agreement and
doesn’t diminish the Tribes’ claim for flow levels on
the rivers feeding into the lake.
“If they were truly sincere about not making a call,
they should drop their claim,” he said.
Becky Hyde, member of the Upper Klamath Basin Water
Users Association, said even if the Tribes don’t call on
off-Project irrigators regarding lake levels, Project
irrigators still could, and many off-Project irrigators
with junior water rights still need protection.
Water conflicts
The Tribes and Project irrigators have promoted their
recent settlement as a sign that the conflicts over
water in the Basin, something the restoration agreement
seeks to resolve, are nearing an end.
The fact the Tribes abandoned their claims to
lake water prior to 1908 bodes well for many
irrigators.
Under the tentative settlement, any irrigator
using water from the lake or its tributaries with a
water right before 1908 cannot be called on by the
Tribes to maintain lake levels should the Tribes win
other water rights in adjudication, regardless of
whether someone signs onto the broader restoration
agreement.
Addington and Ullman said off-Project
irrigators aren’t completely protected from a call on
their water. If the Tribes win their remaining claims,
they could call on off-Project irrigators to meet flow
requirements of the
Williamson, Sprague and Wood rivers to provide for fish.
Ullman said it’s still possible for that issue to be
worked out, as provided in the restoration agreement.
Mallams said the recent settlement isn’t
anything new and still leaves off-Project irrigators
vulnerable. Even if the Tribes are granted their other
claims and don’t ever call on them, others such as
environmentalists could as it would be legally
established through adjudication.
“They still have an instream claim that’s not
meetable,” he said.
Hyde said the real threat to off-Project irrigators
isn’t the Tribes or the Project irrigators, but the
off-Project irrigators themselves.
Ongoing problems
Time has revealed more off-Project water users
with junior water rights, or rights dating after 1908.
That means that they don’t have to worry about just the
Project or the Tribes making a call, but also the number
of off-Project irrigators with senior rights, such as
the Modoc Point Irrigation District.
“That’s where we have ongoing
problems,” she said.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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