Last Thursday I enjoyed a great day touring agricultural
enterprises in the Klamath Basin. I was on the Third Annual Fall
Harvest Tour sponsored by the Klamath Water Users Association,
the Herald and News and the Klamath County Chamber of Commerce.
Our south county route engaged several unique and ingenious
Basin farmers who have created success stories. Meeting the
individuals who make the difference was the best part of the
day.
During our travels, water usage, storage and shortages were a
constant theme. Additionally, the pros, cons and entanglements
of the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement and Klamath
Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement were always close at hand.
Making promises
Klamath residents are continually assured that
the KBRA/KHSA settlements will restore fish habitat, ensure
tribal interests, provide water supply certainty, add prosperity
to agriculture and create jobs in supporting industries. The
agreements imply all of this while striving "to maintain or
enhance economic stability of adjacent landowners, and affected
counties."
In other words, there will be money and
prosperity for all. These agreements should be called the "Obamacare"
solution to Klamath County's economic and agricultural woes.
Sure it sounds wonderful, but can all of this
be true?
These agreements represent federal, state,
tribal, fishermen's groups, conservation organizations, and
PacifiCorp. Additionally, these agreements specifically state
that they are dependent upon the sole determination of the
"Secretary of the Interior, in cooperation with the Secretary of
Commerce and other Federal agencies, as appropriate."
So, with all of these engaged outside
representatives no one can honestly say, "The settlement
agreement gives local communities much greater control."
On Sept. 11, 2010, another truth hit the
community. A news article describes, "More Congressional funding
will be required than previously thought." Does this surprise
anyone?
If the government funds (through taxpayers)
$1.5 billion for this project, then the Basin's economic future
will be tied to politics. This funding will undeniably lead to
more government control, regulation and intervention.
Is it all bad? No.
But, if the two most important issues are fish
habitat and agricultural water (along with the power required to
pump and move this precious resource), then how was funding for
water storage missed?
Well-meaning jargon
Section 18.3 adds well-meaning jargon, but
lacks specifics. It reads, "Reclamation shall work diligently to
complete appropriate studies for off-stream storage projects."
Yet, past studies already identify Long Lake
as a comparatively inexpensive solution. Estimates are that Long
Lake could be engineered to manage the same acre-foot water
capacity as Upper Klamath Lake, over less area and with less
evaporative loss. This is a glaring omission from the KBRA.
Apparently, identifying off-stream storage
needs would highlight the realization that electrical power will
be needed and existing hydroelectric dams should not be removed.
Nevertheless, participants, after "years of
extensive negotiations" earmarked enormous largess - $92.5
million to Klamath Water and Power Agency (an entity controlled
by Klamath Project irrigators) and over $50 million in
irrigation district power subsidies. Additionally, there is $21
million for the acquisition of the Mazama Forest Project for the
Klamath Tribes plus the $200 million in Oregon ratepayer
surcharges for PacifiCorp's dam removal effort.
After all this, there still is no funding for
water storage.
Voting on the KBRA
Nov. 2 will finally provide Klamath County
voters with an opportunity to vote on the restoration agreement.
This is an important opportunity for the voters to send a
message to Congress and our new governor - the KBRA and dam
removal plan is exorbitant and costly.
Our Basin should focus on transferring
ownership of the Klamath Project from Bureau of Reclamation
control to local control, including water right certificates.
Our county, our irrigation districts and our state need to stand
up to the legislators who have never made Klamath their home.
Klamath County's future depends upon
sustainable independence and true economic growth, not on the
political methods that will arbitrarily misallocate our scarce
natural resources. It's time for voters to pursue autonomy and
independence in order to achieve the proper allocation of our
natural resources.
Water rationing and funding giveaways via the
"Obamacare" solution called the KBRA is not the answer.