Stay: Klamath County needs to be part of water solution 

By CHERYL HUKILL 

Guest writer

October 20, 2010

     There is no more important, more challenging, or more divisive issue in the American West than distribution of our limited water resources.

   In many areas, neighbors are pitted against neighbors, water “haves” are pitted against water “have-nots,” and endless lawsuits are the norm.

   But we have a unique opportunity in the Klamath Basin to move beyond endless bickering over water and toward predictable, responsible sharing of our water.

   It happened because PacifiCorp’s dams came up for relicensing before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

   That company faced some decisions about its four hydroelectric dams (one in Oregon, three in California) on the Klamath River.  

   Should it charge ratepayers for the necessary upgrades to continue to operate the out-of-date dams, or should it explore the possibility of decommissioning the dams as part of negotiations among the various stakeholders in the Klamath Basin with an eye toward a more stable, equitable and permanent distribution of water resources?

   What developed was a roundtable settlement negotiation with representatives from Klamath County, Humboldt County, agriculture and fishing interests, federal, state and tribal governments, environmentalists and others — each advocating for their own interests.

   As it stands, Klamath County has a seat at the table as the process of continued evaluation and implementation of the agreements plays out.  

   In contrast, Siskiyou County chose not to sign the agreement and so does not have a vote as decisions are being made.

   Measure 18-80 is not about saving dams. Klamath County does not have the authority to decide whether or not the dams are removed.

   This measure deals strictly with the issue of whether the county should discontinue being involved in the decision-making process of the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement. There   are important issues within the KBRA that need our input.

   We believe in water storage, for instance. More needs to be done to implement some kind of storage for the years we do not have adequate water. The impact on small businesses, jobs, future industries and manufacturing desiring to come to our Basin, is directly related to sustainable water for our farmers and ranchers.

   We also believe in local control. Remember 2001 when the federal government was the sole decision maker on the water shutoff?

   With the KBRA and a no vote on Measure 18-80, we will help facilitate more local control and help determine, along with every other member of the committee, exactly what can be done to achieve lower power bills, water during drought years, and sustainable water year after year so we do not lose the 4,500 jobs and the $300 million into our economy produced by farmers and ranchers.  

   To be very clear: the KBRA and the Klamath Hydropower Settlement Agreement will go forward regardless of whether Klamath County participates.

   Right now, we can help influence this process as it plays out. But if the proponents of Measure18-80 have their way, we will have to sit on the sidelines and watch as others make decisions directly affecting the Klamath Basin.

   We don’t think abstaining will help solve our problems. We want to be a part of the solution. Vote no on Measure 18-80.