|
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.
Leaders
receive water update
Al Switzer and Cheryl
Hukill want to know why a project for off-stream
storage wasn’t included in the Klamath Basin
Restoration Agreement.
It was one of a number
of questions Klamath County commissioners had
about the restoration agreement when they met
with proponents Wednesday for an update. The
agreement seeks to settle water issues among
irrigators, coatal fishermen, tribes and
environmental groups.
Of the three counties
directly impacted, Klamath County is the only
one that has not taken a position for or against
it.
Del Norte County
supervisors endorsed the agreement while
Siskiyou County supervisors opposed it.
Switzer and Hukill met
with Bob Gasser, owner of Klamath Basin
Fertilizer; Greg Addington, executive director
of the Klamath Basin Water Users Association;
Becky Hyde, an off-Project irrigator; and Steve
Kandra and Luther Horsley, both members of the
water users
board.
The commissioners told the group they
were concerned about the amount of money needed
to implement the agreement.
They also asked about the certainty of
water available for irrigation and if there
would be any further changes to the agreement.
Proponents responded that the
agreement would provide a level of stability for
the irrigator community not yet attainable.
Hukill and Sw itzer said they had
misgivings about whether the Klamath Basin
community could unite behind the agreement.
“I’m not looking for political cover,
I’m just trying to give you a dose of political
reality,” Switzer said.
Klamath County’s Natural Resource
Advisory Council voted against the agreement,
but commissioners have refused to take a stance.
They no longer attend confidential meetings on
the agreement after county counsel Dan Bunch
questioned whether an elected official could
attend such meetings and keep what was said
private.
The meeting was arranged after
proponents asked for a time to update the
commissioners on where the agreement stood.
Water storage
Switzer and Hukill questioned whether
increased water storage, particularly at Long
Lake, would be a more productive way to guarantee
irrigation stability for Basin farmers.
Since the agreement already implies
that irrigators in the Klamath Reclamation
Project will be short 100,000 acre feet of water
in the driest years, why not use money for the
agreement to build more storage, instead of
having irrigators compensated for idling land,
they said.
Kandra, who is an on-Project
irrigator, said increasing water storage
wouldn’t have addressed issues such as water
quality, habitat and fish passage. Hyde told the
commissioners it also would be impossible to
build up storage given present water
flows needed for fish.
Gasser said that irrigators, while
having a smaller maximum amount of water
available under the agreement, would have a set
amount that would be guaranteed, ensuring a
water shutoff as occurred in 2001 would not
happen again.
Hukill said she has had a lot of
questions about when a final draft of the
agreement would be available. Proponents said a
new draft will be released, but would only have
minor changes. Major aspects such as dam removal
would not be changed.
Developments
The commissioners said they were
encouraged by some developments. The agreement
specifies irrigators could receive an additional
10,000 acre feet of water per year if off-stream
water storage is built.
Switzer said he had
also spoken with a Sprague River rancher who
said progress was being made with the Klamath
Tribes to guarantee irrigators in the area still
have access to water. 
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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