By JOEL ASCHBRENNER

H&N Staff Reporter

October 17, 2010

Editor's note:  This is one of the ongoing series about the impact of the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement.  An advisory measure about the KBRA and dam removal is on the Nov. 2 ballot.

     The issue: In 2001, irrigators on the Klamath Reclamation Project did not receive any irrigation water because of a drought. This year, many irrigators received only a portion of their usual   irrigation water allotment. Can the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement help prevent such water shutoffs and shortages?

   Why voters should care: Reliable water supplies for irrigators are critical to sustaining agriculture in the Basin, an industry that local officials say generates more than $600 million and employs about 4,500 people.

   What proponents say: The KBRA will ensure Upper Klamath Lake and the Klamath River are managed differently so more water is available for irrigators.     

   Additionally, relationships among water dependent stakeholder groups established during the creation of the agreement has led to more cooperation and less contention about water issues.

   What opponents say: The Endangered Species Act, which regulates how much water must remain in Upper Klamath Lake and other bodies of water to protect endangered species, like suckers, will still take precedence over irrigators, even if the KBRA is implemented.

   Kenny Schell spent most of 2001 moving his cattle from pasture to pasture trying to find somewhere for them to graze.

   When he ran out of pasture he moved them to unfenced fields, constructing makeshift fences along the way, in search of grass for his herd.

   “It was hell because we didn’t have feed for the cattle and we couldn’t water our fields,” he said about the drought year when water was shut off to Klamath Project irrigators. “It takes water. It’s the blood of the beast for agriculture. You have to have it.”

   Schell, a Henley-area cattle rancher and hay farmer, says he is worried there is nothing to prevent a similar ordeal if a drought like 2001 hits the Klamath Basin again.  

   Providing assurance

   Proponents of the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, however, say the landmark water deal will help provide some assurance of water.

   Steve Kandra, an on-Project farmer and KBRA proponent, said if the KBRA was in place in 2001, Upper Klamath Lake would have been managed differently and water would likely have been available for irrigation.

   In 2001, Kandra had enough water from wells to farm about 150 acres of his 1,000-acre operation.

   “2001 would have never occurred if we would have had the kind of cooperation and implemented the kind of planning we have under the restoration agreement,” he said.

   Kandra said if the KBRA would have been implemented prior to this year, twice as much water would have been available to Project irrigators. He said one of the KBRA’s biggest benefits is the lake would be managed under different biological opinions, which are used to   determine how much water must remain in the lake to protect suckers listed in the Endangered Species Act.

   But some believe if water is short, species protected by the ESA will still take precedent over irrigators, even if the KBRA is implemented.

   “We are regulated by the ESA, and under the KBRA we’ll still be regulated   by the ESA — it’s that simple,” Schell said. “If we’re guaranteed a certain amount of water, it won’t mean anything if the ESA says there isn’t enough water (for the suckers).”

   Barren Knoll’s family was guaranteed irrigation water when it came to the Klamath Basin as homesteaders, he said. But he fears under the KBRA, smaller operations, like his cattle ranch and hay farm near Olene, will not survive another drought year like 2001.

   “I think with the KBRA, big farmers will still be big farmers and the little guys will go away,” he said.

   Knoll said the water shut-off in 2001 created a sense of distrust of the government among irrigators, and is the reason many irrigators do not trust the KBRA.  

   Off the Project

   For off-Project irrigators, those who are not part of the Klamath Reclamation Project, 2001 was different.

   Matt Walter, an off-Project rancher, had only lived in the Klamath Basin for one year before the 2001 drought hit. He said the drought was not difficult for most off-Project irrigators, who get water from Upper Klamath Lake and its tributaries.

   “2001 didn’t affect us at all because we don’t have any restrictions on our water use,” said Walter, a KBRA proponent. “You can put your straw in the river and suck out as much as you want because no one regulates us.”

   Walter said many off-Project irrigators oppose the KBRA because it stands to break this status quo of unrestricted water access. He said he supports the agreement, because it is a proactive attempt to settle water-right adjudication disputes.

   KBRA supporters say the agreement, though not yet implemented, has already helped mitigate some water issues by establishing working relationships between stakeholder groups that had previously opposed each other.  

   Walter said Klamath Tribes officials met with irrigators this year as another drought was looming to discuss how they could help — something that never would have happened before the two groups came together to construct the KBRA, he said.

   “Now what we are trying to do is work together as a team, rather than fight each other,” Kandra said.

   But not everyone agrees.

   “The KBRA is a nice try; it’s nice that the irrigators, the tribes and the environ mentalists are all in on it,” Schell said “It’s nice that everyone is talking, but still there are no guarantees for the farmers.”