May 24, 2006 Klamath Falls Herald and News By Felice Pace Guest commentator The Herald and News editorial board treats
assertions and press releases from the Klamath Water Users Association as
gospel. In contrast, even peer-reviewed scientific reports indicating that
Klamath Reclamation Project operations damage the environment and downstream
interests are treated with skepticism. Klamath Project water users are sacred cows at the
H&N. Like cows in Hindu India, these sacred cows can do what they please
without fear of criticism by the Upper Basin's only daily newspaper. The latest blind assertions appeared in editorials
April 16 and May 7. In the editorial “Power rates are part of the big
picture,” Opinion Editor Pat Bushey, Editor Steve Miller and Publisher Heidi
Wright claim water used by irrigators is “returned to the Klamath River
cleaner and colder than it was when it was taken from Upper Klamath Lake.” The
assertion is repeated in, “Don't put onus on Project for saving salmon,”
which claimed that in 2005, Project irrigators were “returning water to the
river cleaner and colder than it was when it was taken out.” If the last assertion is true, it would be the
first year in decades that water returned to the river through the Klamath
Straits was cleaner than the receiving water. In its water bank, the Bureau of Reclamation uses
taxpayer funds to buy water from the Tule Lake Irrigation District wells (wells
paid for by California taxpayers). If the Bureau moves that water through the Straits
to meet downstream flow requirements, that water could be cleaner than the
waters of Lake Ewauna for a month or two of the year. The usual situation is a stark contrast to that
possibility. Lake Ewauna water quality is bad. Poor quality water flowing from
Link River Dam is worsened by the manner Columbia Plywood operates. Years of
storing logs in the Lake resulted in a massive amount of bark on the lake
bottom. As it decomposes, bark sucks oxygen from the water. The result is water
which often does not contain enough oxygen for fish to survive. The Klamath Straits enters Lake Ewauna farther
downstream. The Straits carries most of the wastewater from the Project except
the water which is consumed. If KWUA's claim - also repeated as gospel by
H&N editors - that irrigation only consumes 3 percent of the water diverted
- it must be true that 97 percent of the diverted water is returned to the
river. So what is the quality of the agricultural waste
water returned to the Klamath River via the Straits? According to the Oregon
Department of Water Quality, that water contains excessive nutrients, has
excessively high temperatures and high pH. The polluted nature of Klamath
Straits water is confirmed by the Bureau's monitoring reports. These are
available to the H&N editors. It's usually worse These reports confirm that Straits water is
ordinarily of significantly poorer quality than Lake Ewauna water. During the
critical late-summer period, the Straits represents about 25 percent of the flow
in this stretch of river. At this time of year, Straits water quality is
sometimes so bad the pollution is transformed into pure ammonia - toxic to all
aquatic life. Ironically, this most highly polluted water looks crystal clear -
one reason H&N editors may have been duped into believing it is of good
quality. Project water flowing through the Klamath Straits
to the river was not always so bad. In the 1960s and 1970s, tile drains were installed
in the Tule Lake and Lower Klamath areas. This increased crop yield by
facilitating rapid movement of water, fertilizer and pesticides through the
soil. Water use jumped dramatically, as did levels of nutrient pollution as
fertilizers and natural nutrients leached rapidly through soil into the drains.
Water use and pollution increased so much that the Bureau had to put another set
of pumps on the Klamath Straits to handle the increase in agricultural waste
water. There is good news on water quality within the
Project, however. In preparing for clean-up plans for the Lost River
and Klamath Straits, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been studying the
impact of refuge wetlands on quality. It found that permanent marshes on Lower
Klamath refuge significantly clean the water they receive. Seasonal marshes also
clean water - but not as well. These studies suggest how the Project could improve
the quality of the water it uses and returns to the Straits and Klamath River.
Filling in the deep drains would have a significant positive impact and reduce
Project water use without reducing acres farmed. Alternatively, using settling
ponds before returning water to streams can remove up to 50 percent of the
nutrients; passing the water through a permanent marsh could reduce nutrient
pollution - the Project's largest pollution problem - up to 90 percent. These techniques are used successfully in many
areas, including nearby in the Shasta Valley. If applied within the Upper Basin,
it would be entirely feasible for the Klamath Project and other Upper Basin
agricultural operations to come into compliance with water quality standards.
These standards were established to protect all beneficial uses of water, as
well as the public's interest in clean water. Benefits enormous Cleaning up Project pollution would pay numerous
benefits, not only downstream but in the Upper Basin. For example, cleaner water
likely would reduce avian botulism. This would bring more duck hunters and bird
watchers. The technology is simple and practical. All that is needed is the will
to do it. Unfortunately, the Klamath Water Users Association's insistence that
no land in the Project currently farmed be turned into treatment marsh precludes
such solutions. Will Klamath Project compliance with the Clean
Water Act become the Upper Basin's next divisive crisis? So long as H&N
editors and government bureaucrats treat the Project as a sacred cow, and KWUA
as all knowing, it is unlikely that the irrigation aristocracy which runs the
KWUA and dominates the Project will modify its position. H&N editors should
stop repeating association's assertions as fact and demand responsible behavior
from all players in the Klamath Basin.Water in bad shape when
it leaves Project - but can be improved

The Author Felice Pace lives on the California coast near
where the Klamath River empties into the Pacific Ocean. For many years
was conservation director for the Klamath Forest Alliance. He now
volunteers with Klamath Riverkeeper, a program of the Klamath Forest
Alliance. The opinions in this commentary are his own.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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
Source: