|
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 |
Questions
& answers
About
the Tribes
Page C5 & C6
 |
| H&N file photo Karuk tribal member Chewich
Arwood pulls a dip net near where the |
Q: What concessions did the Tribes make? For what in return?
A: Tribal attorney Bud Ullman said they agreed to
modify parts of their water rights and how they would exercise those
rights. “We also agreed not to pursue possible litigation against
other parties under a variety of legal theories and laws,” he said.
“We agreed to support cheap power for Basin agriculture; we agreed to
stabilize agricultural water supplies in order to stabilize agricultural
livelihoods; we agreed to work with others to reduce the adverse impacts
of the ESA on agricultural water supplies. “We agreed to all these
things even though the great disparity between the Tribes’ livelihoods
and those of other parties will remain for a long time.” The Tribes
stand to gain what’s necessary to restore fisheries and improve stream
and lake health. The Tribes would receive help from agencies in resource
management along with economic assistance, including the
Q: Tribal leadership changes frequently. How do other
parties know that future councils and presidents won’t cause the
agreement to be voided or changed dramatically?
A: “We first have to note the painful irony of
asking if the Tribes will simply renege on the deal later,” Ullman
said, “kind of like what has happened to so many tribes who signed
treaties with the U.S. “The Klamath Tribes have kept their treaty
commitments even in the face of profound abrogations by our treaty
partners. To take just two examples, where are our salmon? When will we
again be able to fish for c’waam (suckers)?” He said the same
question is relevant to other parties to the agreement that have regular
elections and changes in leadership, including irrigation districts,
counties, states and the United States. Mitigating all that is the fact
the agreement would be secured in federal, tribal, and state law — a
contract binding on all parties. Elected bodies would not be able to
void or dramatically change the agreement.
Jim Cook,
Q: When did the purchase of the 90,000 acres of forest
enter into the settlement process?
A: The purchase was discussed early in the summer of
2007, Ullman said. When the Tribal Program section of the agreement was
first addressed by the settlement group in August, the purchase was
included in that section.
Q: What’s so important about the land deal? Why
should other stakeholders have to subsidize the purchase, or is it a
value for value thing?
A: “The premise of the question is objectionable and
reveals a bias to the extent it suggests that only the Tribes will
receive such benefits when, in fact, other parties will receive vastly
greater benefits including hundreds of millions of dollars which are, to
take the questions’ view, ‘subsidized by other stakeholders,’ ”
Ullman said. He said the Klamath Tribes would be last in line to realize
the benefit of most of the provisions of the agreement. It would
immediately move toward stabilizing Project water supplies; and lower
river tribes and non-Indian salmon fisheries would see improved salmon
runs long before the Klamaths have the return of a harvestable fishery.
“The only way to provide the Klamaths with
comparable value is through economic opportunities like the
Q: How is ownership of the land by the Tribes related
to water restoration?
A: In addition to the above, Ullman said, a guiding
principle of the agreement is sustainable communities throughout the
Basin. That economically connects land and water concerns for the
Tribes, just as power and Endangered Species Act assurances connect to
economics and water for the agricultural community.
Q: Edward Bartell seems to be saying the agreement
would give the Tribes an upper hand in management of in-stream flow,
water claims, etc. He worries that the “sovereign nation” status
allows them to disregard the agreement. Is that possible?
A: Bill Ganong, attorney for, and Dave Solem, manager
of the Klamath Irrigation District, and Ullman said the Tribes
couldn’t disregard the agreement based on their status as a sovereign
nation. It would be difficult for future tribal leaders to overrule a
legal contract. The Tribes do not want to end agriculture in the Basin,
and leaders from both sides want to foster a better relationship, Ullman
said. “We would not settle if the Tribes could come back and say the
deal’s off,” Solem said.
Q: Why do off-Project irrigators object to the Tribes
taking money to buy land that’s on the market and instead want Tribes
to take money for general economic development that could include
purchasing land? Why does the Tribe object to doing it the other way?
Same end, isn’t it? Why is it an issue?
A: A group of on- and off-Project irrigators presented
a petition to the Klamath County Board of Commissioners in early
February that would change the agreement language to say funds for
purchasing the 90,000-plus acres of the Mazama Tree Farm would instead
be used for “economic development,” which includes purchasing land.
John Wells, an irrigator who signed the petition, said
the language change was made to broaden use of the money and make the
issue of the Tribes buying land with tax money less volatile.
Andrea Rabe, an off-Project irrigator who signed the
petition, also said the language change was suggested to quell concerns
about the Tribes receiving tax money to purchase land.
Even with the change, use of the money would be
decided by the Tribes and could include purchasing land, she said. When
asked what difference it would make to change the language in that case,
she only said it was to quell concerns about the Tribes receiving money
for land.
Jeff Mitchell, Klamath Tribal Council member, said the
Tribes are not interested in changing the language for providing funds
to purchase the land in central
The Tribes presented the matter in that way to the
other stakeholders and it should remain that way in the agreement, he
said. Mitchell added that even if the language were changed there would
be still be criticism that the Tribes should not receive aid to
establish a land base.
“We don’t see any reason to take it out,” he
said.
Q: What is the condition of the land in question? It
was said that it was “in serious need of tending.” What’s that
mean? How will it be tended and to what purpose, and are the Tribes
equipped?
A: The Mazama Forest is in a variety of structural
conditions ranging from open stands with little or no regeneration to
dense, overstocked stands, and everything in between, Ullman said. Most
of the forest is “grossly overstocked” with advanced regeneration of
saplings and poles.
Stand tending refers to thinning trees that are not of
commercial size to produce lumber. “The Tribes have developed a
state-of-the-art forest management plan, with the help of nationally
recognized forest scientists,” Ullman said. He said thinning would
reduce overall stand densities to increase growth rates for remaining
trees. It also would reduce inter-tree competition, which in turn
reduces the risk of bark beetle infestation. Thinning also reduces the
risk of stand-replacing fires by spacing trees at wider intervals and
removing unneeded slash. It also provides feedstock for value-added
business projects such as biomass, bundled firewood, and posts and
poles.
Q: Would there be a loss of accessible private
timberlands for hunting?
A: Ullman said that, just as any private landowner or
land manager would do, the Klamath Tribes would deliberate on the matter
and formulate policy as appropriate, taking into consideration historic
and future uses of the area, fire danger and other concerns.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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: http://pioneer.olivesoftware.com/Daily/Skins/heraldandnews/
navigator.asp?skin=heraldandnews