
Water
settlement
Question-answer
session draws 100 people
Klamath
County
commissioners
coordinate meeting
By
LEE JUILLERAT
H&N Regional Editor
February 26, 2008
More than 100 people attended a question-answer
session Monday about the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement.
The proposed agreement allocates water in the
Klamath River
watershed among tribes,
irrigators, fisheries and conservations. It also advocates removal of
four hydroelectric dams owned and operated by PacifiCorp.
The bulk of the questions were handled by Tom Paul,
deputy director of the Oregon Water Resources Department; Phil Detrich,
field supervisor for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and Chip Dale,
regional manager for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. The
session was at the Klamath County Fairgrounds.
Also participating were Karen Shimamoto, Fremont and
Winema National Forests supervisor; Irma Lagonmarsino, from the National
Marine Fisheries Service in Arcata, Calif.; David Harter, U.S. Justice
Department; Don Holstrom, Klamath Falls office of the Bureau of Land
Management; Jon Hicks of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation; Sue Knapp, from
Gov. Ted Kulongski’s natural resources office; and Cory Scott of
PacifiCorp.
The meeting was coordinated by
Klamath
County
commissioners.
During the first hour panelists answered written
questions. A second hour plus allowed attendees to ask questions.
Questions
asked
Among the questions:
How much sediment is behind the dams proposed for
removal?
Detrich said a study by a Seattle engineering firm
determined there are 20 million cubic yards, and that 84 percent would
be “easily mobilized” by the river water flow. He said the agreement
is not about removing dams and agreements to remove the dams would
require new environmental impact statements and Endangered Species Act
considerations. Information on the sediment study is available at the
agency Web site at www. fws.gov/yreka.
If the agreement is approved, how would it affect
water rights?
Paul said the agreement does not quantify any water
claims on or off the Klamath Reclamation Project. In a related answer,
Paul said the agreement would not affect priority dates on water claims.
Is the agreement legal under existing
Oregon
water laws?
Paul said there are provisions in
Oregon
water law that provide a
process where all or some of the individual sections of the agreement,
which do not fit existing laws, can be changed to fit legal
requirements.
What additional expenses would irrigators and others
face if salmon are reintroduced?
Dale said the intent of the settlement talks was to
develop cooperative efforts, which would include seeking federal and
state money to pay for salmon restoration efforts.
If biological opinions require water shortages or
cutoffs, what is the advantage of having an agreement?
Lagonmarsino said water users wanted exemptions from
Endangered Species Act mandates, but said the well-entrenched law cannot
be changed. The agreement provides a one-of-a-kind process, which
includes dispute resolution, intended to avoid litigation but he said,
“Is there a guarantee? No, there’s not, and that’s scary … We
don’t want you to be punished.”
How many agencies/ groups need to sign the agreement
for it to move forward?
Knapp said there is no exact number, but indicated the
greater the support the better the chances for state and federally
financed programs. “It’s a question we’ll have to ask
ourselves.”
Is the agreement dead if dams are not removed?
Yes.
Given that
Upper Klamath Lake
is a eutrophic lake, will the removal of dams really improve
Klamath River
water quality?
Detrich said studies indicate the dams and reservoirs
worsen water quality, so dam removal could improve water quality.
Habitat improvements along
Upper Klamath Lake
could also provide “some
help.”
Based on 1864 treaty
How did the Klamath Tribes gain so many water rights?
Paul said the Klamaths have no water rights, but have
a claim based on the 1864 treaty and court decisions granting them
hunting and fishing rights. “And to fish you need water.” A previous
case also said the tribes have rights “immemorable.”
If the Klamaths receive the Mazama tree farm, could it
be traded to the Forest Service?
Shimamoto said a trade could be made without
Congressional approval, subject to studies by the Forest Service that a
land exchange would be beneficial to the Forest Service and tribes.
Power rates
How will power rates be affected if dams are removed?
“Unfortunately we don’t know and can’t know,”
Scott said, noting confidential discussions are being held between
PacifiCorp and stakeholders. Detrich noted power rates are not solely
dependent on the settlement. He said the power company’s relicensing
efforts would continue if the dams are not removed and that could force
higher rates.
Will the settlement impact the Klamath Compact?
Paul said any impacts would be minor.
What impact does the settlement have on
Klamath
Basin
water currently diverted to
the
Rogue
Basin
?
Paul said the
Rogue
Basin
, which receives 25 percent
of its irrigation water from high elevation
Klamath
Basin
reservoirs, would be
subject to water rights like other water users.
Did salmon historically spawn in
Upper Klamath Lake
and the
Upper
Basin
?
Lagonmarsino said there is “convincing evidence.”
Detrich agreed the issue is controversial, but said there is evidence
salmon were found in the
Sprague
River
, and that studies indicate
the potential for successful salmon reintroduction.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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 |