Reaction
to agreement varies in the Basin, beyond
By
STEVE KADEL, TY BEAVER
and LEE JUILLERAT
H&N Staff Writers
January 16, 2008
Following
are opinions on the proposed water settlement:
n
Steve Kandra, Klamath Project board member and farmer: “The
proposed agreement provides stability and security to
Klamath
Basin
communities. It provides
for a predictable supply of water for farmers, resources to address
times of water shortage and affordable power for efficient water use.
“By
implementing this agreement we can spare the next generation of family
farmers and ranchers from a lifetime of neighbor-against-neighbor
litigation, media wars and economic uncertainty.”
n
Dave Mauser, Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuges biologist:
The settlement provides the refuges with “a big improvement over the
situation we’ve been in. A guaranteed allocation of water, that’s
the big thing we’ve wanted to see, especially on the
Lower Klamath
refuge.”
Under the proposal, the refuges would be guaranteed
between 48,000 and 60,000 acre-feet of water, based on a sliding scale
depending on water supply. He said the 48,000 figure is “somewhat less
than we generally use,” but the water would be assured. At present,
the refuges have no guaranteed water supply.
Under the agreement the refuges would continue to
lease 20,000 acres to local farmers. The refuge would receive 20 percent
of the lease revenues, or about $200,000 a year, which would be used for
conservation projects on the refuges. The refuges currently receive none
of the revenues.
n Ron Cole, Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuges
manager: Providing assured water to the
Lower Klamath
and Tule Lake National
Wildlife Refuges fulfills promises made when the
Lower Klamath
was established as the nation’s first waterfowl refuge 100
years ago.
“Teddy Roosevelt would have been pretty pleased,”
he said, referring to the president who created the refuge. “We’re
keeping a promise they made, not only to the 400-plus species of
wildlife, but to the people.”
Cole said the cooperative effort “with our neighbors
provides us that avenue where we can work together on a lot of things.
That support is important.”
n Edward Bartell, president of the Klamath Off-Project
Water Users: Bartell, who represents some off-project
irrigators who are not part of the Klamath Reclamation Project, termed
the proposed settlement “devastating … This is nothing remotely
representing a settlement.”
He said off-project water users farm more than 100,000
acres in the Hildebrand,
Swan
Lake
,
Sprague
River
,
Fort
Klamath
and
Upper Klamath Lake
regions. The land is used
for strawberry nurseries, alfalfa and cattle.
The group supported settlement talks, but Bartell said
“efforts to meet all parties needs have rapidly degenerated into a
proposed settlement that benefits only a select few and will be
devastating for our members and others … Efforts to reach a fair and
balanced settlement have been soundly rejected in favor of attacking the
interests of various upper basin irrigators who were not allowed to be
at the table.” He claimed it would force the retirement of more than
18,000 acres of farming and ranch lands.
He said a provision to provide an additional 30,000 acre-feet of water
comes after thousands of acres were provided since 2001.
“We’re tired of litigation and we’re tired of
politics,” he said. “We just want to go home and farm. We can’t
with this. It would kill our community.”
n Roger Nicholson, president of Resource Conservancy:
Nicholson represents upper
Klamath
Basin
irrigators who rely on
water from
Upper Klamath Lake
and the Williamson, Sprague
and Wood rivers. He said the settlement group “just threw us aside …
It’s very, very bad.”
The Resource Conservancy represents ranchers and
farmers on about 50,000 irrigated acres but Nicholson said the group was
denied participation in the settlement process.
n John Elliott,
Klamath
County
commissioner:
Elliott reserved comment on the settlement agreement. While
he participated in negotiations, he had yet to review the document since
a final round of revisions were made.
n Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski: The governor supports
the settlement agreement and commended those involved at the local level
looking for solutions, said Rem Nivens, Kulongoski’s perspokesman.
He acknowledged there are hurdles, such as an agreement with PacifiCorp.
After that and other obstacles are cleared, Nivens said the governor
would look into organizing a water summit in
Klamath Falls
that he announced during
the fall 2006 gubernatorial election.
n
Greg Addington, Klamath Water Users Association executive director:
“From our
Addington said the agreement achieves three goals his
organization has long sought — a reliable source of water, stable
power costs, and regulatory protection from new species, such as salmon,
being re-introduced to the
Upper
Klamath
Basin
.
n Chuck Bonham, Trout Unlimited: “We have a unique
opportunity for a business deal that delivers advantage to the fish and
benefit to PacifiCorp. We can and should do both.”
Salmon won’t be the only species of fish to benefit
from changes advocated in the settlement, he said.
“The fish benefit will run to salmon, steelhead and
the resident trout species, the red band. A trout loves good riparian
habitat just as salmon does, it likes to migrate freely within its
habitat just like salmon and steelhead do. “I believe it’s possible
to find a business deal that is good for the fish and good for
(PacifiCorp).”
n Paul Vogel, spokesman for PacifiCorp: Vogel said
it’s difficult to consider Tuesday’s announcement a settlement when
PacifiCorp didn’t have a seat at the table. Vogel said he only learned
what was in the settlement document from a media representative who
called for his opinion.
PacifiCorp was not a part of the water negotiations discussions and
there have been potential good solutions,” he said.
“One questions what was settled,” he said. “When
the license holder and several hundred thousand customers didn’t have
a seat at the table, that is irresponsible. We initiated settlement
talks three years ago. To have no part in crafting of this document, it
really makes you ask yourself what substance there is to it.”
n State Sen. Doug Whitsett,
R-Klamath
Falls
: Whitsett said
concerns he raised Saturday about the settlement appear well founded,
but said he had not reviewed the document yet.
The senator said in a town hall meeting that preliminary reports about
the agreement did not include proposals for increased water storage and
that it came with a price tag of about $1 billion. Further, he said the
agreement does not follow
Oregon
water law and will end up being determined by the courts.
“There are definite winners and losers,” he said.
n Pablo Arroyave , Bureau of Reclamation regional
director: Arroyave said the agency does not take a position for or
against the settlement agreement.
“Reclamation’s role has been to represent and
protect interests of our stakeholders during years of discussion of this
very important agreement,” he said.
Arroyave noted the settlement would require
legislation, and Reclamation will continue to support its members in
that avenue. “We’ve been involved in is a victory for
Klamath
Basin
agriculture, for the
refuges and for fish. We have to look at what the alternatives are for
us. If you’re an irrigator on the Klamath Project, the status quo is a
frightening place to be.”
n Greg Hurner, California Fish and Game Service:
Hurner said his organization was glad to participate in the settlement
process and is excited to have it at this stage and before the public.
California Fish and Game officials are reviewing the
document thoroughly but do support the settlement stakeholders’
efforts.
n U.S. Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore.: Walden commended
those involved in settlement negotiations while recognizing the
challenges ahead. He said he always felt region’s troubles would come
at the local level.
“The groups that have stuck with these difficult
negotiations deserve a medal,” he said in a press release. The
representative pledged to work with his colleagues in Congress to bring
the proposed agreement to fulfillment.
n U.S. Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore.: Smith applauded
local efforts to establish a settlement agreement for the
Klamath River
watershed. “This is a
complex and multifaceted plan and I look forward to feedback from
farmers, tribes, fishermen and all stakeholders involved,” he said in
a press release.
n Klamath Tribes: The Klamath Tribal Council will
recommend its General Council approve the settlement agreement. While
acknowledging PacifiCorp’s cooperation is required before the
agreement can be implemented, tribal representatives said its passage
would usher in a new era for the
Klamath
Basin
.
“We call on the company to help us solve one of the
West’s most complex and bitter water wars,” said Jeff Mitchell, a
tribal councilman.
n Steve Rothert, director of the
California
office of American Rivers:
“We have a plan to put the
Klamath
Basin
back together ecologically as well as economically, but we
can’t do it without PacifiCorp as a partner. We are optimistic we can
forge that partnership with the company in coming weeks.”
He called the agreement “historic,” and said it
was achieved because “many people abandoned baggage from past
battles.”
n Clifford Lyle Marshall, tribal chairman for the
Hoopa Valley Tribe of northern
California
: He said the tribe won’t
endorse the settlement because it lacks adequate water assurances for
fish.
“What began as dam removal negotiations got turned
into a water deal,” he said. “The terms of this so-called
restoration agreement make the right to divert water for irrigation the
top priority, trumping salmon water needs and the best available science
on the river.”
n Craig Tucker, spokesman for the Karuk Tribe of
California
: Environmentalists as well
as farmers and fishermen should applaud the agreement, he said.
“I don’t understand how any environmental group
can’t support the largest dam removal project in the history of the
world,” he said. Tucker added that groups with “extremist view are
never going to be happy.” He said the scope and depth of the agreement
is impressive.
n John DeVoe, executive director of Waterwatch of
Oregon: DeVoe said the group was “involuntarily removed” from the
talks.
“This is a deal that has certain guarantees for
agriculture, but does not guarantee any amount of water for salmon in
the
Klamath River
. This river has been
compromised to death. What the river needs is to stop the compromises
and start the restoration.”
The agreement provides for stream flows that are less
than the current biological opinion, he said. It does not provide for
increased water for the national wildlife refuges, he said, adding,
“In drought years it takes water away from the refuges and puts them
at risk.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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
|
