Become a friend of

   the Klamath Bucket  

            Brigade

   Send Donations Here

     All donations are tax  

             deductible

 

 

 This Website is Dedicated to

 Alvin Alexander Cheyne

January 10, 1921 - June 17, 2005

 

GovTrack.us is an independent tool to help the public research and track the activities in the U.S. Congress, promoting government transparency and civic education through novel uses of technology.

 

 

 

 

      

 

Refuges need more than agreement gives

By ANI KAME’ENU
Guest Writer

Klamath Falls Herald and News

November 8, 2009

On Oct. 16 Lee Juillerat captured the optimism of Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuge complex manager Ron Cole and biologist Dave Mauser regarding the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement’s impacts to their backyard refuges.

Cole and Mauser didn’t shy from the tough responsibilities they face on the refuges and the current challenges they face in getting enough water. After all, it’s the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that is tasked with the mission to “conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.”

As one of the organizations that has struggled to make the refuges a conservation priority in the Klamath Basin, Oregon Wild is sympathetic to the longstanding limits on water resources faced by Cole and Mauser. Unfortunately, details in the restoration agreement reveal it is far from a guarantee of water.

As the Oct. 16 Herald and News went to print, I was birding on Lower Klamath and Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuges. The refuges looked dry and smelled of onions — the harvest on publicly owned, refuge leaseland farms was in full swing. Approximately 32,000 acres of refuge land operates as croplands (35.5 percent of total acres in Tule and Lower Klamath refuges), primarily for commercial agriculture and grazing.

Status quo

Under the KBRA, this property would be locked into commercial agriculture for 50 more years. Parties to the KBRA will be required (Section 15.4.3 A) to support commercial agriculture on two of the West’s most valuable refuges for migratory birds. Furthermore, under the KBRA, revenues from refuge commercial agriculture leases would not be given to support the work of Fish and Wildlife Service (it receives only 20 percent), but instead 80 percent would go two irrigation districts and the Bureau of Reclamation to pay for capital costs of the Klamath Project.

Cole is correct. Under the KBRA Tule Lake refuge would get the same water it currently gets under existing contracts and biological opinions for the listed suckers that inhabit the refuge.

For Lower Klamath, the deal is similarly status quo; just cross your fingers for a good water year. While the illusory KBRA allocation of 60,000 acre-feet in wet years to 48,000 acre-feet (as water year types get drier) may seem like a sweet deal compared to Cole’s claim of 25,000 acre-feet this year, this is a product of an unresolved State of Oregon water right adjudication process, not the outcome of the KBRA.

Agreement isn’t enough

While the refuges have a 1908 water right date that puts them at the mercy of the 1905 Klamath Irrigation Project, the Fish and Wildlife Service could assert a 1905 priority water right date for the commercial agriculture on refuge lands as a means to getting water to their wetlands, not just onions. In anything but a wet year, the KBRA doesn’t come close to what the refuge actually needs to thrive.

Certainly as a “purpose” of the Klamath Reclamation Project, Cole hopes to see more water on refuge property. Unfortunately, the KBRA puts a cap on refuge progress and dictates that the refuges cannot increase their water supplies beyond their limited allocation (Section 15.1.2 E iii (5)). (Lucky for Project irrigators, their guarantee of water from the Klamath River is not reduced if they find or develop alternate water sources.)

Walking wetlands

For example, the development of walking wetlands, often touted as the saving grace of these refuges, actually limits the refuge water allocation under the KBRA.

Cole and I have disagreed before on the long-term value of walking wetlands.

While some see this project as a progressive move toward temporary habitat for migratory birds, others argue that temporary wetlands are just that — temporary, and amphibians and other water creatures see few benefits in transitory life.

In the KBRA the water allocation to Lower Klamath refuge is in fact reduced by one-acre foot for each acre placed in walking wetlands, whether the walking wetlands are on refuge or private lands, and regardless of how much water is actually delivered to the walking wetlands (Section 15.1.2 E iii (1)).

Finally, should the Klamath Basin face a dry year, Lower Klamath refuge would bear the burden, not irrigators. In fact, during a drought year, water to Lower Klamath would be reduced to anywhere between 48,000 acre-feet and 24,000 acre-feet or lower.

We can all agree that water certainty for refuges is desperately needed. However, under the KBRA, we not only lack certainty, but we lose any hope of loosening the grip of commercial agriculture on over one-third of these public lands.

Cole may be excited by the KBRA’s limited water allotment to refuges, but the suggestion that imperfection in the deal has dissuaded us from support is incorrect. It’s not imperfection that’s the deterrent, it’s the lack of any progressive vision to do what Fish and Wildlife Service should do best—conserve, protect and enhance.

About the author

    Ani Kame’enui is the Healthy Rivers Campaign Coordinator for Oregon Wild, formerly known as the Oregon Natural Resources Council.
 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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