Reopening water settlement talks could be hard

Klamath Water Users Association executive director says new negotiations may be detrimental

By TY BEAVER

H&N Staff Writer

February 7, 2008

   A proponent of the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement says reopening negotiations to meet demands of a small group of irrigators could be problematic.

   Greg Addington, executive director of the Klamath Water Users Association, said Wednesday his group is willing to address concerns, but if talks are reopened it could be detrimental to irrigators.

   “It’s a double-edged sword if we open things up,” Addington said, who participated in settlement talks.

   His comments were in response to a letter signed by nine irrigators demanding stakeholders return to the negotiation table and amend the agreement. Their demands included more water assurances, removal of financial support for a Klamath Tribes’ land purchase and funding to a guaranteed 3-cent per kilowatthour power rate.

   Addington said some of the demands would be difficult to achieve. For example, stakeholders were unable to find revenue to reduce power costs for irrigators, and the agreement cannot alter requirements of federal legislation when it comes to river and lake levels for fish.

   Agreement released Jan. 15

   Stakeholders released the agreement Jan. 15 after two-and-a-half years of development. If approved, it would allocate water in the Klamath River watershed between irrigators, tribes, fishermen and conservationists. It hinges on an agreement from PacifiCorp to remove four hydroelectric dams.

   Addington said other groups on the lower end of the Klamath River also weren’t completely pleased with portions of the agreement. Going back to the table could lead to them making demands, some that could hurt Klamath Basin irrigation

   Jeff Mitchell, Klamath Tribes council member, said Wednesday he didn’t know what good more negotiating would do after more than two years of the same process. He also questioned the ability to accomplish anything more if the same individuals returned to the table.

   “We found individuals who weren’t really willing to negotiate,” he said.

   Mitchell said he was also disappointed that the off-Project water users were so opposed to the Tribes gaining property.

   Several off-Project irrigators, many associated with the Klamath Off-Project Water Users and the Resource Conservancy, have spoken in opposition to the settlement, saying it puts many landowners in the upper reaches of the watershed in jeopardy.

   Possibility open

   Mitchell and Addington both said the agreement leaves open the possible for further negotiation on water rights between off-Project water users and the Tribes.

   “I think a lot can get achieved there,” Addington said.

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