Restoration agreement, dam removal points of contention  

Stories by ELON GLUCKLICH

H&N Staff Writer

April 25, 2010

   “Our community’s not going to be saved unless you have a plan to solve the problem today,” Kandra said. “To come here and say, ‘We need more process, the plan’s imperfect,’ you’re not problem-solving. You   have to address the problem today … The rest of it is rhetoric.”

   Kandra was one of several questioners at Herald and News roundtables last week that were often dominated by discussion of drought and water issues and whether candidates supported the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement and dam removal.

The A Canal holds little water a few weeks after irrigation water would normally be turned on. Farmers are expected to get no more than a third of the irrigation water they need this year.

Commissioner     

   Klamath Basin farmer Steve Kandra accused some Klamath County commissioner candidates of offering “rhetoric” instead of solutions and neglecting the plight of farmers.  

   He said agriculture — a $300 million industry in Klamath County — is projecting a $200 million drop in economic activity as a result of low lake levels and below-average rainfall, he said.

   “My community is hurting,” Kandra told Republican commissioner candidate Dennis Linthicum, who opposes the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement. “If you don’t like the KBRA, what is your plan to deal with our problem?”

   The restoration agreement aims to allocate water among stakeholders along the Klamath River watershed. It also stipulates removal of four hydroelectric dams to improve fish passage.

   Linthicum is vying for the Republican nomination against incumbent commissioner John Elliott in the May 18 primary. Kirk Oakes is a Democrat and will run against the Republican nominee in November.

   The testy exchanges came as Kandra listened to candidate responses about what long-term plans could be put into place to help preserve farmers’ livelihoods on the Upper Klamath River.       

   Linthicum said options to increase water storage are being studied and action should have been taken. Off-lake storage could have been considered in locations such as Long Lake, southeast of the Upper Klamath Lake, years ago, he added.

   Elliott said that avenues such as federal aid, similar to that extended following the 2001 drought, could serve as a stopgap should the drought of 2010 impact farmers in a similar way.  

   Q.  Tom Mallams, president of Klamath Off-Project Water Users and opponent of the KBRA asked: Our current commissioners have decided to sign the dam removal agreement, seemingly to have a seat at the (negotiating) table. What benefits do you, as (commissioner) candidates, see in having a seat at the table this late in the process?

   Elliott said he signed on to the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement to boost recognition of local input on its related dam removal agreement.

   Stakeholders, he said, have had little say in water rights issues for the past 20-plus years.

   PacifiCorp, which would oversee removal of the four hydroelectric dams, had stakeholder meetings, but has largely ignored local farmers and irrigators, Elliott said.

   Linthicum opposes the dam removal agreement, and he disagreed with Elliott’s argument that commissioners needed to sign onto the agreement to have a seat at the table.  

   Siskiyou county officials, for instance, voted against the agreement but remain at the stakeholders’ table.

   Linthicum added he was concerned that with so much still to be decided and tested in the agreement, to sign on now would be “signing our name to something we know nothing” about.

   Oakes said he would use his experience as an activist to advocate for area irrigators’ best interests throughout the negotiation process.

   He agreed with Elliott’s basic notion that having a seat at the table would represent the area’s best interests. He also said he supports the KBRA, but as “a flawed document,” adding it’s a step in the right direction toward ensuring the resource needs of area farmers and irrigators.

   Q:   Steve Kandra asked the following question : What ideas do you have, besides endorsing the KBRA, to deal with the upcoming water shortage?

   Elliott said the dams would come out whether or not Klamath Basin stakeholders had a seat at the negotiating table because agencies like the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission have a greater say than local leaders.

   He added that federal aid was brought into the Klamath Basin following the 2001 drought, and that similar efforts could be re-explored while increasing local support by participating in the KBRA negotiation process.

   Linthicum said county commissioners signed the KBRA before they made an effort to understand its long-term ramifications.

   He also said government agencies, such as the Public Utilities Commission, were pre-approving rate hikes for PacifiCorp, which maintains the dams, and passing those increases on to taxpayers.

   He re-asserted a belief that action to move forward with the plan was inappropriate, and said that more attainable long-term goals need to be drafted to secure the water rights for area irrigators.

   Oakes said he would accept the terms of the KBRA , with the stated understanding that stakeholders don’t commit to irreversible action, besides dam removal.

   He said progress could be made through dam removal, followed by a careful analysis of the water rights issues among stakeholders . With a drought year on the horizon, Oakes said, leaders should be prepared to re-examine all of their positions on the water rights issue.  

Side Bar

Stakeholders respond     

   Tom Mallams