Oregon, California congressmen introduced dam removal legislation Nov. 10 

By SARA HOTTMAN 

H&N Staff Reporter

November 20, 2011

     Nearly two weeks after implementation legislation was introduced in Congress, both sides of the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement debate are vying for lawmakers’ attention in separate efforts to advance or kill the legislation.

   U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley, D - Ore., and U. S. Rep. Mike Thompson, DCalif., on Nov. 10 introduced the Klamath Basin Economic Restoration Act of 2011, which calls for dam removal, habitat restoration, assured water for irrigators, and concessions to and from three tribes.

   “We certainly hope (lawmakers) will listen because of all the merits of solving the water issues under this agreement,” said Belinda Scalas, coordinator with PROSPER, a group comprised of irrigator, fisherman and tribal stakeholders in the agreements.

   “It’s better ecologically and financially in the long run to have a coordinated effort.”

   Opposition

   Opposition groups are trying to show the agreements — the KBRA and the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement — do not represent Basin interests.

   “Supporters are trying to make it out that everyone supports the KBRA. They don’t,” said Al King, spokesperson for Citizens Protecting Rural Oregon, which is working with two other organizations to stop the agreements.

   “From my standpoint, I think various elected officials have a position (on the agreements)   whether they have announced it publicly or not,” King said. “The only thing left to do is provide more facts, more information, more details before there has to be a vote taken.”

   Tribal split

   Implementing the agreements would remove four PacifiCorp owned hydroelectric dams from the Klamath River, seek to give irrigators sustainable water and power supplies, fund habitat rest oration efforts, and help the Klamath Tribes acquire the Mazama Tree Farm.

   “This bill marked departure from past attempts by one interest group to strong-arm another,” said Jeff Mitchell, Klamath Tribes council member. “Instead we’ve set aside ideological debates and focused on protecting everyone’s interests collectively. It’s exactly the type of win-win policy Congress should embrace.”

   But the Hoopa Valley Tribe in California said it was “dismayed and outraged” over the legislation.

   “Proponents say compromises had to be made to see the dams come down, but the only people compromising are the Indians,” said Haylee Hutt, Hoopa Valley tribal council member. “The salmon is last in line.”

   The Karuk and Yurok tribes in California want the dams out for a free-flowing Klamath River to improve salmon habitats. The Klamath Tribes, in exchange for compromising some of their water rights, will get the Mazama Tree Farm, for tribal economic   development.

   The Hoopa Valley Tribe also wants dam removal, but they believe the federal relicensing process is the fastest route to it, not legislation that faces a stiff battle in Congress.

   “KBRA has delayed California from acting for five years,” Hutt said. “This is a slow process, and it’s going to be very difficult to pass legislation.”

   The tribe says the agreements allow the U.S. government to not protect the tribe’s water and fishing rights if they interfere with Klamath Reclamation Project irritators’ needs.

   “This means that the U.S., instead of protecting tribal resources as our trustee, will protect the irrigators’ rights to 378,000 acre-feet of water each year,” Hutt said.

   “When the U.S. gets comfortable with the sort of Indian rights termination language that’s in this bill, it’s terrifying and sets a dangerous precedent for tribes throughout the nation.”