H&N Staff Reporter

August 19, 2010

     The Klamath Tribes and a local conservative political group met Tuesday to discuss water and dam removal agreements with hopes of finding common ground, but ended up debating the agreements with little consensus.

   Don Gentry, Klamath Tribes vice-chairman, and Bud Ullman, the Tribes’ water attorney, were invited to speak to the Klamath County Patriots at the Tea Party organization’s weekly meeting.

   The Tribes support the Klamath Basin Restoration and the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement agreements. Many Klamath County Patriots oppose them.  

   The KBRA aims to settle water disputes through the Klamath River watershed, stabilize power rates for irrigators and help the tribes acquire timberland in northern Klamath County. The related hydroelectric agreement advocates removing four Klamath River dams to improve fish passage.

   Dennis Jefcoat, a member of the Patriots’ steering committee, touted the meeting as a way for the two groups to find mutual understanding and eventually solutions to local water issues.

   “I know there has to be a man or a women sitting in this room, who, if they put their minds to it, can find a solution to these problems, and build some kind of consensus,” he said during the meeting at the Triad School auditorium.

   But Jefcoat, who acted as the moderator, opened the discussion by saying the KBRA was “a dangerous document,” that is too ambiguous, and gives too much power to the state and federal governments.  

   Following his comments, the two groups found little to agree on.

   Gentry and Ullman said the agreements were developed by local stakeholders to prevent further government intervention.

   “It wasn’t something that the government figured out and is making us do,” Gentry said.

   Gentry agreed to attend another Patriots meeting to provide more information and answer more questions.  

   After the presentation, members of the Patriots, many of whom oppose the agreements, asked the Tribal representatives questions for nearly an hour about issues ranging from the amount of money the Tribes had spent advocating for the agreements to the Tribes’ intent with land they would obtain as part of the KBRA.  

   Following were some of the Patriots’ questions and the Tribes answers:

   Q:  If the Tribes receive 93,000 acres of forest land as part of the KBRA, what would be the legal constraints on that land?

   Ullman said the land would have restrictions, but it is difficult to know today exactly what they would be.

   The Tribes likely could not open a casino on the land, for instance, he said, but they probably could use it as a commercial forest for timber harvests.

   If the Tribes turn the land into a federal trust, he said, they would not have the same restrictions as other property owners in the county.

   “But it doesn’t follow from that, that the Tribes can do whatever they damn well please and no one else can have anything to say about,” Ullman said.

   Q:  Why was the KBRA not put up for a  public vote?

   There will be several hearings on the agreement at the state and federal level, Ullman said, and Congress will have to pass funding before it can be implemented.

   “The way the constitution does this stuff is you vote for people who vote on things,” he said. “So keep and eye on Congressional an legislative hearings.”

   Gentry said the KBRA would have enough support to pass a public vote if it was fully understood.

   Q:  Do the Tribes believe the government will  do what they say and uphold the agreements?  

   Ullman said KBRA was written so that if the U.S. government does not uphold a part of the agreement the whole agreement is nullified, which would remove regulations imposed on any of the stakeholders in the agreement.

   “I think that’s the best you can do if you don’t trust the other guy that you’re dealing with,” Ullman said.

   While some oppose the KBRA because they mistrust state and federal government, Ullman said, the agreement is the best possible solution to water issues.

   “A lot of people want to see Washington and Salem to go away and leave us alone, but that’s not reality. That’s not what the constitution provides and that’s not what the laws provide,” Ullman said. “We need to compare the KBRA … to the reality of what we’ve got now.”

   Q:  How much money have the Tribes spent advocating for the agreements?

   Gentry did not provide a specific dollar amount, but said he was willing to come to another meeting with more information about the money spent on the agreement.

   Q:  Even if the lower dams are removed, won’t the Keno Dam and Link River Dam still impede fish?

   Gentry said the Link River Dam has fish ladders in place and screens that keep fish out of the Klamath Project. Fish ladders, he said, could be added to the Keno dam.

   “It’s not optimum, obviously, but it can be done, and we support that,” Gentry said, adding that he understands   the two dams, which provide irrigation water unlike the four dams proposed for removal in the KHSA, are important to the Basin.

   Q:   What happens to the land around the reservoirs once the dams are removed?

   Pacific Power, which owns the dams, also owns the inundated land underneath the reservoirs, Ullman said. Gentry said the dam removal settlement addresses the concerns of people who own property adjacent to four reservoirs proposed to be drained as part of the agreement.

   Q:  Will the Tribes the pay taxes on land acquire as part of the KBRA?

   The Tribes have not determined what they would do with the approximately 93,000 acres they would obtain as part of the KBRA, Gentry said.

   It is likely that they would put the land into a federal trust, in which case the land would not be taxed or be regulated the same as other land in the county, he said.

   The land gained from the agreement would only be about 9 percent of the size of the Klamath Tribes reservation, which in 1954 was about 1.1 million acres, Gentry said.

   Q:  Do the tribes gain land along the Klamath River as a part of the KBRA?

   A separate agreement between the Tribes and Pacific Power will provide the Tribes with one of two plots of land along the river — one is about 24 acres and the other is about 80, Gentry said.