|
Become a friend of the Klamath Bucket Brigade All donations are tax deductible |
|
This Website is Dedicated to Alvin Alexander Cheyne January 10, 1921 - June 17, 2005 |
The
agreement would put less stress on the aquifer and leave more of the
water in the ground
By
JIM CARLETON
Guest
Columnist
After
attending the public meeting held by the county commissioners Feb. 11,
it became apparent that there are several misconceptions being
circulated.
I
would like to address one.
It
seems that a large section of the public believes that the settlement
agreement is proposing that groundwater be used at a higher level than
has been done in the past and that the Klamath Basin Restoration
Agreement is an advocate for that.
First
of all, the restoration agreement was never intended to take control
over the groundwater in the Basin. It only would use groundwater in a
supplemental fashion, approved by the Oregon Water Resource Department.
The department already has laws in place governing groundwater and has
been doing so for many years. It will continue to do so in the future
— that is its job.
As
I see it there are three options for the future concerning groundwater.
Continue
with the status quo, which, under the current biological opinions has
required the Bureau of Reclamation to pump groundwater every year for
the last six irrigation seasons in some fashion to meet lake levels,
stream flows and maintain water deliveries to project irrigators and
wildlife refuges.
Reject
the settlement and wait for the next “2001” water-type year and then
all well-owners will be forced to pump water from wells all summer long
to meet crop demands for their individual farms.
Support the restoration agreement and get some
guarantees for water supplies to the project. Models have shown that
through this agreement groundwater would only have to be pumped in 50
percent of the years or less, and give the aquifer a rest from pumping
and time to recharge, neither of which has happened in the last six
years.
It seems to me that for all of the people concerned
about groundwater in the whole Basin, the most sensible action would be
to support the agreement and put less stress on the aquifer and leave
more water stored in the best reservoir available to us today, the
ground.
I would encourage all people to give some thought to
these three scenarios and then decide which one would be best for all
the people of the Basin. My guess is that the restoration agreement
offers the best option for sustainable ground water into the future.
About
the author:
Jim
Carleton is a fourth-generation farmer in the Merrill area. He is
president of the Mid-Basin Water Group, an organization of about 25 well
owners on the
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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