Adjudicating Water -

The future of water adjudication  

   Next year, an administrative law judge will deliver a proposed order on the Klamath Tribes’ water claims in Upper Klamath Lake and the Klamath River.

   “Those claims could have consequences for both Project irrigators and upstream irrigators,” said Greg Addington, director of Klamath Water Users Association. “The Project irrigators and the Tribes have already reached settlement about those claims and how they will or will not affect Project water supply.

   “We support efforts for the upstream irrigators and the Tribes to reach agreements as well.”

   Regardless of next year’s adjudication decision, the Project and Tribes are signatories of the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, in which both parties make concessions to get what they want.

   The Tribes concede some of their rightful water and some water-related claims against the federal government in exchange for removal of four Klamath River dams and acquisition of the Mazama Tree Farm, a 90-acre parcel that was part of their original reservation. Dam removal, the Tribes say, would restore fish passage on the river.

   Project irrigators, in return, would have more senior water rights (the Tribes would take on a 1908 water right instead of the awarded time immemorial) and would not be impacted by the Tribes’ water rights if irrigators use no more than 380,000 acre-feet of water.

   But the KBRA has yet to be funded by Congress. A congressman with a key committee position has vowed to halt legislation that permits dam removal — a critical component of the agreement. And a vocal contingency of opponents has said it will fight for adjudication, not the KBRA, to be the final word.

   Federal lawmakers responded to last week’s adjudication decision:

   Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore.: “The administrative law judge’s decision affirming that the Klamath Tribes have significant water rights underscores the importance of a longterm solution in the Klamath Basin and is yet another reminder why we must implement the KBRA.

   “We do not need more lawyers and litigation where one side wins and the other is left with little to no water. The KBRA, painstakingly negotiated by the local collaborative effort of which the Klamath Tribes was a part and continues to endorse, is the only avenue I’ve seen that would put these water disputes behind us and   let everyone in the Basin focus on creating jobs and moving forward. Action to put the KBRA into law will help provide stability to the entire community as well as help the local economy.”

   Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore.: “I commend Sen. Merkley for seeking to implement the Klamath Basin water settlement agreement and the dam removal agreement. A lot of progress has been made in resolving water issues in the Basin and it’s time for Congress to take up these issues. This bill will now be coming to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee for action. The subcommittee, which I chair, will be holding a hearing on the agreements and water management early next year in the Klamath Basin, which I will chair. I am determined to make sure that during the Committee’s deliberations all sides are heard and all issues and solutions are examined and I am going to hold off co-sponsoring Sen. Merkley’s bill to underscore that commitment.”

   Rep. Wally Herger, R-Calif.: Herger’s communications director, Bryan Cleveland, said the congressman’s op-ed published Dec. 2 in the Siskiyou Daily News reflected his views. “If the science does not justify the proposal to remove the dams, or if the cost/ benefit ratio is so out-ofkilter that it does not pass the straight-face test, then PacifiCorp should be owed the opportunity to seek a new license that contains reasonable and affordable conditions. But the bottom line is we must continue working to reform the environmental laws that are making life so difficult for farmers and energy producers alike.”

   Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore.: Walden’s office did not respond to the Herald and News’ inquiry before deadline, but he has been notably non-committal to a position on the KBRA, saying the process should remain in locals’ hands. Supporters of the agreements are calling on him to take a position, calling his endorsement key to Congressional support.

   Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif.: McClintock’s office did not respond to the Herald and News’ inquiry before deadline, but he has said he is vehemently opposed to dam removal, a critical component of the KBRA, though he is apathetic to the agreement itself. “My problem is specifically with spending a quarter of a billion dollars to tear down four perfectly good hydroelectric dams … I intend to do everything I can to stop the unnecessary destruction of dams.”