The politics of water

   State and federal lawmakers have the same advice regarding the proposed Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement: Take the time to read and understand it.  

By TY BEAVER
H&N Staff Writer

February 29, 2008

U.S. Rep. Greg Walden , R-Ore., talks to a crowd in Klamath Falls last week

   Federal 

    Oregon congressmen congratulate and commend those involved in the settlement talks. Republicans Sen. Gordon Smith and Rep. Greg Walden, and Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden all issued statements acknowledging the diversity of groups involved and their efforts. 

   They also urged caution. All three said it is important for comments from area residents to be collected and considered before moving ahead. 

   U.S. Rep. Mike Thompson, D-Calif., has been publicly supportive of efforts to resolve conflicts in the Basin, said Jonathan Birdsong, the Congressman’s legislative director. 

   Birdsong was hesitant to say whether Thompson, who represents Humboldt and Del Norte counties, was supportive of the agreement itself. He said Thompson does support removal of four hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River . 

   “It’s more cost effective to remove than re-license,” Birdsong said. 

   Federal agencies are more openly supportive. 

   Officials with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service called the agreement a good step to stabilize the region and reduce conflicts. 

   The agreement relies on redirected or reallocated funding already spent in the region, as well as about $405 million in new spending. 

   Walden said he doesn’t view the cost of the project as a problem — there have been federal projects that have cost more and achieved less. But Congress is already looking at a budget for the next fiscal year, practically eliminating the possibility of any funding for the agreement being allocated before 2010, he said. 

   “There was no indication that this is something that will get shoved through Congress,” Walden said. 

   A call seeking comment from U.S. Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., was not returned. 

Oregon State Sen. Doug Whitsett , from left, Rep. Bill Garrard and Rep. George Gilman at a town hall meeting

   State 

    California and Oregon executive and department leaders endorsed the agreement but most elected state lawmakers in the Klamath Basin are critical of it. 

   A spokesman for Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski said the governor believes the settlement could move the region ahead and is glad to see those from the area proposing solutions. 

   Greg Hurner with the California Department of Fish and Game said state officials and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger were keeping abreast of the agreement and have not mentioned any problems they might have with it. 

   Both state governments still must conduct due diligence. The Oregon water resources department and state of California are analyzing the document to ensure it complies with state law. 

   Neither governors’ office indicated when or if a Klamath Basin Water Summit, proposed during the 2006 gubernatorial race, would take place. 

   Kulongoski and Schwarzenegger announced the joint water meeting late in their campaigns and aimed to hold it before the end of 2006. Settlement stakeholders urged it be postponed until the agreement was released, and the governors obliged. 

   Locally, elected lawmakers are less content with the agreement. 

   State Sen. Doug Whitsett, R-Klamath Falls , said the costs, lack of provisions for increased water storage and inequity of benefits between those involved disturbed him. He publicly criticized the agreement just days before it was released to the public, saying information provided to him made him skeptical of its equity and feasibility. 

   State Rep. Bill Garrard, R-Klamath Falls , also voiced his displeasure with the agreement, saying “The water settlement looks more like a ransom note.” 

   The representative said he would support the agreement if his constituents were behind it.
   California Assemblywoman Patty Berg is waiting until ongoing negotiations between stakeholders and Portland-based PacifiCorp about dam removal are finished before making a decision. 

   Berg, whose district includes the coastal region at the mouth of the Klamath River , supports dam removal because of benefits it would provide the downriver community, said Connie Stewart, the assemblywoman’s senior field representative in Eureka , Calif.  

   Other California lawmakers don’t support the proposal. 

   State Sen. Sam Aanestad, R-Grass Valley , has called the document more a wish list than an agreement. 

   Assemblyman Doug La Malfa, RRichvale, said the agreement is too vague and other alternatives need to be investigated. 

   “I think we’re far from an endgame,” he said. 

   Funding from the state governments also is unclear. Certain items, such as $20 million to Siskiyou County , Calif. , to compensate for dam removal, would come from that state’s coffers. Current wildlife, fish and water quality funding from the state also would need to be redirected or augmented. 

   County 

   Three county governments, all with the Klamath River flowing across their boundaries, were at the table during the settlement talks. 

   Two of those counties stand to receive close to $25 million in compensation and economic development funds if the agreement is signed. The consequences, though, may outweigh the benefits, some say. 

   Three of the hydroelectric dams proposed for removal are in Siskiyou County . It would receive $20 million in compensation for lost property taxes and for economic development. But the dams, according to their supporters, produce double the power needed for the county’s population, contribute to property values on land bordering dam reservoirs and provide a consistent river flow for outdoor recreation. 

   Losing those benefits may not be the best for the county, even with the financial help, said Jim Cook, Siskiyou County supervisor. 

   The supervisor has the extra challenge of a diverse constituency. His district includes irrigators and the Karuk Tribe, groups that indicate support for the agreement. But all three dams, as well as the lakefront property they create, also are part of his district. 

   Commissioners in Klamath County face the same issue. 

   Many irrigators on the Klamath Reclamation Project as well as the Klamath Tribes support the agreement, but irrigators above Upper Klamath Lake and many in the cattle industry do not. 

    Klamath County could receive about $3.7 million if the agreement is signed, with $500,000 of that dedicated to economic development. 

   Commissioner John Elliott said the economic development funds would be used primarily for a reintroduced salmon fishery in the county created by dam removal and for increased fisheries management. 

   Commissioners Al Switzer and Bill Brown both voiced concerns about the agreement. Both oppose dam removal and Brown has been particularly concerned with how the agreement would affect off-Project irrigators. 

   Both counties are conducting public hearings. Klamath County commissioners have gone a step farther, and are setting up facilitated meetings between irrigators and the Klamath Tribes to resolve issues. 

   “Ultimately, the counties have to play a pretty pivotal role as a sounding board,” Elliott said.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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