|
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 |
Top
issues in the agreement
From irrigation to fish to dams, the water agreement will have
a wide-reaching effect on the Basin.
The 2008 Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement
started more than two and a half years ago, with 26 representatives
coming to the table to work out a deal to solve water issues. Discussion
started as part of the federal relicensing process for four PacifiCorp
dams several years ago. The issues those groups brought up were so
complex and far-ranging that the talks turned to working out a
comprehensive settlement.
A 256-page document outlining a detailed and wide-ranging agreement was
created. At the crux of it all is agreement on who gets how much water,
when and how. But there is so much else — it’s an amazing thing,
really.
It doesn’t make everyone happy. It makes a lot of people satisfied.
It’s expected to cost $1 billion, supporters say. We think the reality
is that it will cost much, much more than that. But it will still be
quite worth it. The long-term payback is tremendous.
Some major issues:
•
Water rights and claims adjudication. This has been an ongoing issue and
will remain so until there is general agreement or until all court cases
are cleared up (that process could take decades at a significant cost).
This is reason enough, economically, to support the agreement and covers
the costs.
• Migratory fish species could be re-established through the
watershed. That means economic, cultural and recreation gains.
• There could be limited water usage for irrigators, but it
would be more certain, more predictable and more sustainable. Those
factors take away some of the worst risk of the business of farming.
• Negotiating would continue and investments made in green
energy to relieve some of the stress on irrigators of radically
increasing power rates.
• The Klamath Tribes would receive finances to secure the
purchase of 90,000 acres of private forestland. It would benefit their
tribal economy; it would benefit the economy of the Basin.
“I watched Restoration (the act that reinstated Tribal status),”
says Jeff Mitchell, Klamath Tribal Council member. “We’re waiting
for that to bring economic prosperity. It’s never happening. This (the
agreement) will help finally start rebuilding the economy of the
Tribes.”
• There is some assistance earmarked to counties to compensate
for lost property tax revenues.
• Dams would be removed and that sustainable power lost. But that
would be offset by economic gains elsewhere in the Basin. Community
members and leaders should not get totally caught up in the issue of dam
removal — it’s just one aspect, important as it is. And they
shouldn’t look at this as a general statement about dams and rivers,
because it’s not. It is a settlement agreement on a multitude of
issues.
“This is not a blanket endorsement of dam removal,” Addington
says. “This is a unique place and situation.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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://www.heraldandnews.com/articles/2008/05/11/
viewpoints/op-ed/doc48269c23dc81a613098947.txt