Opponents mischaracterize this as an unfair handout to the Tribes. I am frustrated that some opponents of the KBRA express the view that, “Because you willingly sold your reservation land during termination and were paid for it, how can you justify getting land back free at taxpayer expense.”

   Benefits for communities

   The short answer is that land acquisition by the Tribes in the KBRA is part of an economic package that also includes similar benefits for other Basin communities, and has nothing to do with the Termination Act. I know that some people believe the Tribes were willing “sellouts,” and others see the Tribes as “victims” of termination. But this dispute just isn’t relevant to the KBRA.

   The Klamath Tribes’ standing in the KBRA negotiations stems both from treaty rights established through the constitutionally based Klamath Treaty of 1864, and from the simple fact that the Tribes are a community profoundly affected by the resource catastrophes plaguing the Basin.

   The intent of the KBRA is to address the causes of the complex problems affecting the economic viability of the agricultural, fishing, and recreational industries, tribes, and other communities in the Klamath River Basin.

   Maintaining economic “wholeness” of the parties is critical to providing economic stability and balance to our region. In the KBRA, each party and each community put forward to the whole group its needs that would have to be met if Basin-wide stability is to be attained.

   Various parties set out needs like stabilized irrigation water supplies, continuing affordable power rates, cooperation in overcoming Endangered Species Act issues, and shelter from potential threats from senior tribal water rights. They also specified the need for compensation for any changes that parties, like the Klamath Reclamation Project, would need to make in adjusting to the immutable fact that there isn’t enough water to meet all needs.

   Consider the Tribes’ situation

   For their part, the Tribes pointed out that, like other parties, it is important to consider the situation in which the Tribes find themselves.  

   The Tribes lost their treaty-protected salmon and steelhead fisheries for 93 years when the first Copco Dam was built on the Klamath River Due to government over-allocation of water, and degradation of the health and productivity of our Basin’s rivers streams and lakes, the Tribes have also lost 24 years of their Treaty-protected c’waam and q’apdo (sucker) fisheries.

   Realizing the benefits  

   Restoring the Tribes to “wholeness” in these things, all parties agreed, would take several decades at best. While other parties will realize the benefits of the KBRA relatively promptly — farmers and ranchers will benefit from the Tribes’ commitment to temper their exercise of water rights, salmon fishers will benefit from restored fish runs in the lower river, national wildlife refuges will finally have a reliable water supply, etc. — the Klamath Tribes will not see restored fisheries for a long while. As a result, to provide economic parity for the Tribes, the parties agreed to support acquisition of the Mazama Forest to stimulate tribal economic development.

   So the Mazama acquisition by the Tribes is one piece of the broad economic and community stabilization that is the heart of the KBRA. It is a very small portion, about 2 percent, of the KBRA budget, which is overwhelmed by the benefits intended for other communities. It is a part of a complete package designed to enable all Basin communities to move on to a stable and prosperous future.