Each tribe has its own unique concerns

By LEE JUILLERAT 

H&N Regional Editor

October 12, 2010

   The issue: Four federally recognized Indian tribes and one non-recognized tribe live or have land in the Klamath River Basin. All have concerns about how the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement will affect fishing, hunting, culture and other aspects of life.

   What opponents say: The Hoopa Tribe believes the agreement does not provide for salmon, does not mandate dam removal, subordinates Trinity River concerns and might affect Indian treaty rights. The Shasta Nation fears damage to historic burial sites.

   What proponents say: The Klamath, Karuk and Yurok tribes believe the KBRA provides economic stability for tribes and neighboring communities, and will lead to water quality improvements that will benefit fish. The tribes also support dam removal as a key to rebuilding salmon and other fish populations.

   Why voters should care: In the Upper Basin, the Klamath Tribes have treaty rights that take precedent over other water users. The Tribes believe that by working outside the court system, more meaningful agreements that benefit tribes, irrigators and others can be reached.  

   Indian tribes along the Klamath River — the Klamaths, Karuk, Hoopa, Yurok and Shasta — have mixed feelings about the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement.

   The Klamath, Karuk and Yurok tribes have expressed support, while the Hoopa and Shasta tribes are opposed. The Shasta are not a federally recognized tribe.

   “We’re for it because we believe settlement addresses the real issues,” said Don Gentry, Klamath Tribes vice chairman who is taking the lead on KBRA issues. The KBRA aims to resolve water disputes among stakeholders in the Klamath River Basin. It also advocates removal of four hydroelectric dams

   Gentry said the agreement addresses river restoration issues, such as improving water quality and water storage, and noted that adjudication, an ongoing legal process to determine water allocations, mainly addresses water quantity.       

   “A healthy watershed is good for everyone’s economies,” he said, noting the Tribes are an important part of the Basin’s economy. As an example, he said, the Tribes employ a large percentage of nontribal members at its casino and other tribal operations.

   Gentry also believes the KBRA provides economic stability for agriculture, which drives many spinoff economies, including farm equipment and seed.

   “Local people can get together and resolve real issues,” Gentry said. “That’s local control to keep the government out of our businesses.”  

   Hoopa

   The Hoopa Tribe, which was involved in KBRA negotiations, opposes the agreement, according to spokeswoman Allie Hostler.

   She said the plan contains no concrete fish population goals or other benchmarks to measure the effectiveness of implementation.

   Specifically, Hostler said, the tribe opposes the KBRA because it provides no guaranteed minimum flows for fish, provides flows below known minimums to maintain ecological diversity, has no salmon restoration goals, establishes no target salmon run sizes or harvest goals and “prevents assessment of the success or failure of a taxpayer expenditure in excess of $1 billion.”

   The tribe also believes the KBRA would direct the Department of Interior to waive or not enforce the rights of Klamath Basin tribes, which the Hoopa tribe says violates tribal trust.  

   Karuk

   Craig Tucker, Klamath campaign coordinator for the Karuk Tribe in the lower Klamath River Basin, said his group strongly favors the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement.

   “We think the status quo is going to bankrupt our communities,” Tucker said. “This is the best alternative that we’ve ever seen. For too long, judges and bureaucrats have controlled river flows and all other decisions.”

   He said the KBRA gives people living along the upper and lower basins “more control over their destinies,” noting the agreement was negotiated by stakeholders who rely on the river for irrigation, fishing, recreation and other uses.  

   Tucker said PacifiCorp, which owns the four dams proposed for removal, and state and federal regulatory agencies have determined that dam removal will result in lower rates than taking remedial steps, such as installing fish ladders and improving water quality. That work, he said, will cost power users more than if the dams are removed.

   He said the Karuk and KBRA proponents are not opposed to all dams, noting plans call for leaving the Keno Dam in place because it serves useful purposes, including irrigation diversions for farmers.  

   “We think the only way to get more fish is if it benefits Upper Basin farming communities,” Tucker said.

   He also believes perceptions vary in the upper and lower basins. When opponents criticize the KBRA in the upper basin, a frequent argument is that the agreement favors tribes. When discussed in the lower basin, it’s criticized for favoring upper basin irrigators.

   Yurok

   Troy Fletcher, interim director of the Yurok Tribe, said the tribe strongly supports the KBRA and dam removal.

   “We believe that’s the best pathway forward toward ending some of the long-standing conflicts, preserving the health of the river and beginning to address and provide for economic stability,” he said.

   After years of discussions, and frequent disagreements, about technical and legal issues involving the river, the agreement is a positive and necessary step toward realizing the “dream of a healthy river,” he added.

   Shasta

   Candice Difuntorum, vice chair of the Shasta Indian Nation, said the group opposes the KBRA because it fears dam removal could affect burial sites and prehistoric villages along the river. At present, the tribe, is unable to preserve or restore those cultural sites.

   Difuntorum also believes the Shasta Nation should be, and has been, invited to discussions regardless of their status because the agreement talks involved a wide variety of interests.

   “It’s disingenuous for people to say we can’t be involved because we are not federally recognized,” she said.