Herald and News: Tribes want to see agriculture flourish Jan 20, 2008

Tribes want to see agriculture flourish

Tribal officials respond to concerns raised about water settlement plan

By Steve Kadel

H&N’s Staff Writer

January 20, 2008

Klamath Tribes officials say there is some misinformation circulating about the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement.

They outlined those issues Friday during a meeting with the Herald and News.

The first incorrect assumption, Tribes attorney Bud Ullman said, is that the Klamath water settlement gives Tribes all the water in the Basin. He said it’s not true, and negotiators representing Klamath Project irrigators wouldn’t have agreed to such a stipulation.

Ullman said the Tribes want to see agriculture flourish in the Basin.

Endangered Species

Another incorrect assertion he said, is that the document has no Endangered Species Act protection. Again, Ullman said, on-Project irrigators wouldn’t have agreed to something that would allow a repeat of the 2001 water shutoff.

The deal has to be done with the ESA factored in, he said, because that federal law is not going away.

But Ullman said the law could be reshaped to make it more affective. Also, there is protection against more federal regulations affecting irrigators if endangered salmon were to return to the Upper Klamath Basin .

Affordable Power

Ullman added that affordable power to run irrigator generators also is part of the agreement. That’s one of three key provisions irrigators wanted in order to accept other terms of the settlement. Other provisions they sought include a reliable source of water and protection from new ESA sanctions.

“This is by far the best solution available.” Ullman said, adding that all the other alternatives lead to friction and instability.

He said other Tribes official acknowledged that PacifiCorp’s decision whether to remove four dams on the Klamath River is a major part of the settlement. Those dams – all in California – are the Iron Gate , J. C. Boyle, Copco 1 and Copco 2 dams.

PacifiCorp spokesmen have said the company would consider taking out the dams, but that their customers must not have to pay for removal or pay more for a new power source.

Asked whether PacifiCorp is dragging its feet on a decision about dams, Ullman replied, “They don’t share the sense of urgency we have.”

Dismal alternatives

Klamath Tribes research biologist Larry Dunsmoor said people who weren’t at the negotiating table for the past two years can’t fully appreciate the intensity and duration of the settlement talks.

“The thing that drove us on was that the alternatives looked so dismal,” he said.

Ullman noted that the settlement agreement, if adopted, would result in the Tribes quitting adjudication. If it fails, he said, “We’re going to get sucked back into adjudication.”

The adjudication process, now pending before the state, is aimed at quantifying how much water the Tribes control.