Water agreement

Eight Months Later

By TY BEAVER
H&N Staff Writer
September 4, 2008

The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement needs three things: congressional funding, dam removal and community consensus.

But eight months after the 256-page document was unveiled to the public, the proposed water settlement has secured none of the three.

And it likely won’t any time soon.

Congress is scheduled to adjourn in a few weeks, Klamath County commissioners are sitting on the fence, and PacifiCorp and government officials don’t appear any closer to a decision about Klamath River dams.

Andrew Whelan, spokesman for Congressman Greg Walden, said the chance of the House considering the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement before adjourning Sept. 26 is slim.

“This Congress can’t even get an appropriations bill through committee,” he said.

The agreement allocates water among irrigators, tribal and fishery interests and conservationists. It also asks for $1 billion in federal and state funding to provide for habitat restoration and programs and to help the Klamath Tribes acquire the 90,000-acre

Mazama Tree Farm for economic development.

Most of those involved chalk up delays to ongoing discussions between Portland-based PacifiCorp and state and federal officials about the future of the utility’s Klamath River hydroelectric dams. The restoration agreement advocates removal of the dams.

Opponents have campaigned against the agreement, saying they’ve yet to see discussions or further negotiation dedicated to concerns about dam removal, water supply or affordable power.

Proponents campaigned for support in the first couple months following the Jan. 15 public release of the 256-page document. However they haven’t publicly campaigned for months, citing other demands on their time and behind the scenes progress.

But both sides agree that the status quo — ongoing litigation and division — cannot continue and impacted communities must find a way to move forward.

“It’s hard to feel really, really great, because nobody on any side of it is ever going to get back all that they once had,” said off-Project irrigator Becky Hyde.

Here’s what supporters, opponents and stakeholders say about the agreement and its future:

Garrett Roseberry, off-Project irrigator

Lack of a stable water supply, environmental assurances and affordable power are preventing Garrett Roseberry, an off-Project irrigator and president of Sprague River Water Resource from signing the restoration agreement.

Roseberry said he supports the concept of a water deal, but he can’t support the current document.

He said the Klamath Tribes and on-Project water users agreed to further discussions, but it hasn’t happened to the extent needed.

“I just think they haven’t done it on a scale that needs to be done,” he said.

His continuing concerns, which are shared by other off-Project irrigators, are one reason the agreement hasn’t been implemented. Another is ongoing meetings between PacifiCorp and government officials, he said.

Luther Horsley, Klamath Water Users Association president

Many irrigators in the Klamath River watershed support the restoration agreement, says Luther Horsley, president of Klamath Water Users Association.

Those residents have attended public meetings and stated their positions and supported similar decisions by their irrigation districts’ boards.

The earlier displays of support were enough, Horsley said, as summer planting and irrigation season got under way. August was a critical month for harvesting.

“And that’s just the life of a farmer,” Horsley said.

But the delay in implementing the agreement has given opponents more time to campaign against it, he said.

Horsley said water settlement stakeholders are working to address concerns of opponents including off-Project water users.

Art Sasse, PacifiCorp spokesman

The role of PacifiCorp’s hydroelectric dams in the restoration agreement requires the company to carefully examine all its options, says PacifiCorp spokesman Art Sasse.

The company applauds the collaboration it took to develop the agreement, Sasse said, but it risked its success upon PacifiCorp agreeing to remove its four Klamath River hydroelectric dams upriver.

Company officials are pursuing relicensing for the dams, and are continuing to meet with state and federal officials about dam removal.

“No single resolution will satisfy all stakeholders engaged in this matter, but we continue to strive to protect our customers and provide them with reliable power at reasonable rates,” Sasse wrote in an e-mail.

Jim Cook, Siskiyou County supervisor

Siskiyou County Supervisor Jim Cook remains a strong opponent to removal of the four hydroelectric Klamath River dams.

Concerns over water supply for farmers could be addressed by other means, such as storage at Long Lake, he said, and fish could be bolstered through disease prevention and propagation.

Removal of the dams could hurt Siskiyou County economically because it would remove reservoirs used for tourism and decrease property values, he said.

But his primary reason for opposing dam removal is the loss of hydroelectric power.

“I think it is irresponsible for the states and/or the federal government to make it public policy to remove=2 0non-carbon emissions power sources when there are other solutions to most if not all of the concerns,” he wrote in an e-mail.

Greg Williams , former VP Northwest Farm Credit Services

Support and movement on the restoration agreement is present, but just under the radar, says Greg Williams, a retired regional vice president for Northwest Farm Credit Services.

Trips to Washington, D.C., and continuing discussions between government and PacifiCorp officials indicate that progress is being made, he said. He just hopes Congress is interested in funding the agreement.

“It’s just out of the public eye at this point,” Williams said.

The time being taken to carry out the agreement is worrisome, as the threat of a bad water year is always present. And while not everyone needs to support the agreement, a strong consensus is necessary, with support from PacifiCorp and off-Project water users critical.

Though he supports the agreement, Williams said he continues to have concerns for off-Project water users and is worried about securing funding needed for implementation.

Dave Solem, Klamath Irrigation District manager

Dave Solem, Klamath Irrigation District manager, said restoration agreement supporters remain firm in their stance that the deal is preferable to expensive litigation that is the status quo in Klamath Basin water conflicts.

Supportive ranchers and farmers he’s spoken to primarily want a reliable water supply and affordable power, but also want healthy fish and wildlife resources.

That support, though, doesn’t easily translate into quick sound bites like those opponents often deliver. Also, many on the Klamath Reclamation Project are secure in the positions of their irrigation boards and feel no need to further comment on the matter.

“It sometimes take a little more effort to coax out a public statement from a supporter,” Solem said.

Talks between PacifiCorp and government officials also slowed momentum, and many supporters are waiting to see how those discussions end. Craig Tucker, Karuk Tribe representative

Karuk Tribe representative Craig Tucker says PacifiCorp is mostly to blame for the delay in moving the restoration agreement forward.

Officials from the Portland-based utility met with state and federal officials for weeks about the future of its four dams, but those meetings haven’t involved members of the Karuk, Klamath or Yurok tribes.

“(The tribes) have a proven track record of problem solving and the ability to set aside differences to reach agreement,” Tucker said in an e-mail. “Despite this, PacifiCorp is unwilling to sit down with us to negotiate a solution that is in all our interests.”

Tucker said that August is a busy time for tribal members. Tribes along the river have world renewal ceremonies during this time and many of those active in promoting the agreement and dam removal have ceremonial responsibilities.

Efforts are under way to host a demonstration in support of dam removal Sept. 18 in Portland.

“We haven’t lost our zeal for the agreement, I assure you,” he said.

Larry Dunsmoor, Klamath Tribes fisheries biologist

Negotiations with PacifiCorp and opposition from individuals and groups not willing to compromise with the Klamath Tribes are the biggest obstacles to the restoration agreement, said tribal fisheries biologist Larry Dunsmoor.

He criticized off-Project water users who want unrestricted water use and organizations such as the Klamath Basin Alliance for opposing the agreement because it would help the Tribes become more prosperous.

Tribal leaders are continuing to meet with off-Project water users in small groups, he said. Progress is slowly being made.

PacifiCorp’s negotiations with government officials about its Klamath River dams on are taking time, he said, and the Tribes hope an acceptable decision will be reached.

Dunsmoor said he agreed that supporters should be doing more to advocate the agreement. The time spent crafting the agreement and the recently reconvened water adjudication process is absorbing many proponents’ time.

“Sustained public outreach requires significant effort, and our capacity to do this has been strained in recent months, as it has been for other groups as well,” he said.

John Elliott, Klamath County commissioner

What happens to the restoration agreement is contingent upon negotiations between PacifiCorp and government officials, making it difficult to move forward, said Klamath County Commissioner John Elliott.

Once a decision is made about dam removal, Elliott expects agreement supporters to begin a public relations campaign, including meetings, advertising and other efforts to vocalize why the agreement is best for the Basin.

“Until we know what we’re being asked to agree to, it’s hard to know what to say about it,” he said.

He also expects stakeholders to make more efforts to address concerns of opponents and bring them on board. Becky Hyde, off-Project irrigator

Months worth of meetings between state and federal officials and PacifiCorp are the biggest hang up at the moment, says Becky Hyde, an off-Project water user.

Becky Hyde

Other stakeholders haven’t participated in those meetings, and there’s little that can be done on the local level to move the process along more quickly.

But, Hyde says, supporters of the agreement are active. A new entity, Off-Project Water Users for Settlement, is forming to look after the interests of off-Project water users and facilitate meetings between those water users, the Klamath Tribes and on-Project irrigators.

Those supporters may not be vocal, Hyde said, because many are trying to work out the mechanics of implementing the agreement or scrambling to ensure their communities are taken care of.

“I suppose there will be a celebration, but there’s just too much work for it to feel like a party,” she said.

The Klamath River meets the Pacific Ocean near Klamath, Calif. The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement calls for the removal of four hydroelectric dams upriver.

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