|
|
|
|
|
H&N
photo by Andrew Mariman |
The Klamath Water Settlement, released Tuesday, would cost $960 million
over 10 years and is contingent on a separate deal with Portland-based
PacifiCorp to dismantle four dams — the Iron Gate, J.C. Boyle, Copco 1
and Copco 2. Dam removal would restore historic salmon runs on the
Farmers, fishermen, tribes along the
Work to do
But those involved say there is work to be done. Unless PacifiCorp
consents to remove the four dams at an estimated cost of $120 million,
the agreement will fall apart. Meetings with the power company are
planned in coming weeks.
“Now the ball is in PacifiCorp’s court,” said Glenn Spain of
Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations.
Events such as the 2001 irrigation shutoff in the
Representatives of those communities, from the irrigators and tribes
around
The agreement seeks to redefine commitments of water from the watershed.
Rather than a pecking order of what interests have priority over others
for the resource, it establishes limits that those involved can depend
on.
Klamath Project irrigators would be able to depend on a set water
allotment each year, depending on water supply.
Irrigators may have to reduce their allotment of water from
Off-project irrigators would need to give up about 30,000 acre-feet of
water rights to contribute to flows into
Power rate
The agreement sets a power rate of three cents per kilowatt-hour for all
irrigators. Any dispute over water rights between the Klamath Tribes and
project irrigators would be eliminated.
All the stakeholders also agree to support the Klamath Tribes’ efforts
to acquire a 90,000-acre piece of forestland owned by Fidelity National
known as the Mazama Tree Farm.
Those involved in the agreement said that all involved had to compromise
and sacrifice to make the agreement possible. While difficult and
complex at times, it was necessary to make sure all involved benefited.
Luther Horsely, president of Klamath Water Users Association, said his
organization stood behind other organizations in their call to
PacifiCorp to remove their four dams on the
Likewise, others said they recognized that all communities along the
river and its tributaries have legitimate needs that need to be met.
“I think what we learned is that there’s going to be farming in the
Basin and the farmers learned there’s going to be tribes and fishermen
in the Basin,” said Craig Tucker of the Karuk Tribe.
Possible snags
Snags could still hang up the proposed agreement. Many of those involved
in the settlement talks are recommending support from their
constituencies, but others, such as The Resource Conservancy and many
off-project irrigators, are rallying against it.
It was the willingness of former adversaries to meet and hear each other
out that led to the agreement.
“This is a victory for irrigated agriculture, a success for the
refuges and a win for fish,” said Greg Addington, KWUA executive
director.
They acknowledged that there are those who are opposed to the agreement
and hope that they and all others affected will carefully consider the
document before making a final judgment.
“The single most important thing for all involved is civility,” said
Chuck Bonham of Trout Unlimited.
See Wednesday's paper for:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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/2008/01/16/featured_story/