By TY BEAVER

H&N Staff Reporter

September 28, 2010

     Less than 130 years ago some farmers dug a shallow canal connecting lots in the town of Linkville to the Link River. Now the Klamath Reclamation Project covers more than 200,000 acres with hundreds of farmers and ranchers throughout it and on its fringes.

   The availability of water is the common thread in the region’s agricultural history, from the expansion of the Project through the 1960s and the shutoffs and shortages plaguing it in the 1990s up to the current day.

   Drafting of the KBRA

   It’s also what led to the drafting of the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement as an attempt to preserve communities in the region, which has split the region on whether it’s the best way to address the problems with water.

   “Water is at the center of everything in the Klamath Basin and that’s why it’s important to proceed slowly,” said state Rep. Bill Garrard, R-Klamath Falls.

   Early settlers in the Basin were the first to build canals and other infrastructure in the late 1800s to aid agriculture and other activity such as logging. It wasn’t until 1904, when federal officials financed the construction of the Klamath Reclamation Project at a cost of $4.4 million that water began to flow through more of t he region.

   “You saw people clamoring for the (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation) to come in and build the Project,” said Greg Addington, executive director of Klamath Water Users Association.

   Project construction

    Construction in the Project went on for decades, from the building of the A Canal beginning in 1906 to the construction of various dams, including the Link River Dam and the Anderson-Rose Dam on the Lost River through the 1920s. Further canals and infrastructure were built through the 1930s and 1940s.

   While the building of the Project pumped money and jobs into the Basin, it allowed for further economic development, Addington and Garrard said. Homesteaders who served in World War I showed up in 1922 and were followed by World War II veterans in the late 1940s.

   Basin growth

   Klamath Falls, powered by agriculture and the lumber industry, boomed. Communities on the Project, such as Midland, Malin, Merrill and Tulelake grew as farmers and ranchers moved in. Areas outside of the Project, from the area above Upper Klamath Lake to Butte Valley in California, grew as well.

   “What would Klamath look like if there was no Project?” Addington asked. “There’d probably be some agriculture but many people, whether they work in health care or in a business downtown, would maybe not have a reason to be here.”

   The Project eventually reached a maximum extent of 240,000 acres and Jon Hicks with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s Klamath Basin area office said most federal and state officials thought there was still enough water for more agricultural activity.

   “There wasn’t any sign we’d be out of water,” he said.

   Things began to change in the 1970s with the beginning of the water adjudication process for the Basin and the institution of the Endangered Species Act. The suckers are listed as endangered species in the late 1980s followed by Coho salmon in 1997.

   Severe droughts

   The region entered a dry period when severe droughts occurred in 1992 and 1994. The 2001 water crisis led to the Project cutting off all water to its irrigators and social unrest. Hicks and Addington said Basin irrigators had experienced drought before, but politics and government had changed the playing field.

   “If only the government could control how often it rains and snows,” Garrard said.

   Hicks added that while the droughts were a contributing reason for those in the region to start working together on resolving supply problems, the continuing adjudication process, the ESA and the dam relicensing process for privately-owned dams on the Klamath River provided further momentum.

   “We’re at a very interesting crossroads because we have so many things converging at one time,” Hicks said.

   KBRA criticized

   But there isn’t agreement on how to resolve those problems. While stakeholders and state and federal authorities signed the KBRA in February, other groups have criticized the document for either doing too little for irrigators or too little for wildlife and the environment. The issue of Klamath River dam removal, a component of the agreement, has been a strong flashpoint.

   Garrard said he knows there’s disagreement on the KBRA but that everyone recognizes the importance of water to the Basin. He said he didn’t know how to overcome the differences involved in the conflict over the KBRA, but that at least people can agree we need water.

   “It’s at the center of attention,” he said.

   Feasibility studies

   Garrard has in the past sided with other opponents of dam removal and the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement. He recently said he could not endorse dam removal until studies examining its feasibility were concluded and also said that the KBRA, while currently flawed, could be made workable if proponents and opponents could get back to the table.