|
Become a friend of the Klamath Bucket Brigade All donations are tax deductible |
|
This Website is Dedicated to Alvin Alexander Cheyne January 10, 1921 - June 17, 2005 |
GovTrack.us is an independent tool to help the public research and track the activities in the U.S. Congress, promoting government transparency and civic education through novel uses of technology.
Water issue debated at separate forums
November 12, 2009
The irrigator from off the Klamath Reclamation Project on Tuesday presented a list of other possibilities, from drilling wells on the county’s western edge and tapping reservoirs to juniper mitigation to preserve water supplies, as alternatives to dam removal.
“I’m sure there’s millions of
other ideas out there,” she said during one of two public forums
hosted by lawmakers Tuesday at the Klamath County Fairgrounds.
T he Klamath
Basin Restoration Agreement allocates water rights among Klamath
River Basin interests, including irrigators, tribes,
conservationists and fisheries. It also calls for dam removal to
restore salmon runs on the river.
Gauging opinion
State Sen. Doug Whitsett, R-Klamath Falls, and state Reps. Bill Garrard, R-Klamath Falls, and George Gilman, R-Medford said they organized the forums to gauge public opinion of the restoration agreement and dam removal.
The three have been critical of the agreement and dam removal in the past.
Speakers at the forum had to sign up and names were drawn in random order. Each person had between three and five minutes. The lawmakers did not answer questions or comment except for brief remarks at the beginning.
People gave a variety of reasons for opposing dam removal and the water agreement. John Kite, an off-Project rancher on the Klamath River, said the agreement should never have proceeded until the Basin’s water adjudication was completed.
Land, fish ladders
Nathan Jackson, an off-Project
rancher and vice president of the Klamath County Cattlemen’s
Association, said the amount of land required to be retired in the
proposed Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, combined with land
already taken out of production, would leave only 56 percent of the
upper Basin’s irrigable land available, dealing a severe blow to the
county’s cattle industry.
Lester Hinton, a cattleman on Spencer Creek near the J.C. Boyle dam, said floods from years ago rendered the dam’s fish ladder ineffective and it should not be torn out.
“It should have been fixed 40 to 45 years ago,” he said.
Athena Bagwell, a Dorris resident and member of the Shasta Nation — a tribe without federal recognition — said her tribe’s opposition to dam removal was ignored. She received a standing ovation from the crowd.
Several other speakers said the negotiations were unfair because not every one was welcome at the table.
Roger Nicholson, an off-Project irrigator and president of the Resource Conservancy, said his group was locked out of talks despite trying to work with other stakeholders, such as the Klamath Tribes.
Bill Nicholson, a rancher and Roger Nicholson’s brother, criticized the tactics of an off-Project group, Upper Klamath Water Users Association, of which rancher Becky Hyde is a member.
Bill Nicholson said Hyde was being employed by environmental group Sustainable Northwest to promote the agreement as a means of dividing and conquering the off-Project.
Off-Project irrigator Beverly Mallams said she did not feel the Klamath Tribes had sacrificed anything in the agreement, while others had, and yet were getting nearly everything they wanted.
The state lawmakers thanked everyone for their comments.
“From what I heard this afternoon, (it) sounds like we have a flawed process, and I’m not sure how to fix it,” Gilman said.
Recordings of the
meetings will be sent to elected officials, government agencies and
the media.
Proponents arrange Q&A session
An irrigator on the Klamath
Reclamation Project, Scronce started to prepare remarks for the
event at the Klamath County Fairgrounds. But then he saw
advertisements
He decided not to go.
“To me, it just adds bias right away,” Scronce said.
While three area state lawmakers hosted the public forums Tuesday, Scronce and other Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement proponents attended a quickly arranged luncheon at The Creamery for themselves and invited guests.
At the luncheon , which was attended by about 50 people, including regional elected and agency officials, proponents gave updates on the water and dam removal agreements, fielded questions and dispelled rumors.
Bud Ullman, attorney for the
Klamath Tribes, said the agreement would not stop people from
continuing in the water adjudication process and having their
day in court.
Cost
Toby Freeman, regional community manager for Pacific Power, said it’s unlikely it would take $4 billion to remove the four dams and that Congress likely wouldn’t be willing to pay that much.
The proposed Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement allocates water rights among Klamath River Basin interests, including irrigators, tribes, conservationists and fisheries. It also calls for dam removal to restore salmon runs on the river.
Among those attending the
luncheon were irrigators from on and off the Project and members
of the Klamath Tribes. Attendees also included Klamath County
Commissioners Al Switzer and Cheryl Hukill; Klamath Falls city
councilwoman Trish Seiler; Betty Riley, executive director of
South Central Oregon Economic Development District; Chip Massie,
executive director of Klamath County Chamber of Commerce; Oregon
Institute of Technology professor Tom Chester; and Dan Keppen,
executive director of Family Farm Alliance.
Campaign of support
Several of those attending expressed concern that proponents had no substantive campaign promoting the restoration and dam removal agreements, yet opponents have done quite a bit to spread their message.
“We have to do a better job, we really do, but we have to be done first,” said Greg Addington, executive director of Klamath Water Users Association.
Merrill irrigator Tim Parks, Klamath tribal member and off-Project irrigator Melissa Hess and business owner Bob Gasser said they wondered what could and should be done to promote the document.
Lani Hickey of the Klamath County’s public works department asked how proponents would justify their invitation-only luncheon when there was a public meeting the same day.
Document not done
Proponents said public
comment will be an important part of the agreement, but the
document isn’t finished yet and such discussions would be
premature.
The forums across town provided three to five minutes per speaker, not enough time to fully explain the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, and the nature of the opposition made attending difficult, they said.
“We just decided that wasn’t going to be a productive use of our time,” Addington said.
But attendees told the luncheon organizers that something should be done to give proponents more of a voice and inform people.
“I know
there’s a lot of people just sitting there waiting,” Hess said.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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