Water questions raised

More than 80 people speak at hearing about settlement  

By TY BEAVER

H&N Staff Writer

February 13, 2008

   Tom Mallams, a Beatty irrigator off the Klamath Reclamation Project, says the proposed K lamath Basin Restoration Agreement would destroy agriculture. 

   But Tricia Hill says the agreement could provide stability for her family in Klamath County , allowing her children to be raised in a rural community. 

   More than 80 people provided testimony Monday before the Klamath County Board of Commissioners about the proposed water settlement. Farmers, ranchers and other residents not involved in agriculture attended from as far away as Swan Lake, Beatty and Bly. Many said they were glad to have the opportunity to speak and air their concerns. 

    Each speaker was limited to three minutes. 

   “I think what we need the most is answers to our questions,” said Sprague River resident Vince Belleci. 

   Stakeholders released the 256-page agreement document Jan. 15 after two-and-a-half years of negotiation. If approved, it would allocate water in the Klamath River Basin watershed between irrigators, tribes, fishermen and conservationists. 

   It also seeks removal of four hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River owned by Portland-based PacifiCorp. 

    Klamath County  

    Klamath County is one of three counties in the midst of public hearings about the agreement. The county’s first public hearing Feb. 4 included presentations from those involved in the settlement talks. 

   Commissioner John Elliott made a short presentation Monday night about the impact the agreement would have on Klamath County . The settlement would provide about $3.7 million in property tax compensation and economic development to county coffers. 

   Elliott said his involvement was to avoid future litigation and legislation and to bring community leaders together to solve problems. 

   Commissioner Bill Brown said after the presentation that he shared Elliott’s perspective. 

   Opposition 

   More than half of those who testified opposed the agreement or called for reopened negotiations. Many of those opposed were off-Project irrigators and others who attended a meeting hosted by the Klamath Off-Project Water Users and Klamath Basin Alliance earlier in the day. 

   Opponents said they were disappoint ed the agreement doesn’t include provisions for increasing water storage and called for the removal of clean, energy-producing dams. They say it leaves off-Project irrigators out in the cold. 

   “It seems not only like I wasn’t asked to dance, but that I wasn’t even invited to the ball,” said rancher Greg Harris. 

   Several individuals said they were disappointed in Elliott’s efforts, saying he didn’t fully represent the county in the talks and that the financial compensation wasn’t enough to counter the losses. 

   Benefits 

   Proponents talked about possible consequences of not reaching a settlement and instead dealing with a less-friendly federal government in the future. Members of the Klamath and Yurok tribes said they’ve dealt with opposition to the agreement in their communities as well, but they want all the parties to benefit, not just some. 

   A need to end the conflict within the Basin was another theme. On-Project irrigators and others present during the 2001 water crisis said they saw the agreement as a path to stability and away from the feuds and anger of the past. 

   “Let’s stop being negative and get on with this,” said rancher Gerda Hyde.

Side Bar

Commissioners: More time needed

    Klamath County won’t be signing the proposed Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement anytime soon. 

   The three members of the Klamath County Board of Commissioners indicated Tuesday that more time is needed to review the 256-page document as well as comments from at a public hearing Monday night. 

   Commissioners Al Switzer and Bill Brown said they are not eager to embrace dam removal. Brown also said that by his count 70 percent of the 82 people who commented Monday night opposed the agreement, though he said he couldn’t be sure those comments represent the majority of county residents. 

   “It does show we have significant concern,” he said. 

   All three commissioners cited as an option rancher Glenn Barrett’s suggestion to spend the next 90 days reviewing the document. The concept of an appointed panel also was considered. A course of action could be determined during a 9 a.m. public work session today. 

   “I’m not interested in moving forward until the whole county is on board,” Elliott 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

Source:  http://pioneer.olivesoftware.com/Daily/Skins/heraldandnews/

navigator.asp?skin=heraldandnews