Water settlement proposal deserves to be considered with an open mind

Don’t be in a rush to judgment on something this important

January 14, 2008

    A little later this week — perhaps even today — a proposed settlement of Klamath Basin water issues will be made public.

    It’s likely to be historic, and huge in scope and  controversy.

    Everyone should take a deep breath, analyze the document closely and see where their interests lie.

    To get to the proposal, the organizations involved had to get past individual agendas and some bad blood. It was a hard process, and not necessarily all of the organizations involved will support the settlement proposal. Who does and who doesn’t will become apparent once the document is released.

    Those directly affected by it should keep asking themselves whether they would be better off settling some issues, even at a loss, to gain more security on key points.

    The 26 groups represented in the talks have signed a confidentiality agreement that prohibits them from disclosing what is in the agreement until it’s released.

    History, however, makes it pretty obvious what the key points likely are.

    Local water users want more certainty in their water supply, protection from rapidly increasing rates on power used to pump irrigation water and some security from demands on regulatory issues.

    The settlement talks, which have gone on for about three years, were initiated by PacifiCorp to deal with relicensing its dams on the Klamath River below Klamath Falls . The dams have long been a target of fishermen and American Indian Tribes who want them removed to improve fish habitat and open up spawning reaches.

    The talks expanded to include such things as water allocations, irrigation, fish habitat and fish restoration. The dam relicensing process put something big on the table and gave people involved in the complex water problems of the Klamath River an opportunity to reach for overall solutions.

Groups to review it

    When the document is public, it’ll go to the participants in the talks, who  include government bodies and agencies, tribes, water users and environmental organizations. They’ll review it with their memberships and come back.

     The settlement talks came up at a townhall meeting of local legislators Saturday.

    State Sen. Doug Whitsett, R-Klamath County , who wasn’t a party to the negotiations, criticized the not-yet-released document, saying it has no provision for added water storage and would cost $1 billion to implement over 10 years.

    John Elliott, Klamath County commissioner who has been attending the talks as a Klamath County representative, said: “If the senator believes that the status quo is acceptable — and it must be because he is against the change that is represented by the document — then he has not written many checks to an attorney to protect his water, ranching or farming interests.”  The status quo does carry serious problems.

    Greg Addington, executive director of the Klamath Water Users Association, offered good advice at the meeting when he said it was too early to form opinions. We wish Whitsett had taken that approach and let the proposal’s ramifications settle in.

    As Addington put it, “At this point, the community should keep an open mind.” That, and try to keep feelings in check as it sorts this out.

o  o  o

     The Herald and News will put the settlement document on its Web site, heraldandnews.com, when it becomes available.

    Pat Bushey wrote today’s editorials.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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/2008/01/15/viewpoints/

op-ed/doc478c5088833bd929419813.txt