Water survey: Trust needed  

December 12, 2009

   More than 450 people responded to the “Water, dams and power” survey aimed at determining why people did or did not support the proposed water settlement and what, if anything, would change their opinions.  

   Many opponents of the proposed water agreement said they don’t trust the document or any promises made by its writers, and admitted not much could be done to change that.

   One opponent said he would need to believe that promises to preserve agricultural water would be kept.

   “A lifetime of experience has proved that promises by government are rarely kept, so that faith is not apt to merge,” the respondent wrote.

   Meanwhile, a proponent of the restoration   agreement called on opponents to provide a better solution to the Klamath Basin’s conflicts over water.

   “Thus far they have not offered any sort of constructive alternative that would be mutually beneficial to all parties involved,” the person said.

   Farming, fishing, tribal and government representatives worked for years on the restoration agreement, which aims to resolve concerns over water supplies, power rates, environmental issues and tribal interests. Several weeks ago, a related Klamath River dam removal agreement was finalized. That agreement would remove four hydroelectric dams on the river.  

   While many of those who responded to the survey were connected to agriculture, a majority said they did not make their primary living from agriculture and were not involved in the state’s water adjudication process.

   Dam removal

   Dam removal was the dominant concern of those opposed to the restoration agreement, with nearly   38 percent calling it their primary interest. Irrigation concerns garnered nearly 22 percent followed by power rates at nearly 14 percent.

   “Leave the dams alone and find real solutions to the water and fish issues,” one respondent said. “Removing the dams will not solve the water issues and there is no assurance that dam removal will solve the fish problems.”

   Issues

   Among proponents, irrigation concerns came in as the primary interest at just more than 29 percent. Conservation issues followed at 22 percent and dam removal at 15 percent.  

   “If we don’t find a settlement reasonably soon, the drought and climate change issues will create more problems for water rights activists than they have now,” one proponent   wrote. “I would hope they can be far-sighted enough to see that and compromise on that basis.”

   Settlement

   Opponents and proponents also differ on whether they think a settlement is needed.

   The bulk of survey respondents, more than 57 percent, said a settlement is needed. Only 30 percent of opponents think one is needed. Nearly 98 percent of proponents said one is needed.

   More than 68 percent of opponents also believe the state-run water adjudication will ultimately be the best system for dealing with water rights issues.   Only 30 percent of proponents thought adjudication was the best means of solving the Basin’s water conflicts.

   The one similarity between respondents from both sides is that most don’t seem to have a direct interest in the restoration agreement or water adjudication. About 70 percent of opponents and proponents said they don’t make their primary income from agriculture.

   Further, nearly 60 percent of proponents said neither they nor an association they belong to are involved in adjudication. Nearly 70 percent of opponents said the same.