
Water
talks should bring us together, not pull us apart
By
Frank Wallace
Guest Writer
Klamath Falls
Herald and News
March 23, 2008
The
water rights issue facing the
Klamath
Basin
is not about pitting one
group against another. This is about solving a resource allocation
problem and governmental transparency that assures all parties are
involved and the interests of all parties are treated fairly. The first
determination, moreover, should be that the claim for reallocation of
the resource is reasonable and valid.
Thereafter,
the process must scientifically and fairly compensate and allocate
resources to all affected parties, not merely silence the loudest or the
most powerful claimant on a temporary basis.
This
process of reaching an agreement needs a lot of open discussion and
notice to all of the possible adverse impacts to them. It is not
possible for the few insiders to anticipate the needs or impacts of
their decision on the public at large.
Water entitlement
It seems to the
Klamath Basin Alliance that people who bought land with the reasonable
expectation of availability of water for their land should be entitled
to such water. If we, as a society, have changed our priorities to say
that the water rights should be limited or eliminated for various
landowners to satisfy new river level goals, then all parties who will
be affected should have a say in how the water rights are to be
modified, limited or eliminated.
Water
levels in streams may affect traditional fish runs or they may not. That
is a subject that is being continually debated. However, the reduction
of water availability to the traditional farms of the
Klamath
Basin
will definitely and
adversely affect the property values and incomes of many people. That is
not debatable.
The
Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 539.100 through 539.240 and ORS 192.620
through 192.690) make it clear that all affected people are to be given
notice and an opportunity to have input in how changes, if any, will be
made in a given community.
Our
society is based upon public participation in governmental decisions.
Backroom deals and political exclusion of interested persons is contrary
to our Constitution and is a violation of our
Oregon
statutes. In this case, the
Shasta Indians have been excluded, sportsmen, businesses and other
groups, who are affected, have been excluded and off-Project irrigators
have been partially excluded.
The water rights agreement that is proposed affects
many people who have not been allowed to participate in the decision
making process.
Exclusion doesn’t
work
Backroom deals at
the exclusion of all affected parties smacks of preferential treatment.
This agreement does not seem to be more than an appeasement to a threat,
with no guarantee that the threat will not return in the future,
requiring even more appeasement down the road.
The
proposed settlement should be widely distributed locally and regionally
to encourage broad public review and input. Independent reviews for
environmental and legal analysis of the scope of the agreement’s
impact should be made available to the public.
Far
too often, “feel good” deals and legislation are put together by
limited coalitions of special interest groups without the knowledge,
input or analysis of the public art large.
The
results of such deals are almost always incomplete with disastrous
consequences
because there was no thorough investigation of the long-term impact.
Just as suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem, so too
is this proposed water settlement.
The
Author
Frank
Wallace is chairman of the Klamath Basin Alliance, a group dedicated to
keeping public lands in public ownership. He and Mrs. Wallace
moved to the
Klamath
Basin
in the early 1960s.
He has been a business owner, active in the Bucket Brigade and is an
Off-Project irrigator in the Lower Klamath Hills. He said that the
Alliance
has 12 - 14 members.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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
|