When water is limited, fish come first

By SARA HOTTMAN

H&N Staff Reporter

October 7, 2010

   The issue: The Endangered Species Act that protects several fish species in the region trumps all for water allocations. The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA) aims to protect irrigators from the impact of that law.

   Why voters should care: Agriculture is the second-largest industry in the region. If farmers and ranchers can’t grow their product because water is allocated to fish instead of crops, the entire local economy suffers.

   What proponents say: The KBRA works with federal agencies that enforce the Endangered Species Act to balance water between the endangered fish, the irrigators, and the tribes to meet all parties’ needs.

   What opponents say: The Endangered Species Act should be revoked. Additionally, the KBRA isn’t necessary to balance water within the Endangered Species Act, but imposes requirements and concedes water to other parties.  

   The federal Endangered Species Act, signed in 1973, intended to protect animals threatened with extinction.

   In the Klamath Basin, four species of fish are currently under the act’s protection: Coho salmon, bull trout and Lost River and shortnose suckers.

   In 2001, Basin farmers in the Klamath Reclamation Project, under the federal Bureau of Reclamation’s jurisdiction, felt the full force of the Endangered Species Act when they didn’t receive surface water for their crops in order to maintain lake and river levels for endangered fish during a drought year.

   The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, conceived in 2004, says it will protect irrigators from the force of the Endangered Species Act with habitat conservation plans.  

   Habitat conservation

   Under the act, there’s a clause that allows the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service to approve a habitat conservation   plan that would provide water for both endangered fish and for irrigators.

   Since the federal government signed on to the KBRA, it backs the agreement with its agencies and the money it’s supposed to provide.

   “The reason this is good is because there’s some funding to help implement it,” said Becky Hyde, an off-Project irrigator and member of the Upper Klamath Water Users Association. “If you’re trying to implement ESA protection without a little help, it’s difficult. It’s not impossible, but it’s difficult.

   “KBRA provides the most protection possible from ESA that’s allowed under the law.”

   But Tom Mallams, president of the Klamath Off-Project Water Users Association, said that it doesn’t provide any protection.

   “The KBRA does the exact opposite. It reinforces the ESA and the biological opinions,” Mallams said. “It reinforces things that are already against agriculture in the Basin.”

   Additionally, opponents to the agreement say, the KBRA isn’t necessary to work under the exemption clause in the Endangered Species Act.

   “That’s true,” Hyde said, “but with the will of all the agencies, along with funding, it’s much more attractive.”

   Some irrigators also advocate for revoking the act. But, Hyde said, there was a push for that in 2001 after water was cut off to irrigators but it was unsuccessful. The act remains.

   “There are some folks out there who are not taking biological opinions or the Endangered Species Act seriously, but it is very serious,” Hyde said. “If it’s not dealt with, we potentially do not irrigate in the future.”