All stories by H&N Staff Reporter Elon Glucklich

October 23, 2010

     The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement impacts farmers, fishermen, tribes, ranchers and other agricultural users, all with similar interests.

   In the past three weeks, the Herald and News has examined the agreement and its potential impact on the community.  

   Some, like Matt Walter, president of the Upper Klamath Water Users Association, thought the series presented each issue in a fair and complete manner.

   But others, like Tom Mallams, president of Klamath Off-Project Water Users, say the Herald and News has a   long-standing bias when it comes to reporting on the KBRA.

   “Every one of the articles I’ve read has what I would consider a very strong bias on the pro-(KBRA) side,” Mallams said. “It’s a sad state to have our local paper take such a position, without giving equal   time to the other side.”

   Throughout the series, the Herald and News spoke with stakeholders for and against the agreement, contacting each in equal number.

   Following are summaries and responses by Mallams and Walter to some of the issues brought up in the series.  

Why should voters care?  

   “The natural resources of the Klamath Basin affect everybody,” said Matt Walter, president of the Upper Klamath Water Users Association. “All these issues are not going away if we defeat the KBRA.”

   Proponents of the KBRA say the agreement is about establishing local control over water rights for the area’s numerous water users. Opponents say implementing the KBRA would give the government too much control over water use in the region.

   “These are our taxpayer dollars and our ratepayer dollars,” said Tom Mallams, president of Klamath Off-Project Water Users. “You can’t sign an agreement without having (a plan) in place for the taxpayers.”  

Mazama Tree Farm  

   One provision of the KBRA calls for the purchase of around 92,000 acres of forest land for the Klamath Tribes. The land is known as the Mazama Tree Farm, covering a 24-mile stretch between Chemult and Spring Creek Hill in northern Klamath County.

   Matt Walter, president of the Upper Klamath Water Users Association, said giving the tribes land they once owned is fair.

   The Klamath Tribes lost that land in 1954, when Congress passed the Klamath Termination Act. They say restoring the land to the Tribes would allow them to develop it for economic use. That development would create jobs both for tribal and non-tribal members, proponents say.

   But opponents of the land deal say non-tribal members should be compensated if the land is sold to the tribes. Some say that compensation should come in the form of an increased power rate for tribes.

   “That land was sold years ago by willing sellers,” said Tom Mallams, president of Klamath Off-Project Water Users. “(KBRA) gives tribal sovereignty and control over any land adjacent to national forest land.”  

Adjudication  

   Water users have long been divided over the value of the region’s use of adjudication.

   Adjudication is a legal process that will help determine water rights and allocations. More than 700 claims have been made by water users, and some claims have been ongoing for decades.

   Proponents of the KBRA have said adjudication cannot resolve all the issues the KBRA seeks to address, including water quality and stability of agricultural water supplies.

   “If you see the people that are saying we should just adjudicate, it’s because they don’t have as much to lose,” said Matt Walter, president of the Upper Klamath Water Users Association.

   But others say all adjudication claims should first be resolved in their existing form before KBRA issues are addressed.

   “Adjudication has worked for over 100 years,” said Tom Mallams, president of Klamath Off-Project Water Users. “KBRA is by definition a way to circumvent adjudication.”  

Dam removal  

   Implementing the KBRA is largely dependent on the implementation of the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement. The KHSA would oversee the removal of four Klamath River dams, which produce a combined maximum power output around 163 megawatts.

   Matt Walter, president of the Upper Klamath Water Users Association, said removing the dams is in the best interest of ratepayers, as the cost of dam relicensing is guaranteed to far outpace the cost of implementing the KBRA.

   Proponents also say removal is best for area fish, as it would reopen at least 350 miles of spawning habitat for salmon.

   But opponents question the validity of the claim that dam removal is cheaper than relicensing. They say adding fish ladders to the dams would be a more equitable solution for the ratepayers while keeping the dams in place.

   “We haven’t even budgeted (the cost),” said Tom Mallams, president of Klamath Off-Project Water Users, adding the KBRA would likely cost area taxpayers more than $2 billion. Official estimates have stated the KBRA will cost $1 billion to implement, with an additional $500 million cost for dam removal.  

How does PacifiCorp view the KBRA?  

   PacifiCorp, the company that owns the four dams on the Klamath River, has not taken an official stance on the KBRA. But ownership of the dams means it has a key role in the agreement’s implementation.

   The company signed the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement agreement, allowing for dam removal if federal studies determine it to be a better option than relicensing.

   Opponents of the KBRA have said they felt the company was pressured into dam removal by the federal government, and criticize that decision for putting the cost burden for removal on ratepayers.

   Tom Mallams, president of Klamath Off-Project Water Users, said he felt PacifiCorp officials were pushing for the KBRA to use ratepayer money toward creating a “gigantic slush fund.”

   Officials with the company have repeatedly said they are neutral on the KBRA.

   Matt Walter, president of the Upper Klamath Water Users Association, said he felt PacifiCorp officials were bound to devise the best possible solution for area ratepayers.  

Government entities  

   Many government agencies involved in the KBRA have said they support the agreement even if it changes the way they operate in the Klamath Basin. Agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management and the Bureau of Reclamation say modified river flows could potentially be altered if the dams are removed.

   But officials with both agencies said they are ready to work with the changes if the agreement is implemented. Agencies such as the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, meanwhile, say studying the agreement has required unprecedented coordination among agencies involved — something that could pay dividends as negotiations progress.

   Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife officials have said dam removal will restore natural fish flows on the Klamath River and make the region a more viable trout-fishing destination.  

   Matt Walter, president of the Upper Klamath Water Users Association, said government entities favored the KBRA because they see it as the best solution for the region’s water troubles.

   But Tom Mallams, president of Klamath Off-Project Water Users, said the KBRA was merely a way for government employees to guarantee work and paychecks for years to come.  

How significant is the poll that reported a majority of voters are opposed to the KBRA?  

   Three Oregon State Representatives with ties to the Klamath Basin conducted a public opinion poll in 2009, tracking residents’ views on the KBRA and dam removal agreement.

   The polling found that about two thirds of Klamath County residents were opposed to the KBRA. The representatives said the poll confirmed their view that the KBRA was being implemented over the objections of   the voting public.

   But supporters of the KBRA argue that the poll was misleading. They say it only polled 301 out of more than 66,000 voters in the county and cannot represent the full range of opinion held by voters.

   “If you ask the right questions, everybody’s going to be against (KBRA),” said Matt Walter, president of the Upper Klamath Water Users Association. “I believe the polls are one-sided.”

   Opponents counter that the poll was professionally conducted and covered a full array of likely voters in the region.

   “If that pollster had done 1,000 people, it probably still wouldn’t have been enough” to satisfy KBRA proponents, said Tom Mallams, president of Klamath Off-Project Water Users.  

        Since the initial draft of the KBRA, stakeholders on both sides have argued over the economic impact implementing the agreement would have on the Klamath Basin.

   A majority of funding for the KBRA would go toward the improvement of commercial fisheries and water resources, with the aim of making power more affordable for irrigators.

   Supporters of the agreement say the region’s agricultural workers and fishermen would benefit from the KBRA’s stabilization of water resources, and the agreement would help Klamath and Siskiyou counties receive economic development  funds.

   “A lot of the money is already earmarked for the Basin,” said Matt Walter, president of the Upper Klamath Water Users Association.

   But opponents say the KBRA would constrain the local agricultural economy, draining millions of dollars in productivity from the region. They also say commercial fisheries would see no benefit from dam removal.

   “Our country doesn’t have the kind of money for the KBRA,” said Tom Mallams, president of Klamath Off-Project Water Users. “It hasn’t even been budgeted yet.”

Tribal groups     

   Four federally recognized Indian tribes and one non recognized tribe live or have land in the Klamath River Basin. The tribes have mixed feelings about how the KBRA will impact fishing, hunting and other aspects of life.

Increasing water storage   

   Water users have long discussed the possibility of increasing water storage capabilities above the Klamath River.