With and without a settlement

By Steve Kadel

H&N's Staff Writer

February 29, 2008

Without: What if there is no water settlement? What if things continue status quo?

   Many stakeholders in the Klamath water settlement talks say irrigators, tribes and fishermen will be doomed to continual doubt over water allocation. In fact, they talk about consequences in dooms-day-like terms. 

   But not opponents. 

   Edward Bartell, representing some off-Project water users, believes they will be better off with the status quo — or at least until they can do more negotiating. 

   “I want to see the parties go back to the drawing board and do something that’s fair,” he says. 

   Bartell says the agreement, as written, would make it difficult for off-Project users to qualify for a 3-cent per kilowatt-hour power rate. He wants the power rate to apply to all irrigators. He added that 3 cents is just a target goal under the agreement. 

   “We want assurances that we can achieve that,” Bartell says. 

   Part of his objection to the plan is the section that calls for idling 30,000-acre feet of water in the Upper Klamath Basin . 

   Bartell says that’s because initial agreements stipulated that if off-Project irrigators agreed to idle that amount of water, there would be assurances against future litigation involving the upper Basin water. 

   “That was the give and take,” he says. “I actually went to our people and got support for that. Then they took the 30,000 acre-feet, but there are no assurances that litigation won’t continue. 

   “People up here want to be left alone after this agreement is done. We don’t want to worry about the Tribes coming after our water” through litigation. 

   So far, the only other stakeholder to reject the proposal is the Hoopa Valley Tribe. They say the settlement fails to provide enough water for fish. 

   Increasing challenges 

   Other stakeholders are adamant that the future without an agreement makes life a lot tougher. 

   “There will be a lot of uncertainty in any year as to how we are going to meet the irrigation demands, and needs of the endangered species, and tribal trust,” says Pablo Arroyave, area manager for the Bureau of Reclamation. 

   Matt Baun of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agrees. 

   “From a government manager’s point of view, the status quo isn’t working,” he says. 

   Jeff Mitchell of the Klamath Tribes says failure of the proposal will cause parties to fall back on old, unsuccessful ways. 

   “That’s relying on treaties and contracts and biological opinions, and a whole lot of issues that will move us from one point of contention to another,” he says. 

   Litigation 

   Karuk Tribe spokesman Craig Tucker was blunt in his assessment of how things could go without a settlement. 

   “If (for instance) the Bureau (of Reclamation) is going to give us a flow plan that doesn’t give us enough water for fish, it will be litigated,” he says. “It’s something nobody wants.” 

   That’s also how Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife regional manager Chip Dale sees the future without a settlement. 

   “It will keep deferring back to courts to allocate how water is distributed,” he says. “Failure leaves it in the courts.” 

   Continuing conflict 

   Troy Fletcher of California’s Yurok Tribe describes the possibility as “a rotating crisis.”
   “There will be uncertainty for everybody — for irrigators, the farming and ranching communities, for tribal communities that depend on the rivers and the non-tribal fishing communities,” he says. “We’ve all lived through the different crises, and we’ve seen what conflict does to our communities.” 

   Steve Rothert of American Rivers, a nonprofit group devoted to improving stream habitats, says things could get worse than ever if the settlement doesn’t succeed. 

   “If this fails, my fear is the extremists will claim victory and declare collaboration and good will as nonstarters in the Basin,” he says. “We’d start into even harder times.” 

   Greg Addington, executive director of the Klamath Water Users Association, predicts “media wars and political maneuvering and perpetual litigation” without a settlement. 

   Costs of farming 

   There will be additional court costs, and lack of affordable power for irrigation will be a key problem without the safeguards built into the settlement document. 

   “There are no easy remedies here,” Addington says. “Possibly more litigation and I believe significant impacts on family farms and ranches. Certainly it would change the makeup of farms — smaller ones will sell to bigger ones, or be purchased by corporations.” 

   Addington says larger farming operations would have a better chance of succeeding because they don’t work on as slim a profit margin as family farms do. 

   Some agricultural land would likely be converted to rural residential due to prohibitively high power costs, he says. 

   Dam relicensing 

   PacifiCorp spokesman Toby Freeman says if the settlement falls apart, ending the question of removal, the utility will continue seeking a new license from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to operate its Klamath River dams. 

   “It’s hard to say how long it will take, or how much it will cost,” he says. 

   Going it alone 

   Klamath County Commissioner John Elliott says it would be unfortunate if the settlement doesn’t survive in some form. 

   “The potential promise of working together in my opinion far outweighs the go-it-alone approach,” he says. “There is a lot of heel-digging going on by various groups, some of which don’t want this to succeed.” 

   Elliott says he hopes the ability for environmentalists, farmers and ranchers, fishermen and tribes to talk to one another amicably will continue as it has for the past two years. 

   “If that’s the only thing that survives the discussion over the next several months, it has been time well spent,” he says.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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