With and without a settlement

With: What happens if the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement is adopted? Would it fairly change the way water is allocated among user groups?

By Steve Kadel

H&N's Staff Writer

February 29, 2008

   Proponents say things change for the better with adoption of the proposal: If parties don’t get everything they want, they will at least know better what to rely on. 

   Opponents don’t see the use in greater reliability if it means not enough water or unaffordable energy. 

   There will be numerous effects if the agreement is enacted as written: 

   Dam removal/fish habitat 

J.C. Boyle Dam is one of four dams proposed for removal under the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement.

   Four PacifiCorp dams, currently blocking fish passage on the Klamath River , will be removed, freeing up 300 miles of salmon habitat on the Klamath and its tributaries, a move long sought by the Klamath Tribes and the Karuk, Yurok and Hoopa Valley tribes in California . 

   Environmentalists and commercial fishing interests also support dam removal. 

   But the Hoopa Valley Tribe of California rejects the settlement because they believe it doesn’t offer enough water for fish. The Klamaths and California ’s Karuk and Yurok tribes support settlement. 

   “If this goes through, it’s like a new day is dawning,” Karuk spokesman Craig Tucker says. “It creates a framework for decision making.” 

   Also under the settlement, Upper Basin landowners would have commitments to avoid impacts from reintroduction of salmon, says Greg Addington, executive director of the Klamath Water Users Association. 

   Water levels 

Irrigation in the Basin in 2006.

   Many irrigators say the agreement will provide a reliable source of water rather than having farmers and ranchers at the mercy of flow levels dictated by federal agencies’ biological opinions. 

   “You have water supplies that all parties can begin to plan on into the future,” says Pablo Arroyave, area manager of the Bureau of Reclamation, which operates the Klamath Reclamation Project. “You don’t have these yearly events that cause the major uncertainties.” 

   Examples of such uncertainties are the 2001 water shutoff, when Klamath Project irrigators were denied water, and the 2002 fish die-off. 

   He emphasizes that change won’t come overnight. “It means results incrementally.” 

   Bureau of Land Management officials say the settlement will reconnect the agency’s Wood River wetlands with Upper Klamath Lake to increase water storage. 

   Phil Detrich, Klamath issues coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, says water supply certainty also helps fish. 

   “Along with increased wetlands and storage in the (Upper Klamath) lake, it would provide more water to manage fish in most years,” he says. 

   Edward Bartell, who represents many irrigators who are not part of the Klamath Reclamation Project, says his constituents will be worse off under the settlement. 

   He believes the Klamath Tribes seek an overly generous amount of water. He also says the settlement ties groundwater and surface water together. 

   “They have prejudged that wells are adversely affecting the river flow,” he says. 

   Less litigation 

The waters of Upper Klamath Lake and the closed water headgate, located in the inlet at lower right, part of the Klamath Basin , are shown in July 14, 2001 .

   Detrich sees another key result, too. 

   “With completion of the settlement, we think there would be less litigation,” he says. 

   For instance, Addington estimates the Klamath Project irrigators could save $500,000 under the settlement because they would avoid the administrative phase of adjudication of tribal claims. Project irrigators have paid $4.2 million in adjudication costs so far, he says. 

   Bartell says off-Project irrigators favor an agreement that will prevent further litigation in the Upper Basin . 

   Electricity costs 

   Irrigators could save money on electrical power costs if the settlement passes. 

   That’s because the settlement agreement includes $41 million to help irrigators keep power costs in line. It includes money to hire a consultant to help find power savings locally that can be made through efficiency measures. 

   The consultant also would help irrigators find renewable energy sources such as wind or solar power in which to invest, with $33 million allocated for that investment. Another $7.7 million is included to stabilize power rates — hopefully at no more than 3 cents per kilowatt-hour — until the benefits from renewable energy sources come online for irrigators’ power needs. 

   Addington says the phase-in for new power rates likely will rise above the 3-cent mark in Oregon during the next year or two, making the stabilization funding critical. He says his intention during negotiations was that the $41 million in total funding be shared among on-Project and off-Project irrigators alike. 

   “Absent settlement, we would be pursuing alternatives of our own which would likely be more difficult and could involve contentious proceedings involving PacifiCorp,” Addington says. “It would certainly cost individuals and districts more money.” 

   One of the off-Project irrigators’ requirements for settlement support is that they receive a guarantee of a 3-cent per kilowatt-hour power rate just as other users would receive. 

   Economic benefit 

   Klamath County Commissioner John Elliott says there would be at least short-term economic benefits to the county from federal spending that the settlement requires. That not only includes habitat restoration efforts, but also money for jobs associated with removal of the PacifiCorp-owned dams. 

   In addition, the county could receive $3.7 million for economic development and lost property tax compensation if the agreement were approved. That amount would be part of the project’s $1 billion cost over 10 years. 

   Funding would come from the federal government and the states of Oregon and California . 
 

   There’s more funding for Siskiyou County in California . 

   “If the dams stay and were re-licensed, FERC (the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) already has put PacifiCorp on notice that fish ladders would be required,” Elliott says. “That’s going to mean construction jobs. By PacifiCorp’s own estimates, that’s $300 million worth of construction.” 

   Unknowns 

   Toby Freeman of PacifiCorp cautions that the settlement, if adopted, needs FERC’s blessing and PacifiCorp’s agreement. The power company has been on the sidelines of the settlement negotiations and spokesmen say they don’t want to adversely impact ratepayers. The agreement does not include money to cover the costs of dam removal. 

   The utility must obtain water quality certificates from the states of Oregon and California if the dams remain. That would not be needed if dams were taken out. 

   “How long it will take to get that is unknown,” Freeman says. 

   Also unknown is whether the settlement will be funded by Congress, by the states, or by a combination. 

   “We’re all going to pay for this settlement one way or the other, either as taxpayers or ratepayers or both,” Freeman says. 

   Tribal land 

Young activists Always Crain, 4, left, and Spirit Riveria, 3, take a breather from a public meeting regarding the Klamath Hydroelectric Project at the Shilo Inn in November 2006

   The agreement stipulates that stakeholders agree to support the Klamath Tribes’ efforts to acquire a 90,000-acre piece of forestland owned by Fidelity National and known as the Mazama Tree Farm. The Tribes would pay one-third of the property’s cost with funds from the settlement paying the remaining two-thirds. 

   Some off-Project irrigators oppose the move, urging that the Tree Farm purchase be removed from the agreement. Instead, they favor providing $21 million to the Klamath Tribes for economic development. Off-Project users say they won’t sign the pact unless the land purchase is removed. 

   Intangibles 

   Jeff Mitchell of the Klamath Tribes sides with those who believe the settlement will take much of the uncertainty out of life. 

   “Parties will be able to make more definitive plans on how their communities are going to evolve and move forward, with an understanding of how much water they are going to receive and how their power needs will be met,” he says. 

   Chip Dale, high desert regional manager for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, says settlement brings an important intangible. 

   “It’s a chance for more harmony in the Basin,” he says. “It creates an atmosphere for even greater cooperation than we’ve seen in the last five to 10 years. Things have been moving along and this keeps that inertia going and improving.” 

   Meanwhile, the off-Project water users aren’t the only ones with misgivings. 

   “The terms of this so-called restoration agreement make the right to divert water for irrigation the top priority, trumping salmon water needs and the best available science on the river,” says Clifford Lyle Marshall, chairman of the Hoopa Valley Tribe of California.

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