Agreement with Senator Harper

Becky Hyde

December 7, 2009

I appreciate Senator Harper challenging parties for “combat soldier type behavior in relation to being concerned about the safety and well being of the people around us.” I share this value and believe it is an important place to be coming from as we work forward on issues of water and settlement in the Klamath Basin.

Harper points out his disappointment that proponents of a settlement in the basin did not attend Senator Whitsett’s listening session. I also feel deep sadness over the level of anxiety and fear that he feels were displayed by some of my neighbors in the off project, and others who are upset about the agreement. I have been to many of these sessions over the last ten years, where primarily off project irrigators, and other community members share their fears and concerns. It’s a discouraging and hopeless environment.

At some point though—living in a state of fear does not change your situation. You have to pull on the boots in the morning—head out the door and get to work changing your situation. In the Klamath Basin—unfortunately that means working very hard with people you may not get along with at all. It means seriously contemplating extremely tough, unpopular issues like dam removal. It means addressing issues that are complex, and also learning fully your opponent’s position, and trying hard to figure out if there are any glimmers of reconciliation available.

Personally and now through our organization Upper Klamath Water Users, an off project organization working for power, water and regulatory assurances we are working to turn the fear of some of our neighbors into hope for a strong future in agriculture in the off project.

I certainly listen to concerns, and have for years. Many others who I work with continue to listen, and try very hard to address concerns that have come from opponents to the agreement. For the last two years many off project irrigators have worked to make changes in the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement that address specifically the concerns of the off project. We have done legal analysis of important questions of Oregon Water law, which have come up repeatedly by opponents to the KBRA. We have worked hard to make sure there is equalization of power benefits in the document—and also worked with other parties to help assure that there will even be a power benefit.

We have worked hard to create a process to settle complex water issues with the Klamath Tribes so that our off project community can feel stability over water. Ranchers and farmers who do not want to live in fear, who understand that change is present in this basin and likely won’t go away have joined us. We are learning to adapt to a changing world. This has always been the case for business, and I would say agriculture is certainly not immune from this.

I challenge community leaders like Senator Harper, and also folks who are scared, to look closely, and talk carefully with the folks who’ve been working on these agreements. I believe that my neighbors have a good chance at affordable power through these agreements—a power rate they certainly will not have without a settlement. I believe that a fair process—which finally begins to address real technical questions to reach a settlement on water, is contemplated in this settlement agreement for the off project. The adjudication will go forward even if this agreement is in place. Nobody is taking away the right of those in the off project, especially contestants to litigate.

Senator Harper rightly noted that completing the adjudication will bring great certainty to who has, and who does not have, water. My concern is that by the time this happens, it will be too late for too many Off Project irrigators whose junior priority dates may very likely leave them with little water after tribal in-stream rights are filled. UKWUA is not trying to do away with Adjudication, only to come up with a design for either a stipulated settlement to the Adjudication—that would provide all the certainty of a full Adjudication—or a set of private agreements—which we would ensure could be enforced that again would try to more fairly split water between irrigation and in-stream needs.

Further, Adjudication provides no resources to help losers. Under the settlement, we have budgets to help us use creative means—including water conservation, leasing, sales and also improving irrigation practices, juniper management, and other means to try to reduce the impact on irrigators who may not be in a good position in the Adjudication. We must face this potential reality. Simply letting the adjudication run its course—without working on a settlement at the same time makes little sense.

I believe working for the best regulatory assurances possible is part of the mission of this settlement agreement. Crossing our fingers, being scared and wishing endangered fish would go away—is just not productive, and it does not protect us.

I challenge our community to look deep into these agreements when they release—and not just allow thinking to be clouded by rampant fear. I challenge our community to also sit down with the folks who have worked hard to put these agreements together—and try to really understand the logic behind the document. Unfortunately—this cannot be done in three minute sound bites at fairground rallies. I certainly wish it was that simple.

I accept Senator Harper’s challenge to continue to look out for the safety and well being of those around me. Thanks.

(Permission to post from the author.)