Board works to find water and power
solutions for Off-Project farmers and ranchers
by KBC News
3/24/09
< photo Steve Kandra, Klamath Water Users Association
board member
When the Klamath
Off-Project Water Users Board of Directors planned a private
board meeting in Merrill to discuss the Klamath Basin
Restoration Agreement/KBRA with some invited guests, they didn't
anticipate having to call the cops.
"No one is going
to drag Steve Kandra out of a building in Merrill," said
uninvited Klamath Water User Kandra when asked by several
Off-Project board members to leave. Kandra became angry and
began asking people he knew if they wanted him to leave. He
complained that an elected official was there, being Oregon
Senator Doug Whitsett.
Whitsett, also
an OP irrigator, was invited and attended to listen to his
constituents concerns and answer any questions.
The board
meeting was not publicized, and was not public, however Kandra
refused to leave.
KWUA has several
private meetings weekly with agencies, tribes, reps, and some OP
ranchers who agree with them, and this OP board said they do not
show up uninvited in large numbers at KWUA board meetings.
Several
uninvited members of Klamath Water Users Association/KWUA came,
and four of the five directors on the Klamath Water and Power
Agency/KWAPA board including their interim director. The
sheriffs showed up. Some OP board members, and sheriffs,
decided to go ahead with the meeting as long as the "uninvited"
guests did not cause any problems.
<
The meeting
The original
purpose of the meeting was for OP irrigators to meet with
amiable Project irrigators, their neighbors, and try to work
together to find solutions on water certainty and affordable
power rates; to create a workable plan. Community members have
been left out of the settlement negotiations, and many do not
like what they hear.
<
Some Klamath Off-Project Water Users Board of Directors
The reason the
KWUA board was not invited is because OP irrigators have asked
KWUA to renegotiate the KBRA so it would be fair, but the
Klamath Tribes and KWUA refused to allow them back in to
negotiate their water and power.
KWUA
in Feb 2008 signed a resolution that states "the association’s
board of directors would support, defend and promote the
agreement in its current form." It also says the association’s
board would oppose any attempt to reopen settlement
negotiations.
Mallams said,
"We have asked for facilitated meetings with the County
Commissioners and open meetings with the Klamath County Natural
Resource Advisory Board forum. The KWUA, Klamath Tribes, Pacific
Corp and the Upper Klamath Water Users,
Becky Hyde and Carl
Scronce's new group, continue to refuse to meet with us." Hyde
is a business partner with Sustainable NW and the Klamath
Tribes. Just last week KWUA met with two commissioners and Hyde
but they did not invite OP irrigators to attend. HERE for
AUDIO.
Off-Project
irrigators have previously given up 98,000 acres of ag land,
which government agencies and the Nature Conservancy turned into
wetlands. The massive amount of warm shallow water acquired in
the guise of water storage, water quality, and helping
endangered suckers, didn't help water quality, quantity, or
suckers either. Of the 50,000 acres remaining of land irrigated
with surface water, the KBRA demands 30,000 acre feet of water
to be permanently retired.
Mallams said,
"It isn't 30,000 acre feet of paper water rights, it is 30,000
acre feet of measured increase of inflow into Klamath Lake, with
no credit of the 98,000 acres of land already taken out of
production. Taking irrigated land out of production and putting
much of it into wet lands actually reduces inflow into Klamath
Lake, so when the initial 30,000 acre ft. would be idled and the
needed increase of flows into Klamath Lake is not met, the KBRA
says that more land will be idled by "other means" until the
needed increase is met, which means all of the surface water
lands would be idled."
Mallams said to
stay somewhat whole, they initially agreed to giving up a set
block of 30,000 acre feet of water with a cap on it, along with
some assurance of affordable power. That was before the KBRA
format was changed by the other stakeholders, and they were told
the dams had to come out, and the Klamath Tribes would be given
the 92,000 acre Mazama Tree farm which the tribe previously
sold. The other KBRA stakeholders consisting of Tribes,
environmental groups, and Klamath Project irrigators, also
changed the KBRA meeting format from consensus to non-consensus
votes, so OP was overruled in trying to build an agreement that
works for them.
He has never had
his water shut off like Project irrigators in 2001, so Mallams
said he doesn't know what that would be like. He came to support
them in '01, but OP was still able to irrigate. He said he
understands how desperate they are to get a block of water they
can count on and 3-cent power. He said he would like to see the
agreement to be fair so OP could have water and power certainty
without having to lose most of their water. Project irrigators
in the KBRA are willing to help them get a better power rate if
the Off-Project agree to all the terms of the agreement.
Discussion followed that they would have no need for the power
rate if they have no water.
The OP power
rate is tied to the Klamath hydro dams, so it would defeat their
ability to use power to irrigate if the dams are removed.
Mallams said he
was told by a Tribal member after a settlement meeting, "Sign
this! Get this done! There's a big pot of money."
"That's not the
way I was raised," Mallams said. "I can't stomach that. It's
blackmail and extortion."
One Project
farmer asked why he should care if the dams come out or if OP
gets more water or a power rate.
Linda Long, OP
irrigator, said she would be willing to give up the 30,000
acre-feet, but said there are no benefits in the agreement for
them.
A farmer stated
that Siskiyou County laid out five proposals for solutions, but
the KBRA stakeholder group will talk about no other solutions
besides their demand of dam removal, no Long Lake water storage
mandate, and no fish passage or other alternatives to dam
removal.
Andrea Rabe, an
OP rancher, is a member of the Resource Conservancy. Their group
represents 150,000 acres of Off-Project land, but the KBRA
stakeholders won't allow them a seat at the negotiation table.
"I understand
it's desperate down here. This agreement provides Project water
so we have no water. It's not equitable," said Rabe.
Off-Project and
On-Project irrigator John Wells asked if, in the agreement, they
can get 3-cent power?
KWAPA president
Ed Bair said they believe it's possible to get there but not
guaranteed.
Wells said this
is a pretty small little valley if we can't be viable. This
being divided, I don't think it's good. He said OP will be hurt
with an unaffordable power rate.
The OP board and
invited guests were willing to be part of a solution that works
for all of the communities.
Jim Ottoman from
Klamath Falls served on the Oregon DEQ/Dept. of Environmental
Quality Water Policy Advisory Board and was a member of the
Oregon State Water Board. He said there are many reasons to keep
the dams; sediment is a worry. He said people could sue against
removal.
Rabe said, "We
offered the 30,000 acre-feet to permanently retire land if we
had assurances like you want." She said Michael Bogart from
Interior told the Klamath Tribe not to negotiate with their
group. He said, "You (OP) guys better come up with a plan 'B,'
and you better figure out how to do it if you lose your power
rate." So we asked to meet with Bogart and he asked what we
needed. We said we want to invest in renewables. He said "good
luck getting that money."
Kandra said, "We
got a plan. Pay attention and participate. You guys need to make
a decision. We're offering, you can participate or you can fight
it."
Rabe said to the
Project guys, the government will give you money with these
folks; it's resolved. You can do it Project-wide. She said the
KBRA forces each OP person to do a restoration plan individually
whereas the Project can do it as a group. "We've asked for
access to affordable power. We don't have the same collective
bargaining power."
The Project
irrigators say they believe the KBRA keeps the participants from
suing each other, although the KBRA Draft 11 document specifies
how to sue each other with a dispute resolution committee.
Someone asked how they will keep the tribes and environmental
groups that aren't in the settlement negotiations from suing
them. Kandra responded that he thinks all the tribes and
environmental groups within the settlement group will all stick
together; "All the tribes and environmental groups will be with
us."
Mallams said
that three KBRA "stakeholders" filed a lawsuit February 4, 2009
against the California State Water Control Board,
Lawsuit Aims to Protect Northern California Salmon Habitat.
He believes their indirect lawsuit could shut down the Klamath
Project. Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen/PCFFA, North
Coast Environmental Center, Klamath Riverkeeper (Environmental
activist Craig Tucker, Karuk Spokesman, was a founder of Klamath
Riverkeeper), are among Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement
stakeholders suing the Calif. Water Quality Control Board to
force the farmers to purify
the naturally nutrient-laden water going into the Klamath River.
Court petition HERE. KBRA stakeholder PCFFA blames the
current water resource users: "These (fish) losses are directly
related to widespread freshwater habitat destruction and
impairment of water quality from human activities such as dam
construction, water diversions, agriculture, logging, mining,
and grazing."
Recently KWUA
board member Bob Gasser called Mallams and said he hoped the OP
group could work together with the Project guys. Mallams agreed,
and hopes KWUA will change it's stance on closing further KBRA
negations to this Off-Project group.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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