KWUA: The Klamath Project at 100

The original Klamath Water Users Association was organized on March 4, 1905 under Oregon statute and capitalized in the amount of $2,000,000. That Association was created by local farmers, livestock producers, businessmen, bankers, attorneys, and community leaders interested in seeing the Klamath Reclamation Project constructed with the least amount of cost and for the lasting benefit of the entire Klamath community.

Working in cooperation with Reclamation the stockholders of the Association contracted with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior to assume the responsibility of payment to the United States the cost of the Klamath Project irrigation works on November 3, 1905 . The Association was active in bringing in lands to be served by the Project and addressing water right matters of those lands. By the 1950’s much of the construction costs of the project had been reimbursed to the United States , and irrigation districts assumed the contractual obligations for maintaining and operating the Project.

The current Klamath Water Users Association (KWUA) has its origins in the Klamath Water Users Protective Association, bylaws adopted June 22, 1953 , organized to address water right and electrical power issues for Klamath Basin irrigators. The Protective Association reformed itself March 16, 1993 with amended bylaws, and incorporated in 1994 as the modern Klamath Water Users Association.

The KWUA represents private rural and suburban irrigation districts and ditch companies within the Klamath Project, along with private irrigation interests outside the Project in both Oregon and California in the Upper Klamath Basin . The KWUA is governed by an eleven-person board of directors elected from supporting irrigation districts, private irrigation interests, and the business community. The KWUA now represents over 5,000 water users on 1,400 family farms.

KWUA’s mission statement: To preserve, protect and defend the water and power rights of the landowners of the Klamath Basin while promoting wise management of ecosystem resources.

Executive Summary…………………………………………………………. 4

Introduction………………………………………………………………….. 5

Overview……………………………………………………………………… 7

Pioneers……….………………………………………………………………. 9

The Reclamation Act……………………………………………………….… 10

The Klamath Basin Calls in the

United States

Government…………… 10

Construction Begins.. ………………………………………………………... 11

Homesteaders….……………………………………………………………... 13

The Klamath River Compact….…………………………………………….. 15

The Klamath Project’s Finishing Touches ………………………………… 18

New Demands………………………………………………………………… 19

Sucker Listings………………………………………………………… 20

Coho Salmon Listing .. ………………………………………………... 21

Problems on the East Side …………………………………………………… 22

2001 Curtailment……………………………………………………………... 24

The Farmers Fight Back….………………………………………………….. 26

Enter President Bush.. ………………………………………………………. 27

Vindication: The National Research Council Steps In…………………… 28

The Assault on the Klamath Project Intensifies….………………………... 29

Vindication, Part II…..………………………….………………………….... 32

“We hate to say we told you so, but….”..………………………….………... 33

Proactive Efforts of Upper Basin Landowners…….………………………. 36

Sucker Recovery Planning………………………….…………………. 36

On-the-Ground Actions………………………….…………………….. 36

Recognition at Last………………………….…………………………. 39

BOR Study on Pre-Project Flow Conditions on Upper Klamath River …... 40

Conclusion – The Future …………….………………………….…………… 41

Notes….………………………….………………………….…………………. 44

Photo Credits…………………………….………………………….………… 47

The Klamath Project in 2005 marks its 100-year anniversary. This report summarizes the original formation of the Project, describes the enthusiastic response of the local community to the federal water project, and steps through the development of the Project in ensuing decades. The story of the pioneers, early settlers, and homesteaders who helped settle the area – veterans of both world wars - provides a sense of the character possessed by local farmers and ranchers, who had to rely on similar traits to keep their community alive when irrigation supplies were curtailed in 2001. And it explains a very important dynamic of the region, especially in recent years, where local water users are attempting to proactively address water supply challenges while at the same time trying to stave off a furious round of attacks launched by environmental activists.

The immediate future remains uncertain for Klamath Project irrigators, but their marked propensity for adapting to change will keep local farmers and ranchers in business for another 100 years. In order to deal with the uncertain water situation, and facing higher power costs in 2006, the 21^st century Klamath Project irrigator is adapting, by developing new market niches for products, creating innovative approaches to energy use, conserving and marketing water, and developing habitat for fish and wildlife. The same abilities shown by pioneers and veteran homesteaders beginning over a century ago to carve out new communities from the wilderness will now be employed to conserve resources and preserve their remarkable and uniquely American heritage.

The Klamath Project at 100: Conserving our Resources, Preserving our Heritage

“We desire to impress upon your mind the fact that 99% of the people in the Klamath Basin are a unit, and are clamoring for the assistance which might be rendered by the Government under the Reclamation Act.”

“The vision of the Klamath Basin as a place for human habitation must include agriculture, and an agricultural sector of sufficient size to be economically viable. This place ought to have an urban center and a scattering of pleasant small towns - and in between green fields with dancing water from irrigation works.”

“Agriculture plays a vital role in this state’s economy. An economic issue is one thing, for the farmers who need the resource, need the water, to be able to make a living. There’s another piece to this that’s much larger for all Oregon , and that is a cultural issue. The people here are very, very important to the future of this state.”

The year 2005 marks the one hundred-year birthday of one of the oldest federal water projects in the western United States – the Klamath Irrigation Project. As was painfully made evident in 2001, when Klamath Project supplies were curtailed for the first time in 95 years, the local community and its economy are interwoven with the health of this irrigation project. One hundred years after overwhelming national policy supported its construction, the Klamath Project continues to play a critical role in the local community.

“The Klamath Project started out as a good thing, and it remains a good thing”, said Tulelake farmer Rob Crawford. “When the Project was created, Klamath Basin people were meeting a national call by doing what they were supposed to do - settle the West. Today, our efforts focus on preserving our heritage, while conserving our resources.”

At the beginning of the last century, when the local community learned that the Klamath Project would be developed, an “incredible celebration” ensued, said Paul Simmons, an attorney for the Klamath Water Users Association.

“The people of the Klamath Basin basically posed a proposal to the federal government,” said Simmons. “They told the government, ‘if you will be the plumber and the banker, we can do something good for the country.’”

The federal government did just that by constructing the irrigation project. Local growers repaid the construction costs in the ensuing decades. Today, thousands of people – family farmers and ranchers, their employees, and agriculture-related businesses – make their living directly from farming and ranching in the Klamath Project. In turn, their activities support the communities of Malin, Merrill, Midland , Bonanza, Tulelake, Newell, and Klamath Falls . And, equally important, their efforts yield high-quality safe food for the country and the world.

The last century has been one of massive transformation, vitality, shining hope, and deep despair for the farmers and ranchers served by the Klamath Project. The core reason for the creation of the Klamath Project – to develop water supplies and storage for irrigation uses – has been diminished as new competing demands, intended to satisfy Endangered Species Act (ESA) and tribal trust conditions, have come on line. As a result, after perceived ESA and tribal trust obligations are met, Klamath Project irrigators and national wildlife refuges essentially get the remaining water. Because very little carryover storage is provided by Klamath Project reservoirs, the farmers now find themselves becoming increasingly reliant on incoming flows to the reservoirs, rather than the stored water that was originally developed to provide them with a reliable summertime irrigation supply.

In essence, because of new laws and policies developed in the recent past, the original purpose of the Klamath Project has been somewhat lost in the shuffle. This became glaringly obvious in 2001, when for the first time in 95 years, water supplies to the Klamath Project from Upper Klamath Lake were curtailed before the irrigation season had even begun, to meet conditions set by federal fishery agencies to purportedly prevent harm to three fish species.

Three and one-half years after Klamath Irrigation Project (Project) water deliveries were terminated by the federal government, local water users are attempting to proactively address water supply challenges while at the same time trying to stave off a furious round of attacks launched by environmental activists. Project irrigators – who farm on lands straddling the California-Oregon state line - remain apprehensive about the future certainty of water supplies. However, the strong traits shown by the original Klamath Project settlers – self- independence, creativity, a sense of community – are still apparent, one hundred years later. Without these characteristics, the tragic events of 2001 might have become nothing more than passing headlines in the local newspaper. Instead, a galvanized community grabbed national media and political attention by forcing the rest of the country to see that things had gone too far.

Now, Klamath Project irrigators are preparing for the next 100 years. In order to deal with the uncertain water situation, and facing higher power costs in 2006, the 21^st century Klamath Project irrigator is adapting, by developing new market niches for his products, creating innovative approaches to energy use, conserving and marketing water, developing habitat for fish and wildlife, and improving the symbiotic relationship he has with neighboring national wildlife refuges. The same abilities shown by pioneers and veteran homesteaders to carve out new communities from the wilderness will now be employed to conserve resources and preserve their remarkable and uniquely American heritage.

The irrigable lands of the Klamath Project (Project) are in south-central Oregon (62 percent) and north-central California (38 percent). Two main sources supply water for the Project: Upper Klamath Lake and the Klamath River on the Klamath system; and Clear Lake Reservoir, Gerber Reservoir, and Lost River on the Lost River system, are in a closed basin. The total drainage area for the Klamath Project, including the Lost River and the Klamath River watershed above Keno, Oregon is approximately 5,700 square miles.

Currently, approximately 225,000 acres, many previously submerged, have been transformed into productive farmland. The crops grown within the Klamath Project area consist of grain, hay, pasture, silage, mint, potatoes, onions, other vegetables, alfalfa, strawberry rootstock, and horseradish. This list of crops represents the majority of planted acreage within the Klamath Project over the last 40 to 50 years. The cropping pattern has varied from year to year, but the overall planted acreage has remained consistent.

The Bureau of Reclamation operates Clear Lake Dam , Gerber Dam, and the Lost River Diversion Dam. The Link River Dam is operated by the Pacific Power and Light Company in accordance with Project needs, or more recently also as directed by federal agencies. The Tulelake Irrigation District operates the Anderson-Rose Dam, and the Langell Valley Irrigation District operates the Malone and Miller Diversion Dams. The various irrigation districts operate the canals and pumping plants.

The original Klamath Project plan included construction of facilities to divert and distribute water for irrigation of basin lands, including reclamation of Tule and Lower Klamath Lakes , and control of floods in the area. The development of the stored water provided by the Klamath Project allowed for the controlled, beneficial use of water in the Upper Basin . Currently, late summer and fall flows in the Lower Klamath River are augmented with stored water that would not be there, but for the Project.

Under pre-Project conditions, natural controls existed below both Upper Klamath Lake and Lake Ewauna which stabilized lake levels except during critical droughts. Those controls were natural reefs of hard earth material in the channel and other channel constrictions. Under these pre-Project conditions, the Klamath River flowed into the Lower Klamath Lake area. A 1906 map titled “Topographic and Drainage Map, Upper and Lower Klamath Project” shows the invert of the Klamath Strait approximately the same level as the Klamath River channel bottom near Keno. In addition, the Lost River terminated at Tule Lake . These flows flooded approximately 183,000 acres within Lower Klamath and Tule Lake . In general, under pre-Project conditions, Klamath River flows downstream of Keno likely occurred after a certain water level was reached in the Klamath River and Lower Klamath Lake .

An engineer speaking in the early days of the Project observed that adequate Klamath Project water supplies were not a worry. Rather – something that would be inconceivable today - dealing with too much water was more of a concern at the time:

“It contains an irrigation problem, an evaporation problem, a run-off problem, any one of which is difficult in itself but all of which together form a most perplexing whole,” said the engineer. “In nearly all reclamation projects water has to be conserved. In this project there is more than enough and the question of disposing of it becomes an important part.”

Irrigation development began in areas now served by the Klamath Project in the latter half of the nineteenth century. Various landowners and entrepreneurs utilized water of the Klamath River and its tributaries, and undertook a wide range of visionary activities.

Prime farmland, exposed around the edges of old historic Tule Lake as early as 1846 stimulated early settlers’ interest in irrigation. Similarly, early settlers beginning in the early 1860s relied on “naturally irrigated” greases and forage in the Lower Klamath area for pasture and hay. The first irrigation ditch was dug by George Nurse and Joseph Conger in the bottom of Linkville Canyon in 1868. In 1878, this ditch was expanded and incorporated into the Linkville Water Ditch Company. Early pioneers Steele and Ankeny pursued a canal to deliver water to land between Klamath Falls and Merrill. Ultimately, the canal system was replaced by the A Canal and its distribution system which, operated by Klamath Irrigation District, continues to serve Project land to this day.

Diversion for irrigation of additional agricultural lands in the area now comprising the Klamath Project was initiated in 1882 with construction of an irrigation ditch by the Van Brimmer brothers to the land from White Lake , which was fed by the Klamath River . Private interests further developed this project by constructing the Adams Canal in 1886, which was supplied also from White Lake . Frank Adams, with assistance from the Van Brimmer Brothers, cut a canal through tule roots using hay-knives and a derrick, in order to improve diversion from White Lake . This canal ultimately extended to a length of 22 miles. By 1903, approximately 13,000 acres were irrigated by private interests, with the canal system in progress to deliver much more.

After the 1905 authorization of the Klamath Project (see below), many water rights were acquired to facilitate, and for the benefit of, the Klamath Project enterprise, and other agreements were made with other water right-holders. The Project utilized, extended, expanded and/or improved previously existing systems, and included construction of other facilities.

In 1902 Congress enacted the Reclamation Act, which encouraged the settlement of lands in the western states and the development of agricultural economies to feed the nation. The 1902 Act provided for federal financing of irrigation works, with the construction costs to be repaid over time by project water users. In addition, public lands were made available for homesteaders who accepted the responsibility to undertake improvements and pay the water charges. Both the Oregon and California legislatures also enacted laws making state-owned land available for use in the Klamath Project.

In 1903, the Reclamation Service conducted investigations that led in 1904 to the first withdrawal of land by the Secretary of the Interior for developing a federal irrigation project. J.B. Lippincott, a supervising engineer from Los Angeles –who also played a key role in the City of Los Angeles ’ securement of Owens Valley water supplies – personally toured the Klamath Basin in June of 1904.[1]

Although private irrigation projects were moving forward by the turn of the century, and some large-scale projects were being planned, most local citizens saw great value in a federally authorized and supported project. In 1905, local residents sent numerous petitions to Washington , D.C. requesting government irrigation assistance. By this time, a private corporation had given notion of its plans to develop water for what would ultimately become virtually the entire Klamath Project.

In November 1904, F.H. Newell, Chief Engineer of the federal Reclamation Service, told a large audience of enthusiastic farmers in Klamath Falls that, in his judgment, they had “a great irrigation project”.

Early in 1905, California and Oregon had ceded certain rights in the Upper and Lower Klamath Lakes and Tule Lake to the United States . On May 1, 1904 , a board of engineers made a report that served as the basis for authorization of the Project. Congress authorized the use of lands and water in accordance with the State Acts of February 1905. The Secretary of the Interior authorized development of the Project on May 15, 1905 , under provisions of the Reclamation Act of 1902.

The Interior Secretary’s 1905 authorization provided for project works to drain and reclaim lake bed lands of the Lower Klamath and Tule Lakes , to store waters of the Klamath and Lost Rivers , to divert irrigation supplies, and to control flooding of the reclaimed lands. The states of Oregon and California ceded then-submerged land to the federal government for the specific purpose of having the land drained and reclaimed for irrigation use by homesteaders. The Oregon Legislature also authorized the raising and lowering of Upper Klamath Lake in connection with the Project, and allowed the use of the bed of Upper Klamath Lake for storage of water for irrigation.

Construction began on the Project in 1906 with the building of the main “A” Canal . Water was first made available May 22, 1907 , to the lands now known as the Main Division.

[1] Ironically, after Owens Valley agricultural water rights were secured by the City of Los Angeles , many of the displaced farmers moved to the Klamath Basin for the “reliable” water supplies of the Klamath Project. On their way north, they passed the first Reclamation Project in the West – the Newlands Project, near Reno , Nevada .

This initial construction was followed by the completion of Clear Lake Dam in 1910, the Lost River Diversion Dam and many of the distribution structures in 1912, and the Lower Lost River Diversion Dam in 1921. (In 1970, a public dedication at the Lower Lost River Diversion Dam officially changed the name of the structure to Anderson-Rose Dam.)

A contract executed February 24, 1917 , between the California-Oregon Power Company (now the Pacific Power and Light Company) and the United States authorized the company to construct Link River Dam for the benefit of the Project and for the company’s use, and also extended to the water users of the Klamath Project certain preferential power rates. The dam was completed in 1921. The contract was amended and further extended for a 50-year period on April 16, 1956 .

The Malone Diversion Dam on the Lost River was built in 1923 to divert water to Langell Valley . The Gerber Dam on Miller Creek was completed in 1925, and the Miller Diversion Dam was built in 1924 to divert water released from Gerber Dam.

In the Great Depression, continued settlement and leasing and distribution construction resulted in a significant increase, between 1930 and 1939 of the acres receiving water directly from Project facilities. The project work undertaken during this period included the enlargement of the Lost River Diversion Channel.

In 1940, construction was begun on Pumping Plant D and the Tule Lake Tunnel. By 1942, these facilities, as well as the P-Canal were completed. In 1943, the Ady pumping plant was placed in operation, and in the next two years, the Straits Drain and pumps were constructed and installed and began operation.

The story of the homesteaders is a source of great pride in the Klamath Project. As Tule Lake receded according to plan, the lake bottom became suitable for cultivation. The land that ultimately became homesteads was under jurisdiction of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). Homesteading and developing more productive agricultural land was the goal of the reclamation project that “reclaimed” the beds of Tule Lake and Lower Klamath Lake to expose more arable land. After Tule Lake was dewatered, a large area of public land became available for agriculture. The government would lease this land to settlers, and in fact leased as much as 50,000 acres in Tule Lake in the 1920s. Over time, most of this land was homesteaded.

In 1917, 180 people applied for the 37 homestead parcels the Reclamation made available on the drained wetlands and lake beds. Between 1922 and 1937 there were five more homestead offerings and hundreds of homesteaders settled in on the fertile soil of the drained lake bed. Then, World War II curtailed the homesteading process.

In three drawings held in 1946, 1948 and 1949, a total of 216 World War II veterans were awarded homesteads on farmland in the Tule Lake Basin , as a thank you from a grateful nation. The number of applicants was far greater than the number of available homesteads. Veterans and the community gathered to watch the names drawn from a pickle jar. Farm homesteads and crop-producing land were the goals of reclamation, and the Tule Lake Basin became a showcase for reclamation work.

Each winner received a small plot of land, and brought their hopes and young families to the empty basin to further the development of the irrigation project.

“When I heard about a homesteading opportunity in Tulelake , California I applied,” Dave Carman told a congressional subcommittee in the summer of 2004. “In 1948 I was one of 44 applicants chosen out of 2,000. At the time I had never heard of Tulelake except as a great hunting area.”

“When I arrived to see my homestead there was nothing there, just an expanse of opportunity,” recalls Carman. “No roads, no houses, no trees, just bare ground. I then pitched my tent in the corner of my homestead.” My wife Eleanor was expecting our second child, but could not join me until later. A tent was not acceptable living quarters for a young woman, a small child and another baby on the way.”

The settlers formed organizations, elected a school board, and went about creating a society.

“When I began my new life as a Tulelake homesteader there were approximately 300 homesteaders, most of them with families,” said Carman. “We united and began to build schools, churches and a hospital in Klamath Falls . We started a community. We were living the American dream and our dream was achieved by hard work and dedication, and I must say we could never have done this without our wives.”

The Klamath River Compact (Compact) is a law of both Oregon and California , consented to by and Act of Congress. In the following decade, a variety of concerns and issues led to the passage of the Compact in 1957. These included:

The development of the Compact was closely tied to an application for a water right filed by the California Oregon Power Company (Copco) in 1951. This application anticipated using water at a proposed hydroelectric project on the Klamath River known as “Big Bend No. 2.” In turn, this dispute folded in past dealings, agreements and opinions related to the operation of Link River Dam on Upper Klamath Lake .

The agreements made between Copco and the Bureau of Reclamation at the time of construction of Link River Dam around 1920 had been controversial. Upper Klamath Basin irrigation interests had three primary concerns:

In 1951, Copco filed an application with the Oregon Hydroelectric Commission (OHC) for a water right for the proposed Big Bend No. 2 hydroelectric facility. The OHC at that time had authority and jurisdiction over issuance of water rights for hydropower facilities. Copco at the time of filing took the position that water was available for appropriation and Copco was entitled to a right, senior in priority, to any future Upper Klamath Basin irrigation that was not then actually developed.

Copco’s application to the OHC, and its parallel application to the Federal Power Commission (FPC) for a license under the Federal Power Act, were contested and opposed by the Department of the Interior and various agricultural and irrigation interests. The OHC did not act on Copco’s application until 1956.

The States of California and Oregon appointed commissioners to negotiate an interstate Compact. At the same time, Reclamation and local water users were negotiating a new agreement with Copco for operation of Link River Dam. It appeared that such an agreement might be concluded prior to enactment by the States of a Compact. The draft Copco contract was brought before the Compact negotiating commissioners, who sought to ensure consistency with the Compact being developed. During the course of several meetings of the Compact commissioners, terms were developed which resulted in conditions in the FPC license, the water right certificate, and a new contract for Copco’s operating of Link River Dam.

After preparation of various drafts, negotiation of the Compact was concluded and the legislatures of Oregon , California , as well as the United States Congress, acted in 1957. The major purposes of this compact are, with respect to the water resources of the Klamath River Basin :

A. To facilitate and promote the orderly, integrated and comprehensive development, use, conservation and control thereof for various purposes, including, among others: the use of water for domestic purposes; the development of lands by irrigation and other means; the protection and enhancement of fish, wildlife, and recreational resources; the use of water for industrial purposes and hydroelectric power production; and the use and control of water for navigation and flood prevention.

B. To further intergovernmental cooperation and comity with respect to these resources and programs for their use and development and to remove causes of present and future controversies by providing (1) for equitable distribution and use of water among the two states and the Federal Government, (2) for preferential rights to the use of water after the effective date of this compact for the anticipated ultimate requirements for domestic and irrigation purposes in the Upper Klamath River Basin in Oregon and California, and (3) for prescribed relationships between beneficial uses of water as a practicable means of accomplishing such distribution and use.

The Compact recognized water rights for then-existing and future needs in the Klamath Project service area. It also established a system of priority for new water rights under which Upper Basin irrigation (up to a specified number of acres) had superior rights over water for power generation, fish or wildlife, or recreation.

In short, the Klamath Compact provided guidelines to lead the competing interests of the Klamath River watershed towards a more harmonious future. For the next 40 years, the intent of the Compact was essentially fulfilled, until the early 1990s, when new pressures to address endangered fish and tribal trust demands resulted in the reemergence of fractionalized conflict into the Upper Basin . Although it had been seen as a resolution for future disputes, the Compact has been interpreted not to override the Endangered Species Act or tribal trust water rights.

Through the 1950s, Reclamation envisioned continued development of the Project that would have doubled its current size by including Butte Valley , California and other areas. The plans were not implemented and the Project acreage has not significantly increased since the end of the 1940s. In the following decades, the delivery system has been improved, bottlenecks eliminated, and relatively small areas have both been brought under irrigation and converted to commercial or residential development.

By 1960, due in part to improvements made on Tule Lake dikes, the M Canal, the Lost River Diversion Channel, and installation of new canals in the southern portion of the Tulelake Irrigation District (TID) service area and the Miller Hill Pumping Plant, the Project provided irrigation service to nearly 216,000 acres.

In the 1960’s, improvements and expansion of certain facilities led to the formation of Klamath Basin Improvement District. The Stukel and Poe Valley Pumping Plants were constructed and the Miller Hill Pumping Plant enlarged. The D, F and G-Canals were also enlarged. These facilities provided more reliable service to certain lands and also added land to the area that could receive water from Project works.

In the 1970’s, Shasta View Irrigation District and Reclamation entered a $3.2 million contract for installation of a pressure irrigation system to replace the previous gravity-fed system. The 1972 Project history reported, “…the Project provided irrigation and drainage service to 223,661 acres,” while the total harvested acreage “…was 193,160, down 2,329 acres from 1971.” Also in the 1970’s, the Straits Drain was enlarged.

Because of the Klamath Project’s design and the interrelated nature of water use within it, including the use of return flows by farmers and the refuge, Project efficiency is very high. A recent assessment of Klamath Project water use efficiency[1] implies that a sophisticated seasonal pattern of water use has evolved in the Klamath Project. One must understand that the Klamath Project has developed into a highly effective, highly interconnected form of water management. According to the 1998 Davids study (see footnote), effective efficiency for the overall Project is 93 percent, making the Klamath Project one of the most efficient in the country[2].

For eighty years, Klamath Project irrigation supplies proved sufficient to meet the needs of the area’s burgeoning farming and ranching communities. Although there were years where Mother Nature and Klamath Project storage capacity proved insufficient to meet full irrigation demands, the local community managed to stretch thin supplies and make things work. That all changed in the early 1990s, when steadily more restrictive government agency decisions made to meet Endangered Species Act (ESA) goals began to steadily chip away at the stored water supply originally developed for irrigation.

Two sucker species were listed (1988) as endangered and coho salmon were listed (1997) as threatened under the ESA. Since then, biological opinions rendered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (for the suckers) and NOAA Fisheries (for the coho), have increasingly emphasized the reallocation of Project water as the sole means of avoiding jeopardizing these fish. Klamath Project “operations plans” based on these biological opinions also factor in tribal trust obligations, although the nature and extent of such obligations is undefined.

[1] “Klamath Project Historical Water Use Analysis”, Davids Engineering for U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, October 1998.

[2] For example, Tulelake Irrigation District irrigates 62,000 acres of farmland. In the 1990s, the district diverted an average of 131,000 acre-feet of water. Each year, an average of 80,000 acre-feet was pumped out of the district. Consumptive use within the district is considerably less than the amount of water diverted. The reason is the difference from the return flow from other districts and the reuse of water within the Project.

In the past twelve years, political and regulatory demands have affected activities at the Klamath Project. In 1988, the short nose sucker and the Lost River sucker, two species that live in Upper Klamath Lake , were designated as endangered under the ESA. Biological opinions issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in 1992 and 1994 concerning operation of the Klamath Project identified actions to avoid jeopardy to suckers. When the suckers were listed, there had been no mention whatsoever of reservoir elevations as a factor affecting sucker populations. These operation elevations were adopted by Reclamation. The reservoir elevations pertaining to Upper Klamath Lake generally allowed the Project to operate for its intended purposes. However, the United States District Court of Oregon found that the reservoir elevations pertaining to Clear Lake and Gerber Reservoirs to be arbitrary and capricious, and they were invalidated in a succession of decisions[1].

The most compelling and prominent reason why the federal government justified listing the two sucker species as “endangered” in 1988 was an apparent abrupt downturn in both populations during the mid-1980s. To support the decision to list the suckers, the USFWS believed the only significant remaining populations were in Upper Klamath Lake . We now know that the assumptions by the USFWS were in error and the assumed sucker population crisis never materialized. In fact, shortly after listing of the species, the populations demonstrated dramatic increases[2].

Just prior to the listing of the suckers in 1988, a sport snag fishery was allowed. Before 1969, the fishery was largely unregulated with no harvest limit; in 1969 a generous bag limit of 10 fish per angler was imposed. During the early to mid-1980s, despite the belief that the numbers of fish were in a state of rapid decline, the State of Oregon still allowed the sport snag fishery. Ultimately, because of increased focus on the status of the sucker populations, Oregon eliminated the fishery in 1987. Some fisheries experts believe that if the USFWS would have properly assessed the known impacts on the suckers caused by the snag fishery and the benefits from ceasing the fishery, it very likely could have affected the ultimate listing decision.

“Simply stated, the largely unregulated snag fishery slaughtered the sucker populations,” said Dave Vogel, with Natural Resource Scientists, Inc. “Since the fishery was eliminated in 1987, the two sucker populations dramatically rebounded. The threat was removed and the populations increased ten-fold.”

[1] Bennett v Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997); 5 F. Jupp. 2d 887 (D. Or. 1998); Bennett v. Badgely, No. 93-6075-HO (April 13, 1999, June 11, 1999).

[2] Vogel, David, 2004. Testimony Before the Committee on Resources (Subcommittee on Water and Power), United States House of Representatives. Oversight Field Hearing on The Endangered Species Act 30 Years Later: The Klamath Project.

At the time of the listings in 1988, the Klamath Project was not identified as having known adverse affects on the sucker populations, yet four years after the listing, using limited or no empirical data, the USFWS turned to the Klamath Project as their singular focus. Paradoxically, since the early 1990s, despite new beneficial empirical evidence on the improving status of the species and lack of relationship with Klamath Project operations, the USFWS became ever more centered on Project operations and increased restrictions on irrigators instead of paying attention to more obvious, fundamental problems for the species. This circumstance caused tremendous expense in dollars and time by diverting resources away from other known factors affecting the species.

A similar circumstance occurred with NOAA Fisheries during and after the coho salmon listing in the lower basin in the late 1990s. It cited the reasons to list coho salmon, excluding Klamath Project operations as a significant factor affecting the species. There are many other documented factors that have affected salmon runs in the Klamath River [1]. The USFWS in the 1980s described the most important eight factors as “most frequently referred to with regard to recent population declines” of anadromous fish in the Klamath River . Those factors are:

However, shortly following the listing, and with no supporting data, NOAA Fisheries chose to center its attention on the Klamath Project as the principal factor affecting coho salmon. In its biological opinions, NOAA Fisheries opined that much higher than historic flow levels, released from the stored water of the Klamath Project, would be needed to protect coho salmon downstream of Iron Gate Dam. Iron Gate Dam is located forty miles away and coho are generally found further downstream and in tributaries.[2]

In essence, both agencies adopted a single-minded approach of focusing on Klamath Project operations to artificially create high reservoir levels and high reservoir releases. This puzzling, similar sequence of events has yet to be explained by agency officials.

[1] KWUA biologists compiled a comprehensive listing of those factors in March 1997.

Commercial harvests of salmon intensified with the development of canning technology. By the early 20^th century, habitat destruction combined with commercial harvests had resulted in serious salmon depletion on the Klamath River . Cobb (1930) estimated that the peak of the Klamath River salmon runs occurred in 1912, Snyder (1931) observed “in 1912 three [canneries] operated on or near the estuary and the river was heavily fished, no limit being placed on the activities of anyone”.

Irrigation districts on the east side of the Klamath Project felt the first impacts from increased regulatory focus on lake levels in the early 1990s. Langell Valley Irrigation District (LVID) and Horsefly Irrigation District (HID) receive water from Clear Lake and Gerber reservoirs. Historically, stored water was released from these two reservoirs beginning about April 15 and ending about October 15 each year. These reservoirs are not large, but they provide the essential water supply to an otherwise arid area. In an average year, Clear Lake releases about 36,000 acre-feet of irrigation water, and Gerber releases about 40,000 acre-feet.

Clear Lake Reservoir contains populations of both endangered sucker species, and Gerber reservoir hosts one of the species. ESA-“threatened” bald eagles are also known to inhabit the Klamath Project area. In 1991, at the request of the USFWS, Reclamation initiated ESA consultation to assess the impact of the long-term operation of the Klamath Project on the suckers and the bald eagle. In the next year, three biological opinions were rendered by USFWS that imposed minimum levels in Clear Lake to purportedly protect the sucker populations.

As a result of the minimum lake levels imposed by the draft biological opinions, and the water lost to evaporation before the USFWS allowed any water releases, the Districts were not able to make their normal irrigation releases during the 1992 water year. Neither district received its first seasonal water delivery until May 15, 1992 , a full four weeks later than normal. By that date, 12,000 acre-feet of the water that had been stored in Clear Lake in March 1992 had evaporated, an amount that represents about 60% of LVID’s total yearly withdrawal from Clear Lake Reservoir. As a result of the minimum lake levels and the evaporation losses, only 2,148 acres of the 16,800 irrigable acres within the LVID received any Klamath Project water at all.

The lack of water reduced both acreage farmed and per-acre yields that year. As a result of reduced yields, farm properties lost up to 70% of their assessed values in 1992. The lack of water also hurt the region’s cattle ranching operations, because some ranchers could not produce pasture for their cattle. Water users who could afford the extra expense purchased feed to sustain their herds. Others had to cut back substantially on their herds or sell their cattle.

Wildlife also suffered as a result of the decision to impose minimum surface levels in the reservoirs. Because the Lost River obtains most of its water from releases from Clear Lake Dam and return flows from agricultural operations, the water levels in the Lost River and its tributaries were exceedingly low in 1992. As a direct result, wildlife relying on Lost River water, including deer, sandhill cranes, hawks, turtles, frogs, ducks, and more, were all noticeably scarce that year.

On July 22, 1992 , USFWS finally issued its final biological opinion on the long-term operations of the Klamath Project. While the 1992 opinion conceded that “little” was known about Gerber Reservoir’s shortnose sucker population, the opinion reported “good numbers” of these fish and noted that the Gerber sucker population appeared to be successfully reproducing, despite the lowered lake levels of the early 1990s.

Despite this undisputed evidence, the 1992 biological opinion concluded that continuing to operate the Project, including Clear Lake and Gerber reservoirs, in its historic manner was likely to jeopardize the continued existence of both sucker fish species. Reclamation accepted the USFWS recommendations for continued adherence to minimum lake levels, prompting the Districts and two of the individual farmers to sue the federal agencies.

Even after the federal district court entered judgment invalidating the jeopardy conclusions, USFWS defied this judgment, and the districts were forced to bring several additional motions to enforce the Court’s rulings. At each stage of the legal proceedings, the districts prevailed, based largely on the fact that USFWS had no scientific evidence to justify its actions. When the United States Supreme Court considered the Districts’ case against the USFWS, the Court described the purpose of the ESA’s science requirement as follows:

The obvious purpose of the requirement that each agency “use the best available scientific and commercial data available” is to ensure that the ESA not be implemented haphazardly, on the basis of speculation or surmise. While this no doubt serves to advance the ESA’s overall goal of species preservation, we think it readily apparent that another objective (if not indeed the primary one) is to avoid needless economic dislocation produced by agency officials zealously but unintelligently pursuing their environmental objectives.

Now, ten years later, HID and LVID enjoy positive relationships with USFWS and Reclamation. However, the problems they suffered in the early 1990s were a harbinger of things to come for other Klamath Project irrigators shortly after the turn of the new century.

The net result of increasing restrictions on other Klamath Project water users was fully realized on April 6, 2001 , when Reclamation announced its water allocation for the Project after U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries officials finalized the biological opinions (BOs) for project operations in a critically dry year. Based on those regulatory actions, Reclamation announced that – for the first time in Project’s 95-year history - no water would be available from Upper Klamath Lake to supply Project irrigators.

The resulting impacts to the local community were immediate and far-reaching. Even with a later release of a small percentage of needed water over a 30-day period in July and August, thousands of acres of valuable farmland were left without water. In addition to harming those property owners, managers, and workers, also imparted an economic “ripple” effect through the broader community. The wildlife benefits provided by those farms – particularly the food provided for area waterfowl – were also lost with the water.

The Klamath Project at 100:

Conserving our Resources, Preserving our Heritage

1905-2005: The First Century of Water for the Klamath Project

Prepared by Dan Keppen, Executive Director

Klamath Water Users Association

December 2004

Background of Klamath Water Users Association