Grain Truck,
The
original Klamath Water Users Association was organized on
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
The
current Klamath Water Users Association (KWUA) has its origins in the Klamath
Water Users Protective Association, bylaws adopted
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
KWUAs
mission statement: To
preserve, protect and defend the water and power rights of the landowners of the
Table
of Contents
Page
Executive Summary . 4
Introduction .. 5
Overview 7
Pioneers . . 9
The Reclamation Act . 10
The
Construction Begins.. ... 11
Homesteaders . ... 13
The
The Klamath Projects Finishing Touches 18
New Demands 19
Sucker Listings 20
Coho Salmon Listing .. ... 21
Problems on the
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
The Klamath Project Regulatory Regime: 3 Years After the Curtailment. 34
Proactive Efforts of
Sucker Recovery Planning . . 36
On-the-Ground Actions . .. 36
Environmental Water Bank . 38
EQIP Funding in
Recognition at Last . . 39
50 Years After the Compact Back to the Watershed-Wide Approach .. 40
BOR Study on Pre-Project Flow Conditions on
Conclusion The Future . . 41
Notes . . . . 44
Photo Credits . . 47
Executive
Summary
A load of produce from the Klamath Fair, October 1907.
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
1905 Petition from Basin residents to the
Secretary of the Interior
The vision of the
Agriculture plays a vital role in this states economy. An
economic issue is one thing, for the farmers who need the resource, need the
water, to be able to make a living. Theres another piece to this thats
much larger for all
Oregon
Governor Ted Kulongoski,
At the A
Canal Fish Screen,
Introduction
The
year 2005 marks the one hundred-year birthday of one of the oldest federal water
projects in the western
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,
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
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,
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
Overview
The
irrigable lands of the Klamath Project (Project) are in south-central
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
The
original Klamath Project plan included construction of facilities to divert and
distribute water for irrigation of basin lands, including reclamation of Tule
and
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.
1906 Map of
Pre-Project Area
Pioneers
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
Prime
farmland, exposed around the edges of old historic
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
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.
The Reclamation Act
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
The
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
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
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, stated one petitioner.
In
November 1904, F.H. Newell, Chief Engineer of the federal Reclamation Service,
told a large audience of enthusiastic farmers in
Early
in 1905,
Construction Begins
The
Interior Secretarys 1905 authorization provided for project works to drain
and reclaim lake bed lands of the
Construction
began on the Project in 1906 with the building of the main
1907 Completion of the A Canal Headgates
[1]
Ironically, after
This
initial construction was followed by the completion of
Constructing
Large stone in self-dumping car.
A
contract executed
The
Malone Diversion Dam on the
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.
Homesteaders
The
story of the homesteaders is a source of great pride in the Klamath Project. As
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.
1927
Homesteader Affidavit
In
three drawings held in 1946, 1948 and 1949, a total of 216 World War II veterans
were awarded homesteads on farmland in the
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
The
sign says it all.
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
Homesteaders: Robinsons in 2001 Remember Days Gone By
The
The
Klamath River Compact (Compact) is a law of both
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
The
agreements made between Copco and the Bureau of Reclamation at the time of
construction of Link River Dam around 1920 had been controversial.
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
J.C. Boyle Dam on the
Copcos
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 Copcos application until 1956.
The
States of California and
After
preparation of various drafts, negotiation of the Compact was concluded and the
legislatures of
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
In
short, the Klamath Compact provided guidelines to lead the competing interests
of the
The Klamath Projects
Finishing Touches
Through
the 1950s, Reclamation envisioned continued development of the Project that
would have doubled its current size by including
By
1960, due in part to improvements made on
In
the 1960s, 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 1970s, 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 1970s, the Straits Drain was enlarged.
Because
of the Klamath Projects 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].
New Demands
For
eighty years, Klamath Project irrigation supplies proved sufficient to meet the
needs of the areas 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
[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.
Sucker
Listings
In
the past twelve years, political and regulatory demands have affected activities
at the Klamath Project. In 1988, the short nose sucker and the
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
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
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),
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.
Coho
Salmon Listing
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
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.
[2]
Vogel, David, 2004. Testimony Before the Committee on Resources
(Subcommittee on Water and Power),
Commercial
harvests of salmon intensified with the development of canning technology. By
the early 20th century, habitat destruction combined with commercial
harvests had resulted in serious salmon depletion on the
Problems on the
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
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
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
regions 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
On
Despite this undisputed evidence,
the 1992 biological opinion concluded that continuing to operate the Project,
including
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
Courts 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
ESAs 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 ESAs 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.
2001 Curtailment
The
net result of increasing restrictions on other Klamath Project water users was
fully realized on
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.
Kliewer Family in
Dry Fields South of Klamath Falls - 2001
The
local farming community is still reeling from the
Veteran
homesteaders, who fifty years ago were promised reliable water, felt betrayed by
the same government, who chose to provide water to fish instead of farmers in
2001.
I want the government to honor the contract that promised me and my
heirs water rights forever, said Jess Prosser, a World War II veteran and
Tulelake homesteader, in 2001, after water supplies were cut. This land is
our life. Farmers and fish have survived previous drought years when the farmers
voluntarily cut back on water consumption. The Klamath Project was designed to
withstand drought conditions, and right now there is more than ample water for
agriculture and fish. The government took 100% of the water for fish,
disregarding farmers, ranchers, families and numerous other species of wildlife
in the
[1] Calamity in Klamath, Blake Hurst. The American Enterprise magazine. October / November 2002, pp 28-29.
Cemeteries Went
Dry in 2001
The Farmers Fight Back
The local community did not take the decision lying down. Employing the
ingenuity and perseverance that allowed them to successfully create brand new
communities over the past century, local farmers, ranchers, elected officials
and business leaders organized a bucket brigade to dramatize their plight,
drawing nearly 20,000 sympathizers to the streets of
Time Magazine
Captures Rob Crawford & Family, Summer 2001.
In
part because of the tremendous media and political attention generated by the
local community, a congressional field hearing was held in the summer of 2001 at
the
In
2001, a desperate community essentially was looked in the eye and told,
sorry, we know it may hurt, but the science is compelling and requires
you to go without water. This was wrong, literally, and as a matter of
policy. For whatever reason, the agencies had become too close to, and too much
a part of, the side-taking that had come to dominate issues surrounding the
Klamath Project. For this reason alone, outside review was needed.
Enter President Bush
In
January 2002, just months after the federal government curtailed Klamath Project
irrigation deliveries for the first time in 97 years, Sen. Gordon Smith and Rep.
Greg Walden met the president in southern California, boarded Air Force One, and
took a slight detour over the Basin on their way to a Portland high school where
the Mr. Bush was to deliver a speech. On the flight north, the president was
briefed on the 2001 Klamath water crisis. When he entered the gymnasium at
Compassion: George W. Bush Meets and Greets
In
the ensuing two years, President Bush has followed through with his pledge by
establishing a
Vindication:
The National Research Council Steps In
The
Klamath Water Users Association and others in the community in 2001 strongly
advocated for an independent peer review of the 2001 fishery agency biological
opinions, the underlying science, and the related overall scientific process. In
early 2002, an interim report from the National Research Council (NRC) Committee
on Endangered and Threatened Fishes in the
Despite
varying interpretations of the data used by the USFWS and NOAA Fisheries in the
BOs, it is especially noteworthy that the NRC panel achieved consensus on the
Interim Reports conclusions for not just one, but both BOs. The reports
conclusions were adequately supported by the available evidence and analyses
used by USFWS and NOAA Fisheries. It was particularly evident that the NRC
Committee report was fair and impartial, essential attributes that were sorely
lacking in Klamath basin issues to date.
The
Assault on the Klamath Project Intensifies
The
release of the NRC Committees interim report in early 2002 unleashed a
barrage of criticism from environmental activists and their allies in academia
and government agencies. Two
The
scrutiny on the Klamath Project and the Bush Administrations reliance on the
NRC interim report intensified further that fall, when 33,000 salmon died on the
Some of these same interests and others in the environmental community even attempted to directly link the fish die-off to alleged political maneuvering orchestrated by senior policy officials in the Bush Administration. As a result, presidential hopeful Senator John Kerry called on the U.S. Interior Department's Inspector General to look into whether "political pressure from the White House is intimidating staff and influencing policy" in Klamath River management decisions. Interior Department Inspector General Earl Devaneys report released in March 2004- found no evidence of political influence affecting the decisions pertaining to the water in the Klamath Project.
|
·
Fish need water;
·
Klamath Project
farmers were denied water in 2001 and no fish died in the
·
Klamath Project
farmers received full supplies in 2002, and 33,000 salmon died in the river;
·
The Bush
Administration sacrificed fish for the benefit of farmers.
The
claims discussed above are just a few of the more prominent arguments that
Klamath Project critics have employed to justify a series of actions undertaken
in the wake of the public release of the interim NRC Committee report, including
the following:
·
Federal legislation that would finalize a controversial and flawed
draft
· Unsuccessful federal legislation that would restrict the ability of local lease land farmers to grow row crops.
· Litigation (PCFFA v. USBR) that, if successful, would have likely shut down Klamath Project operations in 2003.
·
Public protests staged by tribal members and environmentalists in
·
Listing of the
· An unsuccessful lawsuit filed by environmental groups against NOAA Fisheries to hasten the potential ESA listing of the green sturgeon.
·
The release of an Oregon Natural Resources Council (ONRC)
report, which contends that voluntary
buyouts of willing sellers within the Project remain the most politically
responsible, socially just, and economically viable method to address power
and ecological challenges.
·
A subsequent letter sent by ONRC to Project
landowners, tempting them with the promise of a buyout that would provide them
with 2 ½ times the fair market value of their land.
·
Numerous editorials, journal articles and magazine
stories that clearly accept the arguments made by Project critics.
However,
others did not jump so quickly on to the blame game bandwagon. During late
summer and early fall of 2002, Dave Vogel, a fisheries biologist with 28 years
of experience, conducted a field investigation to assess water temperatures in
the main stem
The
combination of these factors was chronically and cumulatively stressful to fish
and is probably the most plausible reason for the fish die-off.
In
my opinion, the best available scientific data and information indicate that the
continued operation and maintenance of historical flows at Iron Gate Dam will
not jeopardize coho salmon, said Vogel in March 2003. Furthermore, in my
opinion the operations of Iron Gate Dam during the summer and fall of 2002 did
not cause and could not have prevented the fish die-off in the
Unfortunately,
scant media coverage was afforded to Vogels findings. Outside of the
Clearly,
the hard working landowners of the Upper Klamath Basin have been on the
receiving end of a cruel and long-distance war being waged by environmental
activists who assert that the federal water project representing only 2
percent of the total land base of the Klamath River watershed, and consuming
only 3-4 percent of the average annual flows to the Pacific Ocean is somehow
responsible for all of the environmental woes of the river system. These
advocates are intent on portraying the
These
interests know that federal water projects are an easy target of litigation,
since federal environmental and clean water laws govern project operations. The
lawsuits are often aimed at federal entities such as the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation and fishery agencies which, on the surface, give the appearance
that the environmental plaintiffs are simply interested in correcting errors
made by some non-descript governmental agency. The true intended target of these
actions, however, ultimately becomes the landowners and water users who fall
under the management jurisdiction of the federal agencies. It is the farmers and
ranchers that pay the price of litigation through altered management practices,
increased uncertainty, and escalating legal expenses to defend their interests.
For
the most part, the potentially damaging effects these actions could cause family
farmers and ranchers have been deflected. However, local water users are
concerned that permanent
Vindication,
Part II
After
an 18-month barrage of anti-Klamath Project attacks in the media and courtrooms,
the long-awaited final report from the National Research Council (NRC) Committee
on Endangered and Threatened Fishes in the
Despite
the final conclusions, some environmentalists and many in the media continue to
maintain the sensational but unsupported position that the Klamath Project was
responsible for the 2002 fish mortality that occurred over 200 miles from the
Klamath Project.
The
final NRC report was consistent with what
Local
water users shared the NRC reports vision that increased knowledge, improved
management, and cohesive community action would promote recovery of the fishes.
At the same time, they remained extremely concerned that the business as
usual approach - regulation of
the Klamath Project would remain the dominant aspect of ESA biological
opinions and advocacy of Project opponents.
For
reasons now clearly evident, the irrigators original recommendation for an
outside technical review of the ESA activities in the Klamath basin by an
objective group such as the National Academy of Sciences back in 1993
(KWUA 1993) was an important first step. The
benefits of an ESA peer review are obvious after reading the NRCs final
report.
We
are beginning to see signs of progress with ESA activities in the basin, said
Dave Vogel, nearly one year after the release of the final NRC Committee report.
However, alarmingly, there are some individuals within the agencies that are
in a state of denial over the findings and conclusions of the NRCs report.
Despite the NRCs final report, the USFWS and NOAA Fisheries still have
too much focus on the Klamath Project and not enough emphasis on a
watershed-wide approach.
Other
experts agree.
We
found that the prevailing scientific sentiment in the basinMore water is
better for fish- was the wrong approach, NRC Committee member Jeffrey
Mount told California Farmer magazine
in December 2003, two months after the final NRC report was released.
We
hate to say we told you so, but
.
It
is very important to note that many of the most pertinent findings, conclusions,
and recommendations of the NRC Klamath Committee were not new to the USFWS or
NOAA Fisheries. Dave Vogel elaborated on this in testimony he provided to the
House Resources Committee at a field hearing held in
The
NRC final report advocates a watershed approach, peer review, greater
stakeholder involvement, oversight of agency actions, focus on factors other
than the Klamath Project operations, reduction of resource conflicts, and
incorporation of the principles of adaptive management toward species
recovery, said Vogel. Over the past decade, local water users and their
allies forwarded much of the same and similar technical findings and
recommendations to those two agencies, but were mainly ignored.
Additionally, the NRCs major conclusion that there is insufficient
scientific justification for high reservoir levels and high instream flows was
always prominent in water users technical comments on the agencies
biological opinions during the past decade.
The
NRC Klamath Committees final report was an outstanding effort and the product
must serve as a catalyst to advance balanced natural resource management in the
basin, Vogel said. If federal agencies meaningfully incorporate many of
the NRCs principal findings, conclusions, and recommendations, we fully
expect positive results to the species recovery and reduced resource conflicts.
We should use the momentum of the NRCs final report to guide recovery
efforts and watershed improvements. However,
if the agencies do not take this pro-active approach, we could again return to
the disaster that transpired in 2001.
Dr.
Mount agrees.
For
too long, Klamath managers have relied on fixing their problems by turning only
one knob- the knob of raising and lowering water levels in Upper Klamath Lake
and the river, said Mount, a University of California professor. They need
to take new approaches that support multiple populations of fish and healthy
ecosystems throughout the watershed, he said.
The
Klamath Project Regulatory Regime: 3 Years After the Curtailment
Unfortunately,
the fishery agency biological opinions (BOs) do not. Despite the so-called ecosystem approach to species recovery
advocated by the USFWS and NMFS, their actions in the Klamath basin over the
past decade amply demonstrates that the exact opposite took place.
They focused on: 1) a
single-species approach; and 2) Klamath Project operations.
The
USFWS opinion continues to perpetuate the questionable assumption that lake
level management is the principle mechanism affecting sucker survival in Upper
Klamath Lake (UKL). The NOAA Fisheries jeopardy decision similarly continues to
place high emphasis on downstream flows. The stored water developed for Klamath
Project farmers continues to be reallocated to meet the artificial demands set
by agency biologists.
The
combined and apparently, unanticipated impacts placed on the
Rancher
Gary Wright learns that the Klamath Project would be shut down in the middle of
the irrigation season,
In
addition to the continued uncertainty irrigators face, the opinions are
generating new, unanticipated impacts to the community. In the past 40 to 50
years, while the cropping pattern in the Klamath Project has varied from year to
year, the overall planted acreage has remained consistent. On the other hand,
the 2002-2012 biological opinion created by NOAA Fisheries for coho salmon
established the river flow schedule and an environmental water bank
which ratchets up to 100,000 acre-feet in 2005, regardless of actual hydrologic
conditions that is the primary source of new demand for water in the
The result: stored water that has flowed to farms, ranches and the refuges for nearly 100 years is now sent downstream at such high levels, that groundwater pumped from the Lost River basin is being used to supplement the resulting coho salmon demand in the Klamath River.
[1]
Improved coordination between USFWS managers and their Reclamation
counterparts in
It is not the farmers who have imposed new water demands that, in essence, have made groundwater the default supplemental supply to the Klamath Project. It is the opinions of agency fishery biologists who have fundamentally altered how this century-old water project operates, and who have apparently failed to anticipate the resulting impacts to the community.
While Reclamation in 2002 sharply disagreed with the findings of both fishery agency biological opinions, it is not yet clear how consultation will be reinitiated to create a new operations plan.
Proactive
Efforts of
Since
the early 1990s, and particularly in the new millennium, local water users
both within the Klamath Project and those who farm in upstream areas north of
Sucker
Recovery Planning
KWUA in 1993 published the Initial Ecosystem
Restoration Plan
the first ecosystem-based, scientifically valid planning document on
On-the-Ground
Actions
Local
agricultural and business leaders have dedicated thousands of volunteer hours
and have spent millions of dollars in the past ten years to participate in
processes associated with environmental restoration,
· Local efforts to assist National Wildlife Refuges (e.g. Walking Wetlands)
·
Ecosystem Enhancement and Sucker Recovery Efforts in the
· Fish Passage Improvement Projects
· Wildlife Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Efforts
· Local Efforts to Improve Water Quality
· Power Resource Development
·
Efforts to Improve Klamath Project Water Supply Reliability and
Water Use Efficiency
Many
of these efforts were driven by an initial desire to implement meaningful
restoration actions intended to provide some sort of mitigation credit
that could be applied towards reducing the burden carried by Klamath Project
irrigators to protect threatened and endangered fish species. For many
years, that credit was not recognized.
For
example, Federal agencies or non-profit conservation groups have acquired over
25,000 acres of farmland in the
A page from the Refuge section of the tule-lake.com
website.
Environmental Water Bank
KWUA
in early March 2003 announced it would support, and assist the Department of
Interior in the implementation of, a Klamath Project Pilot Environmental Water
Bank in 2003 to provide over 50,000 acre-feet of additional water for
environmental purposes. Reclamations 10-year Biological Assessment (BA)
developed in February 2002 proposed an environmental water bank through which
willing buyers and sellers will provide additional water supplies for fish and
wildlife purposes and to enhance tribal trust resources. The 2002-2012
biological opinion created by NOAA Fisheries for coho salmon firmly established
the river flow schedule and the water bank which ratchets up to 100,000
acre-feet in 2005, regardless of actual hydrologic conditions that is the
primary source of new demand for water in the
The coho biological opinion's rigid water bank schedule, which steps up the magnitude of the bank for the first four years, regardless of actual hydrology, is difficult to justify. This type of water bank does not reflect the intent of either the proposal put forth by KWUA in 2002 (see below), or the original USBR biological assessment, which proposed implementation of a water bank in drier years, not every year.
Water
users committed to pursue developing a water bank with Reclamation in January
2002. At that time, KWUA was asked by Reclamation to develop a Project-wide
water bank to assist with meeting environmental water demands in drier years.
KWUAs Water Bank and Supply Enhancement Committee held over 30 meetings in
2002-03 to develop the 65-page report/proposal for a long-term water bank, which
differs substantially from the pilot water bank proposed by Reclamation this
past year. Certainty of water supplies is a key principle imbedded in KWUAs
long-term water bank proposal. Local water users insist that, in exchange for
voluntary participation in a Project water bank which would be used to
fund environmental water needs - 100% of the irrigation demand for
remaining Project acreage will be satisfied, season-long. Water users further
believe that the water bank cannot be viewed as a stand-alone element. While
Reclamations 2003 and 2004 pilot programs did not closely resemble KWUAs
vision for a long-term bank, water users are hopeful that Reclamation and
Interior will look to the irrigators document to complete its 10-year water
bank proposal.
EQIP
Funding in
The
federal government in 2003 released $7 million in conservation funding to the
Recognition
at Last
In
the past year, local irrigators have finally begun to get the recognition if
not the actual regulatory relief - they deserve for their proactive efforts. To
wit:
· KWUA was awarded the 2003 Leadership in Conservation award by the Oregon Department of Agriculture;
·
KWUA in 2004 was honored on the steps of the
· Tulelake Irrigation District in January 2004 received the F. Gordon Johnston award for its innovative canal lining project completed near Newell; and
·
U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman and NRCS chief Bruce
Knight in 2004 recognized local rancher Mike Byrne for his leadership in
conservation.
NRCS Chief Bruce Knight (left)
with 2004
Excellence in Conservation
Award winner Mike Byrne.
It
is clear that local irrigators have not been idle in the past ten years. Their
efforts to improve their environment are all the more impressive when one
considers that the uncertainty and difficulty associated with keeping their
farming operations profitable have not diminished.
Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski, Congressman Greg Walden and
KWUA Executive Director Dan Keppen at the new A Canal Headgates, April 2003.
50
Years After the Compact Back to the Watershed-Wide Approach
The
state-federal Klamath agreement reflects the philosophy embedded in both the
Klamath River Basin Compact and the 2003 NRC Klamath report, which confirmed
that
An
important part of this agreement is that it supports the Conservation
Implementation Program (CIP), a work in progress proposed by federal agencies to
coordinate management actions in the
KWUA
is working with other producer groups and local government to develop guidelines
that make the CIP workable and acceptable to
USBR Study on Pre-Project
Flow Conditions on
Reclamation in late 2004 finalized a draft study intended to provide a
glimpse at how the
Excerpt from Draft BOR Flow Study
Conclusion
The Future
To
solve the problems of the
A
Recently, the Klamath Water Users
Association got an award for not using water, which is not a contradiction in
terms at all. It's a matter of doing what has to be done to keep farming and
ranching alive in the
The award was from the state of
The award recognizes a welter of actions in the Basin, some using federal and
state dollars and some not, many aimed at making agricultural operations more
efficient water users. Some have given agriculture interests heartache, such as
the conversion of farmlands to wetlands - the water users cite 24,000 acres in
the past decade, equal to more than a tenth of the Klamath Reclamation Project.
Nevertheless, it's clear that farmers and ranchers have recognized their
predicament given the pressure of the Endangered Species Act and competition for
water from Indian tribes upstream and down. Agriculture is in the midst of a
struggle that could take decades yet to play out, and its defenders are
determined that they will survive.
This is a longer-term version of the creativity they showed in 2001, when, faced
with imminent ruin, they responded with skill and imagination in a political
protest that brought national attention and saved Basin agriculture to fight
another day.
The vision of the
Whatever alternate vision exists involves blowing away towns such as Merrill,
Malin and Tulelake and shriveling the city of
This is not the first such award, and won't be the last. It is a signal of a
widening recognition in
The
Klamath Water Users Association, with the talents and support of the community,
will continue to address the resource needs of its constituency in a proactive
and creative manner. The KWUA has
shown itself to be steadfast and able in protecting water users while being
receptive to innovative and reasonable solutions.
Our irrigating communities, through the continued efforts of the KWUA,
will always be persistent and adaptable representatives of our American
heritage. The
future
bring it on, we can handle it.
Father and
daughter ride to the headgates, summer 2001.
Notes
Information
sources used in the preceding report sections are further described below.
Overview
The
source for much of this information comes from the Klamath Water Users
Association 2003 Water Bank report.
Pioneers
The
Department of the Interior, United States Reclamation Service 1913 report
entitled History of the Klamath Project. Oregon-California. From
The
The
Voorhees document, noted above, details this issue.
Construction
Begins
The
source for much of this information comes from the Klamath Water Users
Association 2003 Water Bank report, the Voorhees report, and the affidavit and
testimony of Rebecca Meta Bunse, who in 2004 prepared a detailed historic
summary of Klamath Project development on behalf of Klamath Project irrigators
for the
Homesteaders
The
Journal of the Modoc County Historical Society, No. 18-1996, focuses
exclusively on twentieth century development of the
The
The
source for much of this information regarding development of the Compact comes
from the affidavit and testimony of Stephen R. Wee, who in 2004 prepared a
detailed historic summary of Klamath Project water rights and related issues on
behalf of Klamath Project irrigators for the
The
Klamath Projects Finishing Touches
The
source for much of this information comes from the Klamath Water Users
Association 2003 Water Bank report, the Voorhees report, and the affidavit and
testimony of Rebecca Meta Bunse, who in 2004 prepared a detailed historic
summary of Klamath Project development on behalf of Klamath Project irrigators
for the
New
Demands
Legal
documents prepared by the Klamath Water Users Association attorney Paul
Simmons, of Somach, Simmons & Dunn provide much of the background
information regarding the steadily increasing regulations faced by Project
irrigators, starting in the 1990s. Specifically, the plaintiffs memorandum of
points and authorities in support of motion for preliminary injunction (Kandra
et al v.
Problems on the
This
section derives from an excellent letter (dated July 28, 2004) prepared by Best
Best & Krieger on behalf of Horsefly Irrigation District and Langell Valley
Irrigation District. The letter was submitted to the U.S. House of
Representatives Resources Committee in connection with a congressional field
hearing held in
2001
Curtailment
Of
the numerous media accounts of the 2001 water cutoff, I believe Blake Hursts
piece Calamity in Klamath, which originally was published in The
American Enterprise magazine in late 2002, is the best. I have borrowed
liberally from Mr. Hurst, particularly his assessment of the impacts to the
community of
The
Farmers Fight Back
The comments regarding the
desperate community were pulled from an outstanding paper presented by
Paul Simmons at the American Bar Association Environmental Section Fall 2004
Meeting.
Enter President Bush
I was in the audience when
President Bush made his speech in
Vindication: The National Research Council Steps In
This section was derived
from press statements developed by KWUA in early 2002.
The Assault on the Klamath Project Intensifies
Most of this section
derives from personal experience, and the latter part was pulled directly from
an opinion piece I was asked to write for a
Vindication, Part II / We hate to say we told you so, but
.
Much of this information
originates in Dave Vogels written testimony that he submitted to the House
Resources Committee in June 2004. After more than a decade of professional and
sometimes, personal criticism by agency and tribal biologists, the final NRC
Report perhaps vindicated Dave Vogel more than anyone else.
The Klamath Project Regulatory Regime: 3 Years After the Curtailment
This section was written
based on personal experience of the author.
Proactive Efforts of
We
refer you to www.kwua.org and a 45-page
document entitled Summary of Recent and Proposed Environmental Restoration
and Water Conservation Efforts Undertaken by Klamath Water Users and Basin
Landowners for further information on this topic.
50 Years After the Compact Back to the Watershed-Wide Approach
This perspective comes from
KWUA assessments and press releases.
USBR Study on Pre-Project Flow Conditions on
The USBR study is
incredibly important, because, for the first time, it provides a numerical
modeling assessment of the conditions that likely existed on the
Conclusion The Future
The
June 20, 2004 Herald & News editorial
on recent water user efforts provided a fitting ending to this report, which is
further enhanced by language developed by Steve Kandra, 2004-05 KWUA President.
Photo Credits
1.
Cover
photo courtesy of Jacqui Krizo.
2.
Map of
Klamath Project courtesy of Bureau of Reclamation.
3.
A load
of produce from the Klamath Fair, October 1907 courtesy of Tulelake-Butte
Valley Fair, Museum of Local History (TBVF Museum).
4.
1906
Map of Pre-Project Area courtesy of Oregon Water Resources Department.
5.
Adams
Cut,
6.
1907
Completion of the A Canal Headgates courtesy of U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation.
7.
Constructing
8.
1927
Homesteader Affidavit courtesy of Somach, Simmons and Dunn
9.
Farm
Lottery Article, Life Magazine courtesy of Bureau of Reclamation.
10.
The
Sign Says it All courtesy of U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
11.
Homesteaders:
Robinsons in 2001 Remember Days Gone By courtesy of Anders Tomlinson
12.
J.C.
Boyle Dam on the
13.
14.
Del
Norte Salmon Cannery courtesy of Anders Tomlinson
15.
16.
Kliewer
Family in Dry Fields South of Klamath Falls courtesy of Anders Tomlinson
17.
Cemeteries
went Dry in 2001 courtesy of Rob Crawford
18.
Time
Magazine Captures Rob Crawford & Family courtesy of Rob Crawford
19.
Klamath
Bucket Brigade courtesy of Klamath Relief Fund.
20.
Prayer /
Protest at Headgates courtesy of Klamath Relief Fund.
21.
President
Bush Photo courtesy of Rob Crawford
22.
Tulelake
Rancher Gary Wright, June 2003 courtesy of Pat Ratliff
23.
Walking
Wetlands photo courtesy of Anders Tomlinson.
24.
Bruce
Knight and Mike Byrne courtesy of U.S. Department of Agriculture
25.
Gov.
Kulongoski, Rep.Walden, and Dan Keppen at the A Canal, 2003 Courtesy of Pat
Ratliff
26.
Undepleted
Natural Flow of the
27.
Father
and Daughter Ride to the Headgates courtesy of Rob Crawford
28.
Lower
Klamath Lake National Wildlife Refuge,