Map of Klamath Basin and Klamath Project:
210,000 acres of farmland served by ProjectUpper Klamath LakeLower Klamath LakeNational Wildlife Refuges:Lower Klamath NWRTule Lake NWR
Klamath FallsTule Lake
Land in the Klamath River Basin has been farmed for nearly a century.
In 1902, the federal government converted, or reclaimed, wetlands in the Klamath River Basin to agricultural lands.
A few years later, the Klamath Project begun providing irrigation water to the newly created farms by diverting water from the Klamath River.
The USBR sold land to homesteaders, and later offered 80 acre parcels of land to veterans returning from WWI and WWII.
Since 1905, about 500 miles of canals and ditches, plus several dams are built.
Taxpayers pay for cost.
During the development of the Klamath Project, several NWRs were established in the Klamath Basin
Including Lower Klamath NWR first waterfowl refuge.
Others
Testament to the vivid biodiversity of the Basin
Agriculture and waterfowl, other birds have successfully coexisted for decades.
In 1964 comes a transition.
Up to then, Klamath Basin is being farmed by veterans and homesteaders.
The Kuchel Act puts an end to homesteading and land grants.
The remaining tracts of land will be dedicated to waterfowl management and protection.
Full consideration will be given to agriculture.
At first, farmers upset, especially when told that they will farm on refuge land.
That anger turned to satisfaction as the strict regulations they predicted were not realized.
Things get tough on farmers as the nation moves into an environmental age
Begins with the National Environmental Protection Act of 1970
In 1973, the Endangered Species Act is passed
The Shortnose and Lost River suckers of Upper Klamath Lake receive protection under the California Endangered Species Act in 1974. The Klamath Tribe of Native Americans depend on these fish, so many wonder how this will affect their culture.
Many farmers do not worry the water that matters most to them (reservoir water such as Upper Klamath Lake) is whats important.
Upper Klamath Lake is in Oregon, so it will probably have a minimal affect on agriculture.
And almost coinciding with this is a severe drought in which the state of Oregon begins to adjudicate water rights
Up to now, weve seen the establishment of farming in the Klamath area
Federal government inviting homesteaders to the Klamath Basin
Construction and many years of success of the Klamath Project
In the second half of the 20th century weve seen the establishment of environmentalism
Legislation: NEPA, ESA, Kuchel Act
Listing of species on threatened and endangered lists
And now we arrive in the early 1990s
Agriculture and environmentalism are firmly rooted in our nation, especially California and Oregon
Contradictory expectations are directed at the Klamath Basin
Maintain agriculture
Maintain the environment
A true challenge, much of the West begins watching Klamath to see what will happen
And then, nature steps in strikes a devastating blow
The Drought of 1994 results from a dry winter. Upper Klamath Lake drops to a level lower than ever recorded.
Remember, this is right after the US FWS sets water levels to protect the Shortnose and Lost River suckers.
Another species emerges at this time
Of course the farmers face another year of reduced water from Upper Klamath Lake
But reduced flow out of that reservoir means less water in general for the Klamath River
Result threat to coho salmon
Swim up the Klamath River each spring to spawn
Coho salmon see a sharp decline from the reduced flows
Result less fish for Native American Tribes (Hoopa, Yurok, and Karuk), and less fish for commercial fishers
In fact, commercial fishing for salmon is prohibited between California and Washington State that year.
It comes to no surprise for many that in 1997, coho salmon are listed as a threatened species.
In the same year, scientists call for even more water for the suckers in Upper Klamath Lake, stating that their previous water level was not high enough.
After several years of receiving less and less water, farmers feel the impact.
Many begin moving out of the Basin
In 2000, one company, Imperial Holly, announces that it will no longer contract with sugar beet growers in Oregon, and Imperial Holly closes their northern California refinery.
Just when many believed things couldnt get worse, they did.
Little snowfall and little snowmelt sets up the season for another severe drought.
Early in 2001, federal officials give a warning to farmers served by the Klamath Project: little or no water may be available to them this year.
In response, hundreds of farmers respond by rallying at the local USBR office to fight for their livelihood.
Environmental groups state that if the government gives in to the farmers and release water from the habitat to the Project, they will sue.
If you were in charge, if you were the manager of the Klamath Project and you had to make a decision, what would you do? Would you seek a compromise? What would it be? Would you just do whats in the best interest of the farmers/suckers?
What if I told you that the US FWS came to you again (a third time) and told you to maintain a higher water level?
Thats exactly what happened.
Only four days after the rally of the farmers, US FWS requests more water in the lake.
By now, things are happening fast.
One week after the US FWS request, a separate biological opinion is made to the DOI coho salmon are in danger:
To save them, more water is needed downstream,
So more water needs to be released from Upper Klamath Lake
By now, were in March 2001, and on March 31 the Klamath Project Annual Operating Plan expires.
So again, if you could make the decision, what would you decide?
The farmers, with every right to be frustrated, react and organize a bucket brigade from the Klamath River to the canals of the Klamath Project. Some 18,000 attend.
In the middle of the summer, several force open the gates of the Klamath Project diversion channel.
As I remember, the farmers were stopped, but not by local or state law enforcement. Federal officials had to arrest them.
The lack of water caused a grave situation in the Basin
At the beginning of the shut-off, economists estimated that the loss would be $250 million
After the season, the actual losses were estimated at $400 million
Since 2001, some progress has been made:
Last year there was more snowfall in high elevations which led to more snowmelt. So, on the whole, there was more water for everyone.
That and, President Bush dispatched Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton to personally re-open the Klamath Project.
Farmers made a small comeback.
But when will the next drought come?
And when will the next call for higher water levels come?
The solution is simple just as some water needs to be dedicated to the protected animals of the Basin each year, some water needs to be dedicated to agriculture each year.
Recognizing that everyone may not agree with this argument, let me address some of the differing points of view.
Some radicals use biological arguments. One complaint is that in 2002, the year of more water, the Klamath Project received too much, and the runoff killed salmon downstream in the Klamath River.
Response: Not only was that 200 miles downstream from the point where Klamath Project water re-enters the river, the location of the fish-kill was below the confluence of the Klamath and Trinity Rivers.
So its near impossible to blame agriculture for any foreign substances in the water.
Even if agriculture did introduce something foreign, it was diluted.
Whatever killed the salmon could have come from anywhere on the Klamath or the Trinity.
It may have had nothing to do with foreign substances:
