Guest Opinion

Tough questions for the Klamath settlement

Steve Pedery

February 25, 2008

After meeting in secret for the past several years, the Bush administration, together with irrigation interests, some tribes and some environmental groups, recently released a draft “Klamath Settlement Agreement.” While the deal has been the subject of breathless hype and exaggeration by its backers, the reality is that it really doesn’t settle much.

Fortunately, now that the deal is public, we can all start asking some tough questions.

Where is the dam removal in this dam deal?

The Klamath settlement process was originally intended as a forum for negotiations with PacifiCorp over the removal of the lower four dams on the Klamath River . However, far from removing dams, the current deal instead decides how different special interests will split up the proposed $1 billion settlement fund. The section in the settlement agreement dealing with dam removal is a blank page.

Where is the compromise?

Representatives for the Klamath Irrigation Project have said that the “settlement” has staked out a huge amount of common ground. It is easy to see why they support the agreement. With the help of the Bush administration, irrigators secured an ironclad guarantee of generous water deliveries that take priority over the rights of Native American Tribes, science and the needs of endangered species.

That isn’t common ground, and it is not a compromise. Oregon Wild and other conservation groups are more than willing to support a plan to ensure agriculture in the Klamath Basin receives a predictable and sustainable supply of water, but we can’t support forcing fish and wildlife to bear all the risks for future droughts.

Will fish get the water they need to survive?

No. The settlement’s one-sided water plan calls for guaranteed minimum water deliveries for the Klamath Irrigation Project while providing no guarantees for salmon. Two independent scientific analyses of the settlement agreement have already found that it is unlikely to provide enough water to recover salmon runs.

Will the National Wildlife Refuges get the water they need?

No. The lopsided water provisions of the settlement pay lip service to the needs of wildlife, while ensuring that in drought years the refuges continue to take a back seat to agriculture. Worse, the settlement seeks to lock in continued lease-land agricultural development on Tule Lake and Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuges for another 50 years.

It is important to recognize that there are some very positive provisions in the “Klamath Settlement Agreement.” The Klamath Tribes recently wrote in the Statesman Journal that some settlement funds would go towards economic development for the tribe. Oregon Wild supports that funding. Native tribes have been hit the hardest by 100 years of unbalanced water use. We also support measures in the plan that would devote $322 million to fisheries restoration, and $117 million to scientific research and monitoring.

Unfortunately, the good in the draft settlement is heavily outweighed by the bad. To truly claim common ground, settlement backers need to go back to the drawing board. They must get serious about planning for dam removal, trim the special interest pork and ensure fish and wildlife don’t take a back seat to the Klamath Irrigation Project. Only then will they have achieved a “Klamath Settlement Agreement” worthy of the name.

Steve Pedery is the Conservation Director of Oregon Wild. He can be reached at sp@oregonwild.org.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material  herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have
expressed  a  prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit
research and  educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

Source:  http://www.statesmanjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/

20080225/OPINION/80222022/1049