Five years later, basin remains a sore
spot for fishers, farmers
By Dylan Darling, Record Searchlight The rusty old hand-crank head gates
at the start of the Klamath Reclamation Project are long gone, replaced by a
state-of-the-art, $16 million concrete and steel behemoth that keeps
endangered sucker fish out of the canals that bring irrigation water to farms
in the Klamath Basin.
But five years after the federal government's decision not
to open the old gates at the start of the 2001 irrigation season to save the
water for protected suckers and salmon, contentious water issues remain.
Despite five years of talk and change, parties on opposing sides of the
Klamath water issue agree that 2001 could happen again.
"Since 2001, we have been able to irrigate, but the
problem is still there," said Greg Addington, executive director of the
Klamath Water Users Association, which represents 1,400 farmers in the basin.
"I still think there is kind of a black cloud hanging over here."
Although a wet winter may be giving the upper basin a pass
from controversy, a tempest is brewing on the lower Klamath River, which
drains the basin's water into the Pacific Ocean. Low native chinook salmon
counts could cause a federal fishery management council to close commercial
and recreational salmon fishing in federal waters off 700 miles of California
and Oregon coast.
Like the farmers' growing season in 2001, the anglers'
salmon season hangs on the decision of the Pacific Fishery Management Council,
which is expected late today or Friday.
"Frankly, we know what it feels like," Addington
said.
On April 6, 2001, the Bureau of Reclamation announced that
no water would be flowing through the Klamath Project's canals from Upper
Klamath Lake, its main reservoir. The 2001 water shutoff drew national media
attention as the farmers and their supporters camped out at the head gates, at
one point breaking them open. Since then, the word Klamath has become
synonymous with water controversy, with Interior Secretary Gale Norton saying
the federal government doesn't want another Klamath.
Some things have changed in the basin since 2001. In a major
shift, stakeholders now sit down at negotiation tables instead of waging legal
battles, said Dave Sabo, Klamath Project manager for the Bureau of
Reclamation.
"People recognize what happened in 2001 was a landmark
issue, it changed how a lot of things were done in the Klamath basin," he
said.
To quell controversy in the basin, which straddles the
California-Oregon border about two-and-a-half hours northeast of Redding, the
federal government has poured money into it since 2001. The new head gates,
finished in 2003, are just the start. President's Bush 2005 budget alone
called for more than $100 million for habitat restoration, water improvement
projects and other programs in the basin.
Since 2002, $17 million has gone to pay farmers to switch
from project water to groundwater, pump their groundwater into project canals
or let their fields go fallow during growing season, from April to
mid-October. The decrease in demand by the irrigators leaves more water for
the salmon.
This year, the bureau has contracts worth $7.3 million with
farmers to change water use for more than 40,000 acres. Of that, $1.4 million
will be spent to keep 15,250 acres dry.
This year, five years and millions of dollars after the
Klamath crisis, the biggest difference from 2001 is something federal money
can't buy -- there's been a change in the weather. While 2001 was dry and
fields were parched, 2006 has been wet and fields are muddy -- so muddy that
farmers have delayed planting onions, potatoes and other basin staples.
Although farming should make it through another summer in
the basin, things still are in a fragile state.
"If we had another year where the hydrology was the
same, we'd have a real challenge there," said Jeff McCracken, bureau
spokesman. "It's a matter of high demand for fishery purposes and little
water for anything else."
Reporter Dylan Darling can be reached at 225-8266 or at ddarling@redding.com.Klamath water still hot
topic
April 6, 2006
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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.redding.com/redd/nw_local/article/0,2232,REDD_