http://www.heraldandnews.com/articles/2003/12/15/viewpoints/op_ed/aaaaoped.txt
Reliable water the reason Klamath Project was built
Published Dec 15, 2003
By Dan Keppen
Guest columnist
{KBC NOTE: Here
is link to the
Negotiation Page of articles, documents, petitions
and letters}
The Klamath Water Users Association and other
irrigation representatives are participating in
meetings and discussions with numerous other parties
interested in Klamath Basin water resources.
These other parties have included the states of
Oregon and California, Klamath Basin Rangeland
Trust, Water for Life, irrigators upstream of the
Klamath Project, the Klamath Tribes, the Hoopa
Valley Tribe, the Department of the Interior,
coastal fishing interests and others.
These discussions have occurred in various
combinations and through differing forums, and other
parties are also engaged in discussions that do not
involve the water users association.
Concerns have been raised in the community related
specifically to discussions that have involved the
Rangeland Trust, the Klamath Tribes, and some of the
other upper basin irrigation interests. The
association wishes to clarify its goals and
objectives as it participates in all of these
activities.
The association was formed 50 years ago in
recognition of the desirability that irrigation
interests combine their resources and efforts and
speak with one voice where possible on water issues.
Since 1953, the association's mission has been to
protect irrigation water supplies and our
entitlements to other resources, including
electrical power, which are facilitated by the
Klamath Reclamation Project.
Through time, we have, within our own resources'
constraints, participated in every activity that
could affect these assets. While the mix of
interests and players has evolved, our mission and
objectives have not. We have experienced success and
disappointment.
The association is focused principally on the
Klamath Reclamation Project, and its members are
from the Klamath Project. The current project
operations paradigm is simple - and risky to our
irrigators.
If rigid lake levels - set by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service to protect suckers - and rigid Iron
Gate Dam flow releases - set by National Marine
Fisheries Service to protect coho salmon - cannot be
met, project irrigation supplies will be curtailed
until they are met.
More flexibility needed
We have consistently encouraged Interior and the
Fisheries Service to reconsider the rigid proposals
for streamflow releases and lake levels contained in
the existing biological opinions. We continue to
recommend a more flexible management plan that would
allow all affected interests a better opportunity to
respond and adapt to the water conditions as they
develop during the irrigation season. Unfortunately,
the apparent lack of flexibility caused by fishery
agency regulations has already had a significant
impact on the Klamath Basin irrigation community.
Local irrigators - even with annual operations plans
in place - have almost no certainty that water
supplies will be provided for the full season,
regardless of the water-year type. Because certainty
of water supplies is directly related to one's
ability to secure financing for farming, there is an
increasing sense of instability in the farming
community. This is primarily due to the fact that -
because of the rigid lake level and river flow
requirements imposed by the agency biological
opinions - project irrigators and the national
wildlife refuges get the water that's "left over."
Should unexpected hydrology or downstream tribal
trust calls occur, and lake or river levels cannot
be met, deliveries to the Project are simply
curtailed. This very nearly happened last June in
the midst of the irrigation season.
We've all heard the statements about there being "no
certainty" in farming, and our association takes
exception to them. A reliable supply of water for
irrigation is exactly why the Klamath Reclamation
Project was constructed nearly one hundred years
ago.
The past 12 years - when project operations were
first modified to address agency requirements
related to sucker fish - have revealed a wholly new
set of issues that needed to be addressed in order
to serve our mission. Thus, beginning in the 1990s,
we began to promote environmental restoration
projects, both for their own merits and to try to
maintain firm water supplies. We are proud to have
received the state of Oregon's "Leadership in
Conservation" award for 2003, which reflects our
community's contribution to protecting the
environment during the past 10 years. Nevertheless,
we have been frustrated with the lack of payoff for
those efforts, as evidenced by steadily increasing
regulations, which ultimately led to the disastrous
curtailment of project water supplies in 2001.
However, we know this is the right thing to do, and
we will continue to insist on receiving water supply
reliability credit for these activities.
For water users in the Klamath Reclamation Project,
the status quo is unacceptable. Our water supply is
uncertain, our patience is strained, and our coffers
are depleted. Often, attacks on the Project are
fueled by stereotype and emotion. We have been
insulted by the threats and intimidation of
extremists whose objectives have nothing to do with
the well-being of our community. The Klamath Project
is being held hostage.
We have made progress in the past few years by
continued insistence on sound science. However, we
have only seen limited transformation of this
progress into on-the-ground results that improve
certainty for irrigators. By now it is clear that
there is no magic bullet and escape unless we
ourselves take action.
The recent report completed by the National Research
Council is interwoven with an important theme: The
200,000-acre Klamath Project should not be expected
to bear the burden of recovering fish species in a
Basin covering more than 10 million acres.
We are working with the Bush administration, the
states of California and Oregon, Congress and those
stakeholder groups who have a real stake in this
watershed to strongly promote and ultimately develop
a fair and effective water management and species
recovery program for the Klamath River Watershed.
Other interests accepted
We must accept, and do, that there are other
interests in the Basin whose objectives intersect
with our own. We must also accept that no one
interest will achieve all of his or her objectives
unilaterally, or at the expense of all others. We
will continue to advance the positions in which we
firmly believe, but we will not ignore reality or
forego opportunities. For example, in 2000,
legislation was passed which encouraged
investigation of new water storage; the legislation
- ultimately carried forward by the Upper Klamath
Basin congressional delegation - was the product of
initial negotiations between Klamath project water
users and the Klamath Tribes.
We will engage with all interests that respect our
objectives and are willing to participate in helping
us achieve them. We will in turn seek to understand
the goals and proposals of other parties and how
they may or may not affect our interests. Wherever
we find opportunity for collaboration that will
improve the status quo, we will pursue it.
In recent discussions at the Shilo Inn, everyone at
the table has developed a long list of issues that
they would like to see resolved. To date, the water
users association has not endorsed any proposal of
the Rangeland Trust. It has not endorsed any
proposal of the Klamath Tribes. It will listen to
such proposals, and those of other parties, with an
open mind, and will require a full explanation and
understanding of how those proposals would affect us
and our community before even taking a position.
At the Shilo Inn meetings, we are not negotiating
agreements or settlements, and none of the
irrigators have held themselves out as representing
the agricultural community. The community should be
assured that any sort of proposed settlement can
never be implemented without congressional action,
which will require a great degree of local and
regional support. There is simply no chance of a
"secret deal" being cut on this matter.
In the meantime, we will continue our work with
state and federal agencies and elected officials at
all levels to advocate for water supply certainty to
Project irrigators. However, we will also keep
talking with the tribes and upstream interests as we
try to learn more about each other's needs. We hope
that our community understands we cannot fully serve
our own objectives unless we mind the realities of
2003.
|