Our Klamath Basin Water Crisis
Upholding rural Americans' rights to grow food,
own property, and caretake our wildlife and natural resources.
Our Klamath Basin
Water Crisis
Upholding rural Americans' rights to grow food,
own property, and caretake our wildlife and natural resources.
|
Candidate roundtable: (Oregon) State House
District 56
Water a recurring
theme for candidates
Tracey Liskey, Gail Whitsett
answer questions on water, the KBRA and dam removal
By
SAMANTHA TIPLER, Herald and News 3/29/12
About the state representative candidates
Tracey Liskey
Tracey Liskey prides himself as a third-generation
Gail Whitsett
Gail Whitsett capitalized on her training as a geologist,
and her experience as chief of staff for her husband, Oregon
State Sen. Doug Whitsett, R-Klamath Falls. She said her run
for office is not about power, but about public service,
noting the 30 percent pay cut she will take if elected. She
also mentioned growing up in the Basin and graduating from
Henley High School. She said her top priority is improving
business in Klamath and Lake counties.
Candidates Gail Whitsett
and Tracey Liskey spoke about Oregon water adjudication,
their differing views on the Klamath Basin Restoration
Agreement, views on dam removal and alternatives to the KBRA.
Liskey, speaking from
his experience with compromise as a Klamath Basin farmer,
said the KBRA is the best solution right now, even if it
does have some flaws.
“It ends up being a very
wormy apple, but we’re all pretty hungry so we’re going to
take a bite of it,” Liskey said. “Unfortunately some of
those bites are going to have worms
Whitsett said she had a
list of 14 alternative ways to meet objectives of the KBRA.
She said her background in geology and science helped.
“I feel there are
alternatives out there and I’m willing to consider any of
those,” she said. “I would like to have some sort of
agreement, but not necessarily one that involves removing
the four Klamath dams.”
Q: Adjudication
Greg Addington,
executive director of the Klamath Association Water Users ,
asked: Water
adjudication at the state level will likely be decided by
the next irrigation season, giving priority to water users
in the Basin based on priority dates. The Klamath Tribes may
be first in line with in-stream rights, having water rights
to time immemorial. That could negatively impact irrigators,
including involuntary water shortages. Will tribal rights be
recognized by the state? What is the strategy for irrigators
to avoid or minimize the consequences, or possible
consequences, of tribal rights?
Whitsett:
The Oregon Water Resources Department told her the order
might be adjusted. She said making a decision now, based on
the order, would be premature. “We need to finish the
adjudication in the state of Oregon. It is Western water
law,” she said. “Let’s finish all of the adjudication; let’s
go from that point forward.”
Liskey:
The adjudication process will give the Oregon Water
Resources Department the ability to regulate water, and
adjudication will result in water being curtailed in the
Basin, Liskey said.
Q:
Klamath Basin
Restoration Agreement and dam removal
Steve Miller,
editor of the Herald and News, asked the candidates to speak
about KBRA and
Liskey:
He called the agreement a very controversial issue. As a
farmer he worked toward the best solution, and while he
argued against some points of the KBRA, he ended up voting
in favor of it. It was a compromise.
“I think the KBRA is the
only thing out there,” he said. “It ends up being a very
wormy apple, but we’re all pretty hungry so we’re going to
take a bite of it. Unfortunately some of those bites are
going to have worms in them.”
He also said as a state
legislator, he would not be voting on the agreement. It’s
all up to federal legislators.
Whitsett:
“I’m opposed to the KBRA because of the dam removal aspect,”
Whitsett said.
She objected to the
agreement leaving out representation for ratepayers and the
taxpayers, she said. She also didn’t like that the agreement
couldn’t be altered.
Whitsett said the
agreement is vulnerable to lawsuits through the Endangered
Species Act.
“In my mind it does not
guarantee water because the (Endangered Species Act) is the
law of the land,” she said.
Whitsett said she had 14
alternatives to the KBRA, including:
• Cold water,
offstream, deep storage, such as the proposed Long Lake
project and others.
• Juniper tree
mitigation in the Basin, projected to save thousands of
acre-feet of water.
• A series of water
treatment plants below Upper Klamath Lake.
• Control of
cormorants and other creatures that eat juvenile salmon.
• Installation of
new fish ladders.
“I feel there are
alternatives out there and I’m willing to consider any of
those. I would like to have some sort of agreement, but not
necessarily one that involves removing the four Klamath
dams.”
Liskey:
Addressing the Endangered Species Act, Liskey said farmers
already are dealing with those issues, and the KBRA includes
agreements to address ESA standards. Those agreements —
including those with environmental, fish
and wildlife officials,
Tribes and national marine fisheries — are what make the
KBRA the better solution to water shortages in the Basin.
“A lot of people haven’t
been hit by it,” Liskey said. “I have. It’s personally
devastated my whole third-generation farm, by no water.
These are really big issues to say they won’t make a
difference.”
KBRA also gives farmers
security in knowing how much water they will have each
spring, Liskey added.
“The security to the
farmer is the key that makes this economy stable,” he said.
He also again mentioned
that decision making on the KBRA and dam removal, at this
point, is beyond the level of the state Legislature.
Whitsett:
Whitsett said Oregon legislators might have to make
decisions related to the agreement. She referenced Oregon
Senate Bill 168, from the 2011 Legislature, which
“The Oregon Legislature
is going to be expected to make decisions on issues
regarding KBRA,” she said. “I don’t think the state of
Oregon needs to bear the brunt of this agreement.”
Q:
Farm Bureau
opposed to dam breaching
Whitsett took advantage
of her chance to ask Liskey a question (Liskey declined to
ask a his question opponent ) by referencing the
Oregon Farm Bureau’s
policy against removing dams, especially if that removal
affected power rates. She asked Liskey his stance on dam
removal and how that stands with the Farm Bureau’s stance.
Liskey:
Liskey said he helped craft the Farm Bureau’s policy, but he
said that policy reflects the organization as a whole, not
him as an individual. Even as vice president of the Farm
Bureau, he said, that doesn’t mean his personal opinion
reflects the organization’s.
“In my private life I
see this compromise outweighing some of those situations. If
we can supply water, we can clean up the water for the fish,
we can stabilize the economy, we can help the (tribes) get
their things. There are other issues that can replace that
power.”
He also said, as a
legislator, he would try to keep opportunities for
hydropower in the area.
Q:
KBRA dam removal and PUC
endorsement
Greg Addington,
executive director of the Klamath Water Users Association,
followed up
Whitsett’s
dam removal
question by referencing an Oregon Public Utility Commission
finding that the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement
limits costs and manages risk better than relicensing the
dams. “Isn’t this kind of negotiated settlement approach
something we should support to keep rates down?” Addington
asked.
Whitsett:
Whitsett said the PUC didn’t consider that PacifiCorp has
not
“We’re looking at
replacing hydroelectric power, which is one of the cheapest
forms of power, with different forms of alternative energy.
That’s looking at two to four times the expense.”
Liskey:
While PacifiCorp, as a private business, will charge its
customers regardless, Liskey said dam removal was still the
cheaper option. He said the cost of adding fish ladders,
fish screens and relicensing the dams would be 50 to 100
percent more.
Q:
KBRA alternative:
Project transfer
Bill Kennedy,
a rancher in Poe Valley, asked about alternatives to the
Klamath Basin
Restoration Agreement, specifically the idea of transferring
the federal reclamation and irrigation project from the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation to local irrigation control.
Whitsett:
“It sounds like a very good idea,” Whitsett said. “I would
like to see the federal government essentially out of our
Basin. I think we could handle our own system.”
Liskey:
Liskey, too, was in favor, but worried about issues that
could come up.
He said water rights of
individual users must be sorted out first. That likely will
come from the state adjudication process.
“Just because we
privatize the operation doesn’t change much,” he said.
There could be
advantages to giving control to irrigators. While the
federal government can shut down water to federal projects,
it can’t shut off state water claims, Liskey said.
Side Bar
==================================================== 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 |
Page Updated: Friday March 30, 2012 01:25 AM Pacific
Copyright © klamathbasincrisis.org, 2001 - 2012, All Rights Reserved