Klamath
conservation plan talks shouldn't include
Westlands
My Word
By Jill Geist Times-Standard
Prior to last November's elections, Gale
Norton of the U.S. Department of Interior
announced a new agreement for "cooperation
and collaboration," for ways to improve
water delivery in the Klamath River
watershed. This agreement among California,
Oregon and federal government
representatives is to "recover threatened
and endangered fish, enhance anadromous fish
runs, improve wildlife habitat and water
quality, and provide water for irrigation
and other beneficial uses."
Given the importance of water diversions
between fish and agriculture, this is a
noble aspiration. The agreement created a
Conservation Implementation Program (CIP) to
gather stakeholder ideas from throughout the
Klamath River Basin. Watershed issues are a
political priority for President Bush
because fish and farmers are competing for
the waters of the Klamath River. This issue
is difficult because water is imperative to
both agriculture in the upper basin, and
fish in the lower basin.
As a Humboldt County official, I will
participate in any effort to protect Klamath
and Trinity waters and fish. I want the CIP
process to come up with solutions that
maintain water for the Klamath and Trinity
river basins and their fisheries, and I
believe the CIP must deliberate cautiously
and fairly towards developing solutions that
will allow fish and farmers to survive. This
latest federal/state agreement has promise
but it could be doomed to discord if local
stakeholders allow outside political
interests to participate and dictate our
water future.
That said, I am greatly concerned about
the sudden emergence of Westlands Water
District as a primary player in the upper
Klamath basin. Since 1964, Westlands has
agriculturally and financially benefited
from Trinity River water diversions into the
Central Valley Project. When Congress
finally voted to help the river, Westlands
litigated to stop the restoration of the
Trinity River. This summer the U.S. 9th
Circuit Court ruled in favor of the Hoopas'
restoration plan. Now that Westlands has
failed in court, Westlands may use the CIP
process as the back door to raid the Klamath
and Trinity river basins.
Westlands is the largest and most
aggressive irrigation district in the world.
The 600,000 acres it irrigates is heavily
dependent on federal subsidies and import of
water. Any water formulas offered by
Westlands for the Klamath River Basin will
be suspect because of the seemingly
unquenchable thirst of Westlands for
Northern California's water. Westlands also
carries environmental baggage. In 1983 the
selenium contamination from the Westlands'
agricultural runoff resulted in the
Department of Interior ordering the drainage
flows stopped. That action ultimately ended
with the retirement of 33,000 acres of
Westlands farmland and a $140 million bill
to the U.S. taxpayer.
I am not sure these are the kinds of
problems and solutions we want when
deliberating about how to fix problems in
the Klamath and Trinity river basins.
I look forward to working with
agricultural, tribal and fishing interests
to develop viable solutions that will find
that balance between fish and farmers.
However, I do not think this can be done
with Westlands at the table. If Westlands
guides the direction of these water policy
recommendations, it is doubtful Northern
California interests can retain an open
mind. Westlands should go home and clean up
its own problems while we find ways for fish
and farmers to survive in Northern
California.
Jill Geist is 5th District supervisor for
Humboldt County. |