|
Congressman's
words conflict with each other
this article is
followed by Blumenauer's
H&N response:
Failure
to deal with Basin problems the real threat
Published August 31,
2004
He talks
Basinwide solution, but not for all the Basin
One has to
wonder: If the various political interests in
the Klamath Basin got together around a table
and eventually emerged with a compromise in
the water struggle that included continued
farming on at least part of the lands leased
from the national wildlife refuge, would Earl
Blumenauer support it?
The question is
pertinent because of the contradictory words
uttered by the U.S. representative from
Portland who visited Klamath Falls last
weekend.
On the one hand,
Blumenauer said, it's a bad thing that farmers
are allowed to plant crops on refuges. He said
he'd continue to press for legislation to
reverse the effect of a law that allows the
farming. The farming has been allowed for
nearly a century, and the Congress
specifically approved it in the Kuchel Act of
1964.
On the other
hand, Blumenauer spoke approvingly of the
consensus he heard in the Basin - that only
the parties to the struggle, negotiating on a
Basinwide basis, can bring resolution to the
struggle. That is, nobody from the outside can
impose a solution in the Basin - that includes
the president, the Congress and the courts.
The only way to peace around here is around a
local table.
So, the question
for Blumenauer is this: Which is it? Is the
route to a resolution through local
bargaining? Or is it through a decision in
Washington to take the most productive tenth
of the Klamath Reclamation Project out of
crops and start Basin agriculture into a death
spiral?
It isn't just
Blumenauer who seems to pay lip service to the
notion of a local resolution to the Basin's
water struggle. Certainly there are factions
in the Basin who reject compromise.
There are farmers
who think there's no reason to bargain because
their interests can be upheld in the water
courts or in the Bush administration. There
are members of the Klamath Tribes who think
they can regain a reservation without making
concessions about water. There are
environmentalists who believe that history is
on their side, that agriculture in the Basin
is so vulnerable that continued pressure on
many fronts will eventually cause it to
collapse - these are the people Blumenauer
represents.
None of these
folks are inclined to send representatives to
the table with the authority to engage in the
give-and-take that leads to compromise. Nor,
given that there's no venue for any bargaining
currently, is there anything immoral about
pressing one's self-interest.
But Blumenauer's
visit demonstrates that at some point,
somebody is going to have to take the idea of
a locally negotiated settlement seriously and
act on it, or otherwise the idea will become a
cliche, the equivalent of the sort of religion
that sends some people to church only at
Easter and Christmas.
Apparently
Blumenauer will continue to press his
amendment in the House to cripple Basin
agriculture. In the current political climate,
he won't succeed. He's a Democrat, in the
minority in the House and without influence in
the White House.
But times change,
and someday Blumenauer may prevail. In that
unfortunate event, it would be decent of him
not to do so and then come to the Basin
talking about a Basinwide solution arrived at
locally.
The "H&N view"
represents the opinion of the newspaper's
editorial board. Tim Fought wrote today's
editorial.
Failure to deal with Basin
problems the real threat
Published September 3, 2004
By Earl Blumenauer
Earl Blumenauer of Portland is a member of
Congress from Oregon's Third Congressional
District.
He recently visited the Klamath Basin.
Guest columnist
The Herald and News recently asked a
question editorially of me: Is the route to
solving the problems in the Basin through
local bargaining or "a decision in Washington
to take the most productive tenth of the
Klamath Reclamation Project out of crops and
start Basin agriculture into a death spiral?"
That is precisely the mischaracterization
of both the issue and potential solutions that
have made the problems in the Basin worse.
My position is clear. The federal
government has promised more water over the
last century to farmers, Native Americans,
wildlife and endangered species than nature
can deliver.
My amendment was not about eliminating
farming, it was simply to phase out
water-intensive agriculture on the
lease-lands. There are crops and techniques
that do not require water at a time when the
quality is the worst and the quantity is the
least.
If I were a resident of the Basin, I would
be deeply concerned about a death spiral for
Basin agriculture, but the threat is not my
amendment. The threat is an unwillingness or
an inability for national and local political
leadership as well as local agriculture and
community interests to deal with the real
problems. There isn't enough water for all of
the promises.
Extensive use of wells to supplement flows
has resulted in a dramatic and dangerous
reduction in the water table, creating water
supply and quality problems for more than just
farmers. The wildlife refuges are shrinking in
size, due to lack of water, at exactly the
time that some in Klamath Falls are awakening
to the huge potential of having the largest
concentration of migratory birds on the West
Coast in their backyard.
Other forces will change the economics of
agriculture in the Basin, such as hydro
project relicensing due in 15 months, when
farmers will see their first rate increase in
nearly a century with electricity prices going
up at least 10 and more likely 20 times.
During my visits, I heard from a number of
farmers who felt that this would make their
operations uneconomical and drive down the
value of their land to a fraction of what it
is today.
The Klamath Basin is not alone in its
crisis.
There are river basins throughout the West
including the Colorado, the Columbia, and the
Rio Grande, where people face similar
struggles.
What is unique about the Klamath is that it
is smaller in scale and solutions are more
immediate and lower in cost. Instead of
denying reality, misrepresenting positions,
and attacking potential solutions, it is
important to take advantage of interest,
support, and urgency to make progress in the
next 18 months.
The continued political stalemate and
deteriorating situation in the Klamath Basin
is bad not just for Native Americans,
wildlife, and farmers. It is a serious problem
for Oregon and the nation. I welcome continued
discussion of how we make progress, and I will
urge Oregonians to think in the long term
about the broadest possible solutions.
|
