Irrigators
who once stood alongside one
another and protested the
Klamath Basin water shut-off
in 2001 are now at odds over
a proposed settlement
agreement that would
potentially benefit one
group of irrigators and may
cause problems for others.
"The
proposed settlement was a
tough choice for Klamath
irrigators," said Chris
Scheuring, managing counsel
for the California Farm
Bureau Federation's National
Resources and Environmental
Division. "At the same time,
folks on the Shasta and
Scott rivers have concerns
about the blowback. All of
it shows that species laws,
in their current form, are
pitting the human species
against itself in a way that
perhaps was not contemplated
when they were enacted."
The
proposed Klamath Basin
Restoration Agreement,
released to the public by
Klamath River Basin
stakeholders in January, is
a $985 million plan that
would ensure irrigation
water and affordable power
for irrigators of the
Klamath Water Project and
revive the river's salmon
populations. The deal,
developed by an assortment
of groups and agencies
including farmers, tribes,
fishermen and
environmentalists, is
contingent upon the removal
of four dams on the Klamath
River.
"This
proposed agreement would
implement a true
watershed-wide approach to
Klamath issues, something we
have stressed since 2001,"
said Greg Addington,
executive director of the
Klamath Water Users
Association (KWUA), one of
26 stakeholders involved in
the negotiations. "This is a
product of more than two
years of blood, sweat and
tears. We believe, given the
range of alternatives and
needs of Klamath irrigators,
that we have negotiated a
successful package that
secures our future as a
viable agricultural
economy."
For
Klamath Basin irrigators,
Addington said the KWUA did
make some compromises in its
water allotment, but said
the association has tools
that can help work with
those and keep communities
sustainable and keep
agriculture in production
for future generations.
"The
agreement is multifaceted
and will not be without some
controversy," Addington
said. "We have to look at
what the alternatives are
for us. For some groups,
status quo is OK. If you are
an irrigator in the Klamath
Reclamation Project, the
status quo is a frightening
place to be where assurances
related to water deliveries
are year to year, month to
month."
However,
downstream Scott River and
Shasta River valley
irrigators, who were not at
the table during settlement
negotiations, are concerned
about what this plan could
mean for their farming
operations.
"Siskiyou
County Farm Bureau is
concerned that during dry
years, with no minimum flow
established on the Klamath
River, they will look to the
Shasta and Scott rivers to
make up the flow in times of
drought and during dry
summer months," said
Siskiyou County Farm Bureau
President Mike Luiz. "That
would be detrimental to
irrigators, striking a blow
to Scott and Shasta valley
agriculture."
Other
areas of concern include
higher power rates,
encroachment of private
property rights, a reduction
in funding for restoration
projects, increased
regulations and water
quality issues.
"The loss
of the power generation
capabilities of those dams
is something that needs to
be addressed," said Luiz, a
Montague sheep rancher. "In
California and across the
West we are still bordering
on a power crisis. Every
summer we receive warnings
of a power shortage and this
is good green power that we
will be pulling out, so how
will they replace that?"
The
removal of dams, Luiz said,
will also reduce the value
of homes located on the
region's lakes and the
Klamath River.
"If the
dams are removed the value
of these people's properties
is going to be severely
impacted. These homeowners
are going to go from having
lakefront property to
desolation-front property,"
Luiz said. "People have
purchased these properties
to be next to the lakes and
to take advantage of the
recreation opportunities so
the value of that property
is going to be severely
impacted."
Retired
rancher Ernie Wilkinson, who
serves as an associate
director for the Siskiyou
Resource Conservation
District, estimates that
over the course of the last
20 years, nearly $15 million
has been spent on recovery
projects in the Scott River
valley. He is worried that
these recovery dollars that
have been spent on projects
such as installing fish
screens and riparian
plantings, may be directed
to other projects.
"We're
concerned with fishery
health overall because we
get an awful lot of pressure
from the California
Department of Fish and Game
to sustain habitat for
fish," Wilkinson said. "My
concern is that a fairly
large portion of whatever is
available in the way of
recovery project funding may
go elsewhere."
For Etna
rancher Gary Black, who also
works for the Siskiyou
Resource Conservation
District, one of the main
problems for many in the
Scott River and Shasta River
valleys is not having had a
seat at the table during the
discussions.
"There are
a lot of unknowns and there
appears to be no way to fit
into the process if we need
to," Black said.
Klamath
Basin farmer Luther Horsley,
president of the KWUA, said
Klamath Basin irrigators
taking part in the
negotiations had three
primary objectives: a
reliable source of water to
irrigate crops; affordable
power for irrigation and
drainage pumps; and
regulatory assurance from
lawsuits related to the
introduction of new species.
"We
believe this agreement
achieves those objectives,"
Horsley said. "We also feel
by working together with
other interests and parties
along the river, we can
achieve a lot more than we
have from the past status
quo of fighting and suing
each other."
Horsley
recalls how farmers suffered
from the water shut-off of
2001, when the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and the
National Marine Fisheries
Service issued biological
opinions under the
Endangered Species Act that
required higher water levels
to protect endangered sucker
fish and higher flows to
protect threatened coho
salmon.
"In 2001
it was devastating for us in
the basin and we just know
that we don't want to go
through that again, not only
for the farmers, but all of
the other species that
depend on the water life and
habitat that we create,"
Horsley said.
The
parties who were involved in
the development of the
settlement agree that the
many restoration projects
that the plan sets in
motion, combined with the
removal of the dams, will
translate into significantly
improved conditions for coho
and other anandramous fish.
The key to making this
agreement work is the
removal of the Iron Gate,
J.C. Boyle, Copco1 and
Copco2 dams which are owned
by Oregon-based PacifiCorp.
This would give threatened
coho salmon and other fish
species access to 300 miles
of habitat in the river and
improve water quality.
Negotiations are currently
taking place with PacifiCorp
to reach an agreement on the
removal of the utility's
dams. Stakeholders say the
estimated $120 million tab
to remove the dams should be
paid for by PacifiCorp.
PacifiCorp spokesperson Paul
Vogel stated that the
utility is currently
reviewing the 256-page
proposed agreement.
"We have
made it pretty clear for a
long time if dam removal is
what is settled upon, we are
willing to consider that
option, but our customers
have to be protected and not
be paying the unreasonable
cost of dam removal, plus
replacement power, plus the
liability," Vogel said.
"Hand in hand with the
liability is the science and
what is an accurate
scientific understanding of
what the impacts are of
taking these dams out."
Stakeholders have estimated
the cost to implement the
restoration is $985 million
over 10 years. Of that
total, $585 million would
come from existing programs
and the remaining $400
million would have to be
authorized by Congress.
Settlement
party negotiators have
indicated initial support,
but the agreement now needs
approval of individual
irrigation districts, tribal
governments, fisheries
groups and state and federal
agencies.
(Christine Souza is a
reporter for Ag Alert. She
may be contacted at
csouza@cfbf.com.)
