Our Klamath Basin
Water Crisis
Upholding rural Americans' rights to grow food,
own property, and caretake our wildlife and natural resources.
Irrigation district backs deal
Klamath Irrigation District board votes
unanimously for agreement
By TY BEAVER,
Herald and News 1/27/10
The second-largest
irrigation district in the Klamath Reclamation Project is
throwing its support behind the Klamath Basin Restoration
Agreement.
Klamath Irrigation
District’s board of directors voted unanimously Tuesday to
support the landmark document. The district covers nearly
39,000 acres of the 200,000 acres of the Project, represents
more than 2,700 irrigators and is the single largest
district by area in the Project in Oregon.
A final draft was
released in early January. Stakeholder groups have until
Feb. 9 to decide whether they want to remain part of the
agreement. The agreement advocates removal of four Klamath
River dams to reestablish fish passage and aims to settle
water conflicts in the Klamath River
Basin.
Klamath Irrigation
District is the second irrigator group on the Project to
support the agreement. Klamath Drainage District, the third
largest irrigation district, covering 27,000 acres, earlier
this week voted unanimously to support the agreement.
Opposition
Several irrigators from
the district testified in opposition to the restoration
agreement, questioning
its ability to provide
affordable power for irrigation and saying it would allow
the federal government more control in the region.
“We’re getting in bed
with the government that is trying to put the knife between
our ribs,” said irrigator David Oxley.
The district’s board
acknowledged the document has flaws, but said it provides an
opportunity for the region’s residents to control the future
and ensure agriculture survives in the Basin.
“I think it’s time to
get off the fence and get on one side or the other,” said Ed
Bair, board member and vice chairman.
Irrigator Brent Cheyne
said he appreciated the work the irrigation district put
into the document, but said he couldn’t support it. He is
against removing the hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River
and views the agreement as creating a welfare system that
won’t be effective.
“This restoration
agreement deserves a ‘no’ vote,” he said. “This is a time
for patriots, not politicians.”
Best way forward
Dave Cacka, the board
president, said he appreciated the perspectives provided by
other irrigators, and he admitted that the restoration
agreement isn’t perfect. However, he said he has yet to hear
a viable alternative and sees the
document as the best
way to move forward.
“Without this, you will
pay tariff power and have water uncertainty,” he said.
He also said the region
would be no more involved with the federal government under
the restoration agreement than it is otherwise, pointing out
that the federal agencies already have offices here and the
Project is federally-administered endeavor.
Power
costs
Irrigator John Wells
said he was concerned about the power aspect of the
agreement. Although irrigators have been assured that power
rates would be close to three cents per kilowatt hour, he’s
heard those rates would be higher, and there’s not enough
money in the agreement to get the cost to that level.
“I’m scared it’s going
to be too little, too late,” he said. “By the time we get it
to 3 cents, a lot of irrigators are going to be out of
business.”
Bair said the a low
power rate would be partially dependent on making the right
investments, but language in the agreement calls for the
rate to be comparable to rates in other irrigating
communities in the West, making it about 3 cents.
“It is justifiable,” he
said.
The board added that it
would be up to the districts and individual irrigators to
make the restoration agreement work and ensure their
descendents can continue to farm and ranch in the Basin.
“We are going to direct the future and I think that is the
shining part of the agreement,” Bair said.
|
Page Updated: Friday January 29, 2010 03:25 AM Pacific
Copyright © klamathbasincrisis.org, 2009, All Rights Reserved