Our Klamath Basin Water Crisis
Upholding rural Americans' rights to grow food,
own property, and caretake our wildlife and natural resources.

doc4b5aa2ad445c4057377917.txt

Irrigators review water agreement final draft

Water shortage could still hit farms FOLLOWED BY
Irrigators raise questions about agreement FOLLOWED BY
Herald and News Readers' comments

by Ty Beaver, Herald and News 1/22/10

< H&N photo by Ty Beaver. Irrigators listen to a presentation about the final version of the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement during a public meeting Thursday night at Oregon Institute of Technology. Attendees were able to ask questions about the agreement and how it would impact irrigation activities.

The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement still leaves the Klamath Reclamation Project vulnerable to water shortages in an extreme drought situation, attorney Paul Simmons told irrigators.

The document also doesn’t exempt the Project from the enforcement of the Endangered Species Act, said Greg Addington, executive director of Klamath Water Users Association.

But despite those issues, Addington and Simmons told irrigators at a public meeting Thursday that the water agreement represents a better future for the Project. The two cited increased water supply stability, affordable power and improved relations with other stakeholders.

“The goal of the agreement is to be way better off than without the agreement,” Simmons said.

About 100 people attended the public meeting arranged by Klamath Water Users Association in the auditorium at Oregon Institute of Technology. The association’s board of directors, as one of the stakeholders of the agreement, will vote whether to support or reject the agreement before Feb. 9, after the irrigation districts it represents notify it of their decisions.

Simmons and Addington reviewed the final draft of the restoration agreement, pointing out what changed and what did not since a draft was released to the public in early 2008.

Changes include some of the timeframes in the document, as well as how provisions dealing with power and water will be carried out. However, those changes won’t impact how much water the Project would be able to use out of Upper Klamath Lake, regulatory assurances or a settlement with tribal groups.

Power rate

One of the changed provisions is the lack of a set power rate for irrigators on and off the Project. The document originally had a goal of 3 cents per kilowatt-hour delivered.

Addington said the rate wasn’t included in the final document so it wouldn’t become a political target in Congress. The rate would be at or below the average for other irrigator communities in the Pacific Northwest.

“We think we can justify pretty easily the 3 cent, 3.5 cent range,” he said.

Diversions

Simmons added that while the Project would still have limited diversions from Upper Klamath Lake — 330,000 acre-feet in dry years to 385,000 acre-feet in the wettest years — those limits wouldn’t be imposed until the restoration agreement is fully funded, certain regulatory protections are in place and settlements with tribal groups are in place; all of which are unlikely to happen before 2020.

The Project would be responsible for water supply issues until that time.

“It’s not going to happen overnight,” Addington said.

Irrigators raise questions about agreement

By TY BEAVER

H&N Staff Writer

Steve Kandra wanted to know how the Klamath Reclamation Project would make up for water demand beyond what was available under the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement.

Bill Kennedy wanted to know about the different groups created to implement the document would be and how irrigators would be represented.

Lynn Long wanted an assurance that all the groups that sign the restoration agreement will honor it and not force irrigators to again invest in expensive litigation to enforce it. Another irrigator asked whether irrigation districts should poll or survey their irrigators about whether to sign the restoration agreement.

“We’re not just putting in a culvert, this is a pretty big deal,” the Klamath Basin irrigator said.

Those were just some concerns irrigators on and off the Project raised during a public meeting on the restoration agreement Thursday at Oregon Institute of Technology.

Greg Addington, executive director of Klamath Water Users Association, told Kandra the Project would meet water demands beyond the supply from Upper Klamath Lake by paying irrigators a one-time payment to use groundwater resources or idle their land.

Those arrangements would be made by the Klamath Water and Power Agency, which would be made up of irrigation district representatives, said Hollie Cannon, the water and power agency’s executive director.

Addington told Kennedy that the restoration agreement would create three groups — the Klamath Basin Coordinating Council, the Klamath Basin Advisory Committee and the Technical Advisory Team.

The coordinating council and advisory committee would include the same individuals. Members of both groups would be stakeholders who sign the restoration agreement, which would potentially include Klamath Water Users Association and the Klamath Water and Power Agency.

Addington said he couldn’t say there wouldn’t be issues with some of the stakeholders down the road with the restoration agreement.

“I think that’s why the document is as big and thick and complex as it is,” he said.

He also said he couldn’t say whether irrigation districts should survey their membership for a stance on the restoration agreement, adding that that is the decision of the irrigation district’s board of directors.

"The following are comments from the (Herald and News) readers. In no way do they represent the view of HeraldAndNews.com. Comment Disclaimer: The editors of heraldandnews.com reserve the right to refuse publication of any comment posted for consideration. We may refuse for any reason, including use of profanity, disparaging comments, libelous comments, etc. Any reader who notices a comment they believe is particularly offensive, should notify us at webmaster@heraldandnews.com.

Huh wrote on Jan 23, 2010 11:44 PM:

" No to KBRA, Thanks for spelling it out. One hundred million federal reserve notes and and 90,000 acres to the tribes in exchange for a slow walk to bankruptcy. And to think the majority doesn't want this... Huh? "

NO to the KBRA wrote on Jan 23, 2010 10:38 AM:

" If there is no guaranteed water delivery to all farms in all years; if the farmers are still constrained by all of the ESA demands (which will soon include salmon in the basin if the KBRA goes through); if they are not guaranteed that litigation will be held to a minimum; if they are not guaranteed freedom from the CWA and EPA/ODEQ and CA Water Qaulity Control Board enforcement of the TMDL's, and they are not guaranteed anything more than the going rate for electricity, why would they want to implement the KBRA ?

All the KBRA does is give the tribes $100 Milllion in cash and a 90,000 acre forest, provide for the Federal government to own and control more of our private land. It provides for the land to come off the tax rolls. It forces the citizens of Oregon and the US to pay for dam removal and for further expenses to make up for revenue that will be destroyed by the KBRA implementation.

It will provide for de-watering and bankruptcy of many off-project farms in the upper basin due to water retirement and take away their private water rights.
It will further deplete our ground water aquifer by paying farms not to use the water flowing down the river andpump instead.

The KBRA is contingent upon tearing out the four dams on the Klamath River and destroying electricity for 70,000 homes . It will destroy the only electric peaking facility on the West Coast between SF and Portland; it will destroy the salmon spawning beds on the Klamath River due to silt from behind the dams for years, potentially.

It will destroy hundreds of homes values along the dams and river; it will allow for massive floods downriver in times of excessive precip.

It will allow a permanent presence of out of area, leftist environmental groups controlling who gets what water may be available.

The KBRA does not provide for off stream cold water storage (like Long Lake) and any other myriad of items that could actulaly help solve this situation.

Vote"NO" on the KBRA! "

Vern wrote on Jan 23, 2010 7:28 AM:

" You gotta love this! Hail the KBRA and what do you have when it's all signed sealed and delivered? More lawsuits from somebody! Doesn't matter if it is a group that signed on or not the lawsuits will come because of the T&E Species laws. Guess what won't happen though? The tribe will NOT lose the timber land once the deal is done and I won't be catching salmon in Klamath Lake! " "