HISTORY
of the Klamath Project Waterbank
12/29/04 The National Academy of
Science final report, today's best available
science, the peer review of the biological opinion
driving the waterbank, found that
lake-level/river-flow management of our water is
"unjustified" in protecting 'endangered' sucker
fish and coho salmon. The water shutoff in
2001 "was unjustified".
The Hardy reports by Dr Hardy took the highest water year in
recorded history and created an opinion that
says lake levels and river flows must be
artificially elevated considerable above what the
historical flow was before the Klamath Project was
built. The river often went dry.
Environmentalists and government agencies and tribal
representatives were at the table. Irrigators and
objective scientists were not allowed at the
table. There was no peer review. So Interior
Secretary Gail Norton engaged the National Academy
of Science, NAS, to review the opinions and
the 2002 fish die-off and the 2001 water shut-off.
The NAS concluded that there was plenty of
scientific evidence to determine that the mandatory
elevated lake levels and mandatory river flows were
unjustified.
Before the NAS final report was finished, the Bureau of Reclamation
told Klamath Water Users (KWUA) that they must form
a water bank to forgo their water for river flows
and lake level for endangered coho and sucker fish.
The KWUA committee of over 20 people spent several hours
weekly for 50 weeks, hiring consultants and forming
a 60-page report. On low water years there would be
a water bank and high water years there would be
none. With this water bank, irrigators still
irrigation would be given assurance of their deeded
water supply. They would be paid for their water.
KWUA did not believe that the water bank was justified, forcing
irrigators to provide water demands for the entire
watershed all the way to the ocean since the Project
only uses 3.5% of the water in the Klamath River,
and most of this irrigation water returns to the
river. They were led to believe that this was a
temporary emergency measure to avoid any more 2001
water shut-offs, temporary until the after-the-fact
peer review of the NAS became the best available
science.
In appreciation of the water user's efforts, their water bank
proposal was thrown out the door. What the Bureau
wanted was a water grab regardless of the best
available science (the then-draft NAS report),
regardless of water year type--drought or flood, and
absolutely with no credit to the irrigators in the
form of assurance of water supply.
The non-peer reviewed opinion of Dr Hardy is still being used to
downsize Klamath Basin agriculture, this year by
100,000 acre feet (AF). By the way, Dr Hardy was
hired by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Department
of Justice to create an opinion to go against the
Klamath Project irrigators in the water adjudication
process. More on Hardy on
SCIENCE PAGE.
Why would they use an opinion that was not peer reviewed to take
our water, a mandatory 100,000AF water bank, from
2005 to eternity, regardless of water year when the
NAS said that science is flawed?
In 2003, being forced to participate in this mandatory water bank
of 50,000 AF, mid-summer after millions of dollars
worth of crops were planted, the Bureau of
Reclamation told the Klamath Farmers that their
water was going to be shut off for a week because
the lake dropped less than an inch below the
Biological Opinion. Fortunately the Department of
Interior intervened. Had the Project been shut down
mid-summer, the devastation would have been worse
than 2001 because all of the fields had been
planted.
Tulelake Irrigation District and private irrigators not contracted
by the Bureau for the 2003 water bank were
blackmailed, being told that if they did not DONATE
thousands of dollars worth of their well water, the
Project would be shut down. TID and irrigators
pumped their water and were not reimbursed.
In 2004 the mandate was increased to 75,000AF of water. TID was
told by the Bureau that they had to pump the big
wells. In 2001 these wells were drilled to keep
cover crops alive to keep the topsoil from blowing
away and provide 'emergency' water for a few crops in
the ground. TID was told that if they did not
sign a contract to pump these wells, then when the
lake level drops midsummer they will be forced like
in 2003 to pump these wells again with no
compensation. On top of this was demanded thousands
of AF of water called Tribal Trust water. Tribal
Trust is a wild card. Regardless of water year type
and regardless of peer-reviewed science, the Klamath
Irrigators must provide water when the Tribes say
NOW. Above the mandatory water bank.
The Bureau of Reclamation has not reconsulted on the Biological
Opinion or its demands considering the NAS report's
contradictory findings, and they haven't even begun
this process.
Ned Gates, Hydro geologist, Oregon
Water Resources Department, states and proves by
graphs that the 2001 water shut-off and this water
bank through 2004 has been depleting our untested
aquifer.
2005, 100,000 Acre Feet Water Bank
Plus Tribal Trust Wants |