klamath agreement 2 yrs in making 021508

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

An agreement two years in the making
Herald and News 2/15/08 by Ty Beaver
________________________________

http://pioneer.olivesoftware.com/Daily/Skins/heraldandnews/navigator.asp?skin=heraldandnews

Twenty-six representatives of nearly 50 groups started work on the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement two-and-a-half years ago. The stakeholders crafted a 256-page document calling for, among other things, removal of four hydroelectric dams, sustainable power rates for irrigation, and help for the Klamath Tribes to purchase more than 90,000 acres of private forest land.

The proposed water agreement is expected to cost $1 billion over 10 years to implement. It was hammered out to end conflicts between communities and cultures along the Klamath River — farmers, tribes, fishermen and environmentalists.

Settlement discussions began as part of the federal relicensing process for four PacifiCorp owned dams several years ago. The federal government required the company to resolve issues with stakeholders in the region before progressing with relicensing.

Klamath Water Users Association executive director Greg Addington
speaks in support of the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement in
January at the Klamath County Government Center.
H&N photos by Andrew Mariman

Recognizing the issues that existed among the stakeholders themselves, PacifiCorp allowed them to meet on their own before pursuing its own discussions regarding the dams.
The stakeholder meetings turned into the settlement talks, more than two years worth of conference calls and meetings in Redding, Calif., seeking to resolve those conflicts raised by multiple demands on water supply.

The number and variety of factors playing into the discussions was mind-boggling. Compliance with the Endangered Species Act and other federal laws had to be assured, but farmers and communities along the Klamath River system needed reliable water supplies, as did fishing interests. Environmentalists sought to protect the region’s ecosystems. Irrigators wanted a stable and affordable power rate for irrigation. And the various tribes along the system wanted cultural as well as economic aspects protected. The Klamath Tribes sought support for purchase of private forestland to help reestablish their tribal economy.

Stakeholders say the agreement is a compromise and contains conditions that either side might love or hate. The importance of making sure all benefited from the agreement required that everyone make some sacrifice.

“The single most important thing for all involved is civility,” says Chuck Bonham of Trout Unlimited.

The agreement does face hurdles. Some of those involved in its development, including the Hoopa Tribe of Northern California and some off-Project irrigators, oppose it. The Hoopas say it doesn’t do enough for fish. Farmers and ranchers say it puts irrigated agriculture at risk.

Oregon state Sen. Doug Whitsett, R-Klamath Falls, is concerned with the price tag. While $580 million of the estimated $1 billion will come from redirected or reallocated funds already spent in the area, another $400 million will be needed.

PacifiCorp’s role is especially crucial. Dam removal would fall entirely to the company and its ratepayers. PacifiCorp spokesmen say they are not philosophically opposed to dam removal, but are against a plan that will cost their customers more money. Agreement stakeholders continue meeting with PacifiCorp officials.

The company planned to put in fish ladders, at an estimated cost of $300 million, to aid migratory fish. Company spokesmen say the real cost of dam removal isn’t entirely known, leaving the settlement’s fate in the air.

“Under the right circumstances, we’d go to dam removal. This agreement doesn’t necessarily get us to those circumstances,” says Paul Vogel of PacifiCorp.

At the moment, those involved in the settlement talks are hosting meetings with those they represent and receiving input. Ultimately, those living in the watershed will have to live with the agreement, leading officials and leaders to insist those affected read the document and offer their input.

The long road ahead isn’t fazing the agreement’s supporters. Having worked to put aside their differences for the past two years, they see it as the best step forward in preserving their communities.

“It really is a fundamental shift in how things are done,” says Greg Addington, executive director of Klamath Water Users Association.

Raylee Combs-Benson, 10, protests the water pact in front of the government center.