KlamBlog Report: The Brave New World of Klamath Water and Endangered Species Management

The KlamBlog Report which follows was written by Felice Pace. It is not casual reading. In the report, Felice focuses on what he calls "the federal agenda" in the Klamath River Basin and the water deal that agenda spawned - the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement or KBRA. Because the companion dam removal deal (the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement) has captured so much public attention, the KBRA Water Deal has remained largely in the shadows - a status its architects likely intended. 

Felice argues that implications of the KBRA for the future of the Klamath River and Klamath Salmon may be far greater than the more popular Dam Deal. By insulating the federal Klamath Irrigation Project and the irrigation interests it serves from "calls" for leaving more water in the Klamath River, the KBRA will focus efforts to increase salmon flows on private irrigators in the Upper Basin, Shasta and Scott Rivers. This stark political development has not been appreciated by reporters covering Klamath Water issues nor apparently by local politicians.

 The romance of Salmon, Traditional Native People, Dam Removal and "Peace on the River" 

has captured the public imagination obscuring implications of the complex KBRA Water Deal  

Our report delves deep into the relationships from which the KBRA emerged: the relationship between the federal government and irrigators on federally developed and subsidized irrigation projects; and the realtionship between federal Indian tribes and federal government agencies.It places those relationships within broader national and west-wide contexts. KBRA-type water deals have been done or are being negotiated in western river basins from Arizona to Montana. Felice explains why these high stakes water deals are happening and speculates on how historians of the future might view them. 

The report also explores the sensitive subject of how federal funding within the Basin - and the dependence of tribes on federal funding - intersects with tribal reaction to federal water policy. Some tribes may not appreciate seeing details of  their federal funding dependence revealed in the report. This aspect is sure to stir up controversy and motivate comment. 

Using PCFFA's Glen Spain as a foible and the words of the Irrigation Elite as his illustration, Felice proceeds to describe how the KBRA will impact tribal water rights and the federal trust relationship with the Basin's six federal tribes. He points out that altering federal trusteeship responsibilities is one among several aspects of the KBRA which can only proceed if federal legislation to authorize and fund the Deal passes Congress and is signed into law. 

While some aspects await legislation, the report analyzes how the KBRA is already having a "corrupting influence" on how the Endangered Species Act is being implemented in the Klamath River Basin. Finally, Felice draws two lessons which he suggests can be learned from the report's facts and analysis. 

In The Brave New World of Klamath Water and Endangered Species Management long-time Klamath River activist Felice Pace looks deeply into the meaning and implications of the KBRA Water Deal. The report attempts to demystify a complex and convoluted document written by water lawyers. The objective is to make clear what is at stake, who stands to benefit and who stands to lose out. If Felice is correct, the KBRA could make it virtually impossible to restore salmon abundance to the Klamath River Basin. The Report explains why he thinks that's the case. We hope you'll read it. 

Hoopa Leader Haley Hutt: Klamath Deals/Legislation have an Indigenous historical context

In an Op_Ed published in the Two Rivers Tribune, Hoopa Tribal Council member Haley Hutt has - for the first time we know of - placed the Klamath Deals and the Merkley-Thompson Bill that would authorize, implement and fund them - into an Indigenous historical perspective.

Hutt speaks of her recent visit to Washington DC where - among other things - she got to meet President Obama. Here are a couple of key quotes from Ms. Hutt's editorial:

•    If the Klamath Bill becomes law, the United States will successfully terminate its trustee obligation to the Hoopa Valley Tribe for senior water and fishing rights on the Klamath River forever. For the first time in the 21st Century, termination of tribal trust rights will occur without Tribal consent.

•   The DOI (Department of Interior) has become comfortable with offering up its Trustee Obligation as a bargaining chip as they reach settlements with corporations, states, and tribes under the pretense that it is in the best interest of the Tribe. Nothing could be more dangerous to tribal sovereignty than the Trustee, once again, deciding they know what’s best for Indians against the will of the Indians. The United States is chipping away at its trust obligations one deal at a time which is a slow termination and slow death to tribal sovereignty. Tribes, however, desperate to restore or protect a natural resource, or desperate to receive benefits they have been denied, often take a “the best deal they can get” even though what’s offered is not fair in the long run.

•   The highlight of my trip was meeting the President. I believe that President Obama is unaware and would not support a termination bill. Although the moment was brief, as he passed through the crowd, I did get to shake his hand and say “The Hoopa Tribe loves you!”  He laughed. In his speech, he said “I’ve got your back.”  I was impressed by his sincerity, and I take him for his word.

 Hoopa Councilperson Haley Hutt meets President Barak Obama

(photo courtesy of Two Rivers Tribune)

KlamBlog thanks the Two River Tribune for publishing Councilmember Hutt's opinion. We republish it  below and we urge other news outlets to republish it as well. Because it puts the Klamath Deals and legislation to make them legally binding into a larger historical perspective we believe the editorial advances the healthy debate ongoing among the people of the Klamath River Basin concerning the Deals and the Legislation to make them legally binding.

Some promoters of the Klamath Deals will no doubt attack this editorial by suggesting that the Two Rivers Tribune is funded and controlled by the Hoopa Tribal Council. TRT is, in fact, partially funded by the Hoopa Tribal Council. It is, however, editorially independent. While Chairman Leonard Masten has at times called in the editor to listen and respond to his concerns, neither he not any member of the Council has attempted to censor or editorially control the publication.

The independence of the TRT contrasts sharply with the newspapers/newsletters published by other Klamath River Basin Tribes including the Klamath Tribes' Klamath News, the Karuk Tribe's Karuk Tribal Newsmagazine and the Yurok Tribe's Yurok Today. The smaller Quartz Valley Indian Reservation and Resighini Rancheria do not publish newspapers or newsletters.

These other tribal newspapers/newsletters are not editorially independent; content is closely controlled by tribal bureaucrats under the direction of the respective tribal councils. KlamBlog thanks and applauds the Hoopa Tribe and congratulates the Hoopa People on being confident enough to support and fund an editorially independent newspaper. We believe editorial independence best serves the Hoopa People, the River, and Klamath Salmon.   

Siskiyou County declares jurisdiction over Scott River water

It was buried deep below the lead, but on December 7th, 2011 the Yreka-based Siskiyou Daily News broke what could become a big story.

The front page news item by John Bowman reported on the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisor’s decision not to participate in a California Department of Fish & Games Scot River flow study. But several paragraphs in, Bowman reported Supervisor Marcia Armstrong declaring that Siskiyou County – not the State – has jurisdiction over Scott River Basin water.  Here’s what Armstrong said:

           “as the County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, we have jurisdiction over flows, not [the DFG].”

 In recent decades Scott River has been dewatered as a result of illegal, year-around irrigation and unlimited groundwater pumping for irrigation. The Forest Service right to flows for fish in Scott River is now not met every year

Now we all know that talk is cheap. In spite of the fact that the Siskiyou County Supervisors have diverted money from services to citizens in order to beef up the county counsel’s office - and in spite of the considerable sound and fury they unleash on federal and state officials whenever they have the opportunity - so far the majority faction we call “the Four Stuporvisors of the Imaginary Kingdom of Siskiyou” have yet to file even one lawsuit backing up their claims of jurisdiction.

Will they put their lawyers where their mouth is?

So which is it: are the Four Stuporvisors just blowing hot air or are they willing to put that new stable of lawyers to work? KlamBlog offers each of them – Jim Cook, Grace Bennett, Michael Kobseff and Marcia Armstrong - all the space on KlamBlog they desire in order to explain themselves to the people. 

KlamBlog will offer a prediction:  Should the Four Stuporvisors actually believe what they are spouting and should they have sufficient courage to pursue those beliefs in court (which we doubt), their case claiming jurisdiction over Scott River water would be thrown out at the first hearing. It would also be the occasion for uproars of laughter in every law firm specializing in water law from here to Alaska and back down to Southern Arizona.

Here’s why we can predict with absolute confidence that such a case would quickly land in the court’s dustbin:

Politics gone wild…and two rays of light.

Recently Mike Tbompson and Jeff Merkley introduced legislation in the US Congress to authorize and fund the Klamath Dam and Water Deals. That prompted a new eruption of verbiage from the usual cast of Klamath Deal promoters and detractors who have been all over the media competing to spin public opinion.

We won’t publish any of those editorials and web postings because they do little more than repeat the same tired arguments residents of the Basin have been hearing for far too long now. KlamBlog wishes these spinmeisters could come up with some new arguments – or at least some new and more entertaining ways to present their propaganda.  

What we do publish in this post are recent statements by the two Congresspersons who currently represent the vast majority of California’s Klamath River Basin residents – Wally Herger and Mike Thompson. We also comment on the two men’s statements.

Then, from the “rays of light” department, we publish and comment on what we believe are notable exceptions to an increasingly dark outlook for resolution one way or the other of the impasse over the costly and controversial KBRA and KHSA – the Klamath Dam and Water Deals.

The first ray of light is an announcement from the Klamath Tribes that their treaty water rights – which have been affirmed by the Supreme Court - have been quantified in Oregon’s Upper Basin Adjudication.

Along the Wood River above Upper Klamath Lake 

Most of the Klamath Tribes' water rights are located above Upper Klamath Lake

The second is an editorial by Bill Cross of Ashland, Oregon. Bill represents the group American Whitewater in the Klamath River Basin. He is an avid whitewater enthusiast and instructor who has spent a lot of time on the Klamath River. Bill is an unpaid volunteer for the river advocacy group which, so far, has steered clear of Klamath deal-making. You can find more information on AW’s Klamath Restoration Project at this link.

Racism and Genocide Denial in the Klamath River Basin

As it has before during times of tension over water management and environmental needs, racism has once again surfaced in the Klamath River Basin. The occasion this time was a series of formal public hearings to take testimony on the draft Klamath Facilities Removal EIS/EIR. That environmental review is intended to inform a decision by Secretary of Interior Ken Salizar. Salizar is scheduled to decide whether or not to implement the controversial Klamath Dam and Water Deals which were developed during years of closed-door negotiations. 

The Deals have split long-time Klamath River allies and exposed fault lines in Klamath River Basin communities. Among the Basin’s federal tribes, three tribal councils -those representing the Yurok, Karuk and Klamath Tribes - have signed the deals and are among their chief promoters; three tribal councils - those of the Hoopa, Quartz Valley and Resighini Rancheria tribes – have rejected the deals.

Prayer Pole at the stronghold where Kientpus and other Modoc's held off the US Army.

They only wanted to be left alone to live in their ancestral territory.

The environmental community is also split with several national groups in support while local and regional groups are on both sides of the split. Other regional groups support the Deals in principle but want changes to address what they see as major deal flaws.  A table listing the positions environmental organizations have taken on the Dam and Water Deals can be found at the end of this post. 

Vocal Basin residents who oppose dam removal, however, do not recognize these distinctions. As is typical of racialized attitudes, Indigenous natives and environmentalists are homogenized and objectified. In the eyes of the Klamath River Basin racist all “Indians” want to destroy “our” dams and all “environmentalists” are “radical” and want to destroy “our way of life.” 

Denial is a common feature of today’s racism. In the Klamath River Basin denial of contemporary anti-Indigenous racism and denial of the historical genocides visited upon Indigenous natives during the conquest era are both evident. The proper response to racism is non-acceptance; the proper response to the denial that racism exists is disclosure.

This post reports on contemporary racism in the Klamath River Basin and chronicles the denial of historical genocides with evidence drawn from contemporary and historic sources.  We then suggest what is needed to deal with racism in the Basin and who we believe should be leading that effort.

Tales from two meetings

The team of federal and state officials charged with hearing testimony on the Klamath Facilities Removal Draft environmental report wrapped up their assignment last Thursday evening in Klamath, California near the mouth of the River. The Klamath Public Hearing followed others held in Klamath Falls, Yreka, Orleans and Arcata and upon a teach-in on the environmental report in Eureka sponsored by the North Group Redwood Chapter Sierra Club and other organizations.  Links to media reports on hearings in Klamath Falls, Yreka and Arcata are included at the end of this post.

 Members of the Hoopa Tribe express their sentiment

The Klamath Public Hearing

Located near the mouth of the Klamath River, Klamath is an diverse community and that was reflected at the hearing. The event was held at the Yurok Tribe’s administrative facility which is right across the River from another of the six federally-recognized tribes located within the Klamath River Basin. The members of the Resighini Rancheria are all Yurok Indians and The Rancheria's government predates the Yurok Tribal Government. Officials and members of both tribes – the Yurok Tribe and the Resighini Rancheria – dominated the hearing.

To give folks a sense of the hearing we present below quotes and paraphrases from those testifying at the Klamath hearing. Here’s what individuals and those representing organizations had to say about the environmental report and about the Dam and Water Deals – the KHSA and KBRA – which the report claims to assess.


Thomas O’Rourke, Chairman, Yurok Tribe:

•   Native people have been caretakers of the River for uncounted generations.
•   Water Quality is the River’s most significant problem.
•   Working together we can be successful at restoring the River.

David Gensaw, Council Member, Yurok Tribe:

•    He reminded folks that Klamath River Indigenous Natives had to fight the attempted termination of their fishing rights. In the 1970s those fishing traditionally faced arrests and beatings.
•    We need the dams out to restore the salmon. We’ll fight for that and won’t settle for less.
•    Our salmon refugia have been destroyed by irresponsible logging and irrigation/farming.

Sunshine Watkins, Treasurer, Resighini Rancheria:

•    We were excluded from Klamath negotiations; if the KBRA is endorsed by Congress our rights will be terminated. Under the KBRA we will be on the outside for 50 years.
•    The dams should come out before the 2020 date proposed in the KHSA.
•    The best way to get the dams out is to return to the FERC process; the State of California 401 Clean Water Act certification process will result in timely dam removal.
•    We need Ecological Restoration which the KBRA does not provide.

Ray Mattz:

•    When he was young in the days of massive logging the eddies in the river were filled with bark.
•    The Candlefish – a mainstay of traditional Yurok diet – are gone. The Trinity Dam was built and within 7 years the Candlefish were gone.  
•    “We should be proud that (unlike other rivers) we still have wild fish."

Sammy Gensaw , member, Yurok Tribe:

•    “I come here to represent the youth of the reservation.”
•    We’re living in a food dessert; we need a thriving river in order to maintain our culture.
•    We’re part of the ecosystem.

Mike Belchik, fish biologist in the employ of the Yurok Tribe:

•    Supports the KBRA and KHSA which will provide salmon with access to refugia above the dams that have stable sources of cold groundwater.
•    He believes dam removal and the KBRA are the keys to restoring Spring Chinook Salmon.

Josh Norris, member of the Yurok Tribe:

• “I’ll be here for the long haul.”

Josh Norris: "I'll be here for the long haul."

Georgianna Myers:

• “Our river is sick and we feel its pain.”

Josh Strange, fisheries biologist who has worked for the Yurok Tribe:

•    Risk associated with the ‘no action’ alternative are not properly appreciated or addressed in the environmental document.
•    Klamath River fish disease problems cannot be fixed if the dams are not removed.
•    Global warming is a new threat that has not been assessed.

Patrick Higgins, fish biologist in the employ of Resighini Rancheria:

•    The environmental document does not analyze the impacts of the KBRA; this sort of deferral of environmental analysis violates NEPA and CEQA.
•    The environmental document lacks an ecologically based alternative; ecological restoration is the only way to restore the River.
•    Because the KBRA will not employ ecological restoration in the Upper Basin terrible water quality due to agricultural pollution will continue. The fish diseases will simply migrate upstream once the dams are removed.
•    The environmental document fails to address pesticide use in the Upper Basin. Commercial agriculture on the Tule Lake and Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuges has the largest rate of pesticide use in all of Siskiyou County.

James Dunlap, Yurok Indian and manager of www.YurokVoices.com

•    As a Yurok I have an innate distrust of the federal government.
•    Waiving of tribal rights in any manner is not acceptable. We don’t endorse any agreement that  gives away or waives any of our rights.

Merk Oliver, member, Yurok Tribe

• The dams are no good for anyone; they are poisoning the fish and the people.

Felice Pace, KlamBlog

•    The issue is not dam removal – the dams will come down because if relicensed they would lose money. It is not in the interest of the owner – PacifiCorp – to keep operating them therefore – one way or another – they will come out.
•    What remains to be decided is: 1. when the dams will come down, 2. who will pay for removal, and 3. what other provisions for good or ill will catch a ride on the dam removal train.
•    The environmental document makes numerous unsubstantiated claims not backed up by data or analysis. For example, the environmental document claims the KBRA will achieve water pollution clean-up goals more quickly than if it was not implemented. Yet there is no analysis in the environmental document or elsewhere to back up that claim.
•    The proposed alternative would relieve PacifiCorp of responsibility for toxic legacies which may be lurking around100 year old powerhouses. The taxpayers should not be saddled with cleaning up PacifiCorp’s toxic legacies.

Robert Jackson, Yurok

•    We need to focus on having water for the fish; we need water too.
•    It is disgusting how they waste water up there (in the Upper Klamath River Basin).
•    We need to manage the nutrients (coming from agriculture)
•    In no way should we relinquish any of our water rights.

Klamath Teach-In

On October 19th a group of North Coast environmental organizations that strongly support dam removal but do not support or have reservations about aspects of the KBRA Water Deal, presented a teach-in on the draft environmental document intended to inform the Secretary of Interior’s decision on whether or not to implement the Klamath Dam and Water Deals in Eureka.

The teach-in was well covered in the press; a video of the event is available for viewing on Access Humboldt.

One member of the audience challenged the presentations. Peter Pennycamp said he had come to hear all sides of the issues but was disappointed that promoters of the Dam and Water Deals were not on the agenda. One of the presenters – fisheries biologist Pat Higgins – pointed out to Peter that the government is making the case for the Dam and Water Deals in 6 sessions around the region and that the teach-in is intended to provide a forum for those whose views are not being promoted by federal and state government officials and agencies.

Higgins represents the Resighini Rancheria - one of the three federal tribes located in the Basin which were excluded from negotiations that resulted in the Dam and Water Deals. He offered to debate promoters of the Deals anytime and anywhere.

This small controversy mirrors a debate going on in society generally: Are media outlets obligated to provide “balance” by providing all sides of an issue with equal time? Alternatively, is there a place for advocacy journalism, i.e. journalism which comes from a certain position other than feigned  “neutrality” and/or which seeks to balance voices in the public arena by giving voice to those interests and individuals who are marginalized or not considered at all by major media outlets?

One of the promoters of the Dam and Water Deals – Craig Tucker who works for the Karuk Tribe – was very active at the teach-in even though he was not a presenter. Tucker repeatedly interrupted and challenged both the presenters and those members of the public commenting after the presentations. Tucker has been known to “lose his cool” before; on this particular night he was in rare form, suggesting among other things that everything that had been presented was wrong or misinformed.

Tucker also took credit personally and organizationally for getting PacifiCorp to agree to the Dam Deal. He ignored the efforts of many tribal biologists and environmental activists who painstakingly built the case for dam removal for years before Tucker came to the basin. In KlamBlog’s view it is those biologists and activists who sealed the fate of the dams by getting an administrative law judge to order that fish ladders must be installed if the dams were to be relicensed. The cost of those fish ladders alone – not to mention the cost of mitigating the dams’ water quality violations – is what really doomed the dams.

In spite of the irascible Tucker, the presenters and audience for the most part remained calm and maintained an atmosphere of respect for the opinions of others.

Once it was clear that the relicensed dams would lose money annually, their fate was sealed. Dam owner PacifiCorp has since that time negotiated to get the best deal for shareholders. The KHSA or Dam Deal represents their complete success. If the Dam Deal is endorsed by Congress, PacifiCorp shareholders will be able to walk away from the Klamath Hydroelectric Project which they own and will be absolved from all liability not just for dam removal but also for all toxic legacies which may be lurking around the company’s 100 year old powerhouses.

Here are links to media coverage that reported what people said at Klamath Facilities Removal Draft EIS/EIR hearings:

• the Klamath Falls Hearing
• the Yreka Hearing
• the Arcata Hearing

The Two Rivers Tribune had excellent coverage of several of the hearings as well but at the time of this posting they were not available on the TRT web site.

 

Klamath Justice Coalition Pro Dam Removal protest outside the Yreka Hearing

(photo courtesy of the Two Rivers Tribune) 

Forum to Discuss Federal Dam Removal Process on Klamath River

source: http://www.wildcalifornia.org/blog/forum-to-discuss-federal-dam-removal-process-on-klamath-river/

ARCATA, CA -- Environmental organizations from Northwest California and Oregon are organizing a panel presentation to discuss the federal and State environmental impact reports on the proposed Klamath Hydroelectric Project dam removal. The event will be held at the Wharfinger Building in Eureka from 6:30-8:30 PM on Wednesday, October 19. Four speakers will present on various aspects of the draft environmental impact documents and explain their origins and relationship to the Klamath Basin Hydropower Agreement (KHSA) and the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA).






Keno Dam: Uppermost of 5 Klamath River dams owned by PacifiCorp. Four dams are proposed for removal; ownership of this one is proposed for transfer to the federal Bureau of Reclamation. Come to the panel presentation and find out why! 


The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for Facilities Removal on the Klamath River was released on Sept 22, 2011. The 60-day public comment period began with the release of the DEIR, and will close in mid-November. A series of public hearings to describe the DEIR and receive public comments will be hosted by the United States Department of the Interior, including a hearing in Arcata from 4:30 – 8:30 on October 26 at the Arcata Community Center. See the documents that are currently available for public review as well as information about the public hearings at the government website www.klamathrestoration.gov.

The Klamath In The Balance forum at the Wharfinger Building on October 19 is intended to motivate the public to make informed comments and to actively engage on this globally relevant environmental issue.

The panel will feature Bob Hunter, a representative of Water Watch of Oregon who has studied the Upper Klamath Basin for over 30 years. He will briefly characterize the historic hydrology of the Klamath Basin and then describe water allocation under the agreement and implications for the National Wildlife Refuges. Also speaking on the panel is Andrew Orahoske, the conservation director for the Environmental Protection Information Center, who will discuss the legal framework for dam removal, and the requirements for recovering salmon and other native species in the basin.

Patrick Higgins is a fisheries biologist with an intimate knowledge of the Klamath River who will describe the need for ecological restoration to solve water quality problems. Higgins will also discuss the ecological imperative to recover endangered suckerfish of the Upper Basin, as well as salmon. Hayley Hutt, a Hoopa Valley Tribal Council member, will elaborate on concerns about the ramifications of the federal process for Indian Tribes that did not sign the KHSA and KBRA; Hutt will also discuss Hoopa perspectives on the federal legislation that would authorize and fund the agreements. A trained facilitator will moderate a question and answer period with the presenters assembled as a panel.

Co-sponsors of the forum include the Northcoast Environmental Center (NEC), the Environmental Protection Information Center (EPIC), the North Group and the Redwood Chapter of the Sierra Club, Redwood Region Audubon Society, Water Watch of Oregon, and Ancient Forest International (AFI). The event will run from 6:30 PM to 8:30 PM, Wednesday, October 19. The Wharfinger Building is located at 1 Marina Way along the waterfront in Eureka. There is no cost for admission, and refreshments will be served. For more information about the event, call the NEC at 707-822-6918, or EPIC at 707-822-7711.

Background websites:

Water Watch of Oregon-- http://waterwatch.org/programs/restoring-the-klamath/klamathprogram/

Official Federal and State Government website-- http://www.klamathrestoration.gov/

Karuk, Yurok, and Klamath Tribes website-- http://www.klamathrestoration.org/

Resighini Rancheria-- http://resighin.ipower.com/

Independent perspective on Klamath Issues-- http://www.klamblog.blogspot.com/