Gut check time on the Klamath

As work activities slow down for the Christmas Holiday, 15 or so of the often-mentioned “26 groups” involved for well over a year in “settlement negotiations” to find “positive solutions” to the Basin’s water management conflicts are debating internally whether or not to sign on to a “package deal” which remains “confidential”[1]

Based on recent revelations about the central component – the proposed Klamath Water Deal - the decision for environmental and fishing groups should be easy. Here are the critical facts:

• As revealed by the Sacramento Bee, an unreleased scientific review of the proposed Klamath Water Deal commissioned by the Northcoast Environmental Center and paid for in part by the Sierra Club found that the Deal would likely not lead to salmon recovery. Furthermore, the team of specialists noted that beneficial flows for fish specified in the Deal would only materialize in the future and only if Congress grants close to a billion dollars to irrigators and the Bureau of Reclamation for “conservation” and “new storage”.

• The proposed Klamath Water Deal will have a negative impact on Native American water rights. The treaty rights of the Klamath Tribes and the reserved rights of the Yurok Tribe are likely to be compromised if not extinguished should the Deal become law.[2]

• The proposed Klamath Water Deal would give a small, select group of Klamath River Basin irrigators, the Klamath Irrigation Elite,[3] unrestricted control of and first priority to a large amount of the Klamath River’s spring and summer flows. The Irrigation Elite, who control roughly 40% of irrigated lands in the Klamath River Basin through a web of corporate and family ownerships and leases of public and private farmland, would be free to use that water for irrigation or to sell it (through complex exchanges with Trinity River Water) to corporate agriculture in the San Joaquin Valley. If tribes, state or federal agencies or fishermen wanted any of this water for fish, they would have to come with dollars in hand to lease that water from the Irrigation Elite. Furthermore, rental payments would have to continue on an annual basis in competition with other buyers, including San Joaquin River Basin corporate farms.

Given this list of likely negative consequences, the decision on whether or not to endorse the Klamath Water Deal would appear to be a no brainer.

But that is not the case. KlamBlog has learned that the Boards of Directors of environmental, restoration and fishing organizations are having intense debates about whether or not to accept a Water Deal which experts say will not lead to salmon recovery. Word on the street is that at least one lead negotiator is urging his organization to endorse the Deal.

Readers may wonder why organizations which have been staunch advocates for Pacific Salmon would consider a Deal that will not lead to Salmon Recovery. There are three major reason; two are substantive and the third is psychological.

1. Many of those involved in the negotiations from the environmental and fishing communities believe they must accept this Water Deal in order to get the four PacifiCorp dams removed.

The necessary connection between a Water Deal and dam removal is an assumption that has been promoted heavily by the propaganda machine operated by Doctor Craig Tucker under the watchful eyes of Troy Fletcher and Leaf Hillman – the men who call the shots on things Klamath for the Yurok and Karuk Tribes respectively. Doctor Tucker has orchestrated numerous protests, press events and videos designed with special attention to promoting the IDEA that removal of the dams and a rapprochement with the Klamath Irrigation Elite are inextricably linked. That IDEA is now accepted as an article of faith by many rank and file Klamath River Basin Native Americans, environmentalists, restorationists and salmon advocates.

Not withstanding the fact that many well intentioned people BELIEVE dam removal requires accepting a bad Water Deal, is this “necessity” in fact true? Here is KlamBlog’s take on that question:

Many months ago when Mr. Fletcher still spoke to us, he told KlamBlog that officials at the Bush Administration’s Interior Department had stated emphatically that unless the Tribes cut a water deal with Klamath Project Irrigators and got the fishermen and enviros to go along, Interior would oppose dam removal. At the time the Bush Administration was still strong, the Republicans controlled Congress and Bush appointees at Interior had not yet been forced to resign under fear of indictment for lawbreaking. Mr. Fletcher was convinced that a deal with the Irrigation Elite was the only way to get the dams out.

Still there were those among the long-strong coalition of tribes, enviros and fishermen who did not share this perspective. The minority argued that the Achilles’ heal of the dams was not salmon but rather water quality; that there was no way PacifiCorp’s dams could be certified by the State of California as complying with long-established and legally unassailable water quality standards designed to protect all the beneficial uses of the Klamath River.[4]

Legal experts on dam relicensing issues involved on the Klamath have affirmed that PacifiCorp can not get around the fact that the dams must be certified by the states of California and Oregon as in compliance with long-established water quality standards under the Clean Water Act before they can receive a new license. These experts know that the Clean Water Act is the trump card assuring that the dams will come out. But even these experts favor a Deal as a means of resolving the dam issue sooner and without the cost of litigation which may be required if the State of California does not follow the Clean Water Act and declare the dams illegal. KlamBlog, however, is among those who think the proposed Klamath Water Deal will delay removal of the dams.

A Water Deal which requires costly new spending at a time of massive federal debt, which is opposed by environmental groups with power and influence in DC, which excludes certain Klamath River Basin tribes, counties and irrigators from generous “benefits programs” (i.e. the cold cash which will be collected by four of the Basin’s tribes, counties and irrigators if the Deal becomes law ) - such a Deal is likely to stall out in Congressional committees where it will languish far beyond the delays normal in election years.

The highly promoted BELIEF that dam removal requires a Klamath Water Deal that will not lead to salmon recovery has been further weakened by several additional developments.

First, the Democrats took over Congress. They quickly reinstituted pay-as-you-go budget rules which require that legislation which proposes new or increased spending must also specify where cuts will be made to fully offset the new spending. Where do the promoters of this Water Deal think those cuts should come? Have they even thought about that key issue? Shall we fund this Deal by closing down the USFWS offices in the Basin, the NMFS office in Arcata? Where else will the necessary budget “offset” be found? Furthermore, a very expensive San Joaquin water deal has already been introduced into Congress. Because enviros hold a court decree over that deal, however, it will continue to be a much higher priority than the proposed Klamath Water Deal.

With a Californian as leader of the House of Representatives, the increased power of Northcoast Congressman Mike Thompson and California’s two Democratic Senators, KlamBlog believes that a revived and revised Klamath Basin Coalition – made up of tribes, environmentalists, fishing groups, restorationists and progressive farmers – could do much better than pushing an expensive Water Deal which will not lead to Salmon Recovery and which reinforces rather than eliminates the inequities in our communities. So much could be accomplished if and when our leaders wake up and get out of those back rooms!

If our leaders had vision and boldness we could write and pass legislation that would make the Klamath River a model for social and environmental justice. Such legislation would not be aimed at creating winners and losers and would not reinforcing the power of the Irrigation Elite. Instead, a real solution to the Klamath Water Wars would write a new Law of the River – a federal, state, tribal and county compact that would usher in a new era in which irrigation interests and those who depend on a healthy River work together as equals – not as “haves” and “have-nots”.

A new and permanent Klamath Basin Commission charged with restoring our River, coordinating water management with respect for all rights and all interests and strengthening our communities through socially just and equitable policies would not need to depend on taxpayers to solve our water management problems. We would not need to stake the future of Klamath River Salmon on development of mythical “new water”.

Second, the National Academy of Sciences came out with a new report on Klamath flow and water supply modeling that strengthens the calls of fish advocates for increased Klamath flows. Like the Biological Opinion before it, the new NAS study indicates that, in order for salmon to recover, the Klamath needs more water than could eventually be provided under the proposed Klamath Water Deal.

Third, the Bush Administration in general and Bush’s Interior Department in particular have been weakened by scandal; the lame duck Bush Administration is not in a position to pressure Congress to get the proposed Klamath Water Deal passed, nor is it one of the Administration’s top priorities.

Fourth, a new, soon to be published, peer-reviewed study of Lower Klamath rivers, streams, precipitation and snow pack finds that Climate Change is already affecting the flow in Lower Klamath River Basin rivers and streams. Lower Basin rivers and streams depend on snow pack to sustain base flows through the dry summer and fall months. According to the new study, snowpack since 1977 has declined significantly, especially at lower elevations. This has resulted in reduced summer and fall flows even in rivers and streams that do not have dams or significant human water use.

To sum up then: Orchestrated propaganda not withstanding, the proposed Klamath Water Deal is not needed to get the dams out. Even the assumption that a deal gets the dams out sooner dries up when one considers the multi-billion dollar price tag on the deal and the virtual impossibility that these dams could be certified as complying with water quality standards.

2. The dominant promoters of the Water Deal want certain “benefit programs” that address desires which have little or nothing to do with restoring the Klamath River.

While the details remain protected by a “Confidentially Agreement” (which increasingly looks like it was designed to prevent the People of the Klamath River Basin from learning the details of the Deal until after their leaders agree to it) KlamBlog and others who know what is going on can affirm that the Deal includes several additional costly “goodies” (inside the confidential negotiations these “goodies’ are referred to as “Christmas Ornaments”) including a Tribal Benefits Program and payoffs for counties. These benefit programs are designed to secure taxpayer funds to underwrite tribal and county government bureaucracies – including the tribes’ fisheries departments.[5]

Thus, when one strips away the propaganda hype, the proposed Klamath Water Deal looks a lot less like something needed to get the dams out than an attempt to use the dam issue to pursue other agendas which have little to nothing to do with Salmon Recovery and Klamath Restoration. Salmon may well be the “only thing” for the Indigenous Natives of the Klamath River; but the tribal governments which represent those Natives have other agendas that have nothing to do with Salmon Recovery.

3. The basic psychology of humans creates a nearly irresistible urge to conform to the group mind and the group agenda. For those who have been together in those conference rooms for so long and who have invested so much personal time and effort, the compulsion to go along with “The Group” (no matter what rational self-interest and fidelity to the interest one serves indicates to the contrary) can be overwhelming.

Given that the proposed Klamath Water Deal will not lead to salmon recovery, will not institute a just and equitable approach to whole basin water management, is not necessary to get the dams out;[6] and is unlikely to get the dams out quicker than staying focused on PacifiCorp and the relicensing process…. Why are so many good enviros and salmon advocates willing to sign on?

The answer lies in the basic psyche of our species.

Unlike most of the enviro, agency, county and tribal participants in the Settlement Negotiations, KlamBlog’s principle writer has been in this sort of situation before. In the late 1980s, the Klamath Forest Alliance had the Forest Service and timber interests over a barrel. We had a good lawsuit that would block salvage logging on the entire Salmon River. So the industry and agency invited us to a “mediation group” to seek a “solution”. To make a long story short, KFA was going to give away the store until a hard nosed negotiator from The Wilderness Society arrived to save the day. The result: protection for riparian and roadless areas in exchange for logging going ahead in other areas. We did agree to one road being built in one roadless area.

Again during the Forest Wars, KlamBlog’s principal writer helped negotiated a deal with the Clinton Administration to release a few timber sales from the Northern Spotted Owl no-logging injunction we held with other forest groups from throughout the Northwest. Tagged “The Deal of Shame” we were attacked for allowing Old Growth logging. Those of us who made the deal point to the Aquatic Conservation Strategy and other Northwest Forest Plan protections which we subsequently gained from the Clinton Administration. But others still say we bowed unnecessarily to political pressure from our friends in the Clinton Administration. KlamBlog knows only one thing for sure – the internal and external pressures to go along with the deal were intense.

Finally, at home in Siskiyou County, KlamBlog’s principle writer and colleagues were invited to cut a deal with the timber industry that promised an end to the threats, intimidation, physical attacks and blackballing of self, wife and children that were the true cost of fighting the Timber Wars while living in a anti-environmental timber county. All we needed to do was agree to stop litigating over logging. The pressure to agree was intense; we walked away.

In each of these situations and in several others, KlamBlog’s principle writer has experienced the overwhelming pressure to conform to group norms, adopt the group’s perspectives and myths and go along with the “program” demanded as the price for acceptance by the group and all the good feelings that go along with that acceptance. Never has the main pressure come from the outside; the main pressure always comes from within.

For most of its existence, the human species has lived in small groups. Within these communities the dominant social glue has been the innate desire in each individual to be part of the group, to be accepted and loved.

Through much of our species’ term on Earth conforming to the group mind has been necessary to avoid personal and group annihilation. Struggling to survive in a harsh and unforgiving world; conformance to group norms has been a key to our survival as a species. Because of its survival value, the internal compulsion to conform to the group mind has become a basic human trait.

And so it should come as no surprise that activists and leaders who have worked long and hard for the Recovery of the Salmon and the Restoration of our River would now feel compelled to accept a Deal that, when looked at logically and in the light of all the facts, is neither necessary nor beneficial.

Knowing whence the strong internal compulsion to go along with the group comes, it is possible to resist, to stand back and get perspective, and to fight the compulsion to go along when the interest for which you stand is not served. It IS possible to JUST SAY NO to a bad deal!

KlamBlog is betting that in the final analysis those who carry the mantle of the Salmon and the Environment, and those who truly serve the People of the Klamath River, will recognize that the Klamath Water Deal is neither necessary to get the dams out nor in the interest of those who depend on the River for their well being and livelihood. KlamBlog knows these leaders and representatives well and believes they have the courage which is required if only they will turn away from the Group Mind and listen instead to the River as it speaks to their hearts.

---

Endnotes:

[1] It has now come to light that the federal agencies which – along with Yurok and Karuk representatives – have been driving the push for a Klamath Water Deal, will not be signing the Agreement. They are rightly concerned about a little item known as FACA – the Federal Advisory Committee Act – which requires that the public be allowed in whenever a federal agency is taking advice from any corporation or interest group. Oregon Wild –engineered out of the “Settlement Group” because they would not go along with the deal making – has already raised FACA as an issue. KlamBlog expects OW to sue (and win) a FACA challenge if the proposed Deal goes forward. Assertions by Deal promoters that OW might “stand aside” are beyond wishful thinking, they don’t pass the laugh test.

[2] In alphabetical order the six federal tribes are: Hoopa, Karuk, Klamath, Quartz Valley, Resighini and Yurok. The Klamath Tribes (made up of Klamath, Modoc and Yahooskin, descendants) have water rights guaranteed by treaty and affirmed by the US Supreme Court. The Hoopa, Quartz Valley and Yurok Tribes have water rights based on the establishment of their respective reservations on the Trinity, Scott and Lower Klamath River respectively. Experts in Indigenous Water Rights believe that the proposed Klamath Water Deal would negatively affect water rights of the Klamath Tribes and the Yurok Tribe.
There are also ‘tribes” in the Klamath River Basin that are not ‘recognized’ by the federal government. These include the Shasta Tribe and the Hayfork Band of Nor-El-Muk Wintu Indians. There are currently 43 California Native American organizations which have petitioned for federal regulation as tribes (see:http://www.kstrom.net/isk/maps/tribesnonrec.html#california).

[3] The Klamath Basin’s Irrigation Elite control about 40% of Klamath River Basin irrigation. They receive subsidized water from the Bureau of Reclamation. The affluence of this elite is based on leasing vast amounts of land at low prices. Most of this land is held by older former farmers and homesteaders who can no longer make a living on farms that average less than 150 acres in size. According to the Bureau of Reclamation “the project irrigates over 200,000 acres on about 1,400 farms.” This yields an average farm size of about 143 acres. Farms of this size became uneconomical in the 1980s due to changes in markets, labor, input and transportation costs. The Irrigation Elite also has access to almost 23,000 acres of National Wildlife refuge lands which are leased for commercial agriculture under terms of a controversial federal law from the 1960s. Those Klamath Project farmers and homesteaders who live in or near poverty are in this state at least in part because the Irrigation Elite conspires to keep land lease rates extremely low as compared to similar lands with similar access to water anywhere else in the Western US. Ironically, it is these poverty stricken older farmers who were used as the “poster children” for the 2001 “Klamath Water Crisis”. Meanwhile the Irrigation Elite amassed the largest government subsidies ever recorded in the Klamath River Basin for their 2001ag operations which were sold to the public as a “disaster”.

[4] Troy Fletcher, the ‘consultant’ who directs the Yurok Tribal Council’s Klamath policy, is a fisheries biologist. He has little experience with the system by which the State of California implements the Clean Water Act. When Mr. Fletcher was executive director of the Yurok Tribe he ordered the Tribe’s EPA director to suspend efforts to secure recognition of the Tribe by the federal government as the equivalent of a state for purposes of the Clean Water Act. If the Yurok Tribe had that recognitions now it would be in a position to block certification of the PacifiCorp dams without litigation.
The Hoopa Tribe does have federal recognition as the equivalent of a state for purposes of Clean Water Act enforcement. Because a corner of the Hoopa Reservation crosses the Klamath River above Weitchpec, the Hoopa Tribe is the sole Klamath River Basin tribe in a position to stop relicensing of the dams through its own regulatory action. Too bad the Yurok Tribe did not pursue obtaining this key regulatory power.

[5] This makes KlamBlog wonder whether some tribal biologists are constrained as much by organizational interest as by loyalty when they remain silent on a deal fellow scientists whom they respect say won’t lead to “salmon recovery”. If these good scientists actually believe the Water Deal is the best thing for the River and the Salmon they should tell KlamBlog and the People of the Klamath River why this is their considered scientific opinion.

[6] PacifiCorps will ultimately agree to go along with dam removal because that is what is in the economic interest of its owners. They will, of course, play the game in such a way that the financial cost of dam removal is passed on to taxpayers. But the core reason they will cut a deal for dam removal is that – should the relicensing actually play out and the license to operate them not be granted because the dams can not be certified as complying with water quality standards – PacifiCorp would be solely responsible for removing the dams and mitigating all related impacts. This is a chance that PacifiCorp’s owners have no intention of taking. They will settle and get out with minimum losses. When that happens, not even KlamBlog will complain about them getting a free ride out of the Klamath River Basin!

As work activities slow down for the Christmas Holiday, 15 or so of the often-mentioned “26 groups” involved for well over a year in “settlement negotiations” to find “positive solutions” to the Basin’s water management conflicts are debating internally whether or not to sign on to a “package deal” which remains “confidential”. [1]

Based on recent revelations about the central component – the proposed Klamath Water Deal - the decision for environmental and fishing groups should be easy. Here are the critical facts:

• As revealed by the Sacramento Bee, an unreleased scientific review of the proposed Klamath Water Deal commissioned by the Northcoast Environmental Center and paid for in part by the Sierra Club found that the Deal would likely not lead to salmon recovery. Furthermore, the team of specialists noted that beneficial flows for fish specified in the Deal would only materialize in the future and only if Congress grants close to a billion dollars to irrigators and the Bureau of Reclamation for “conservation” and “new storage”.
  

• The proposed Klamath Water Deal will have a negative impact on Native American water rights. The treaty rights of the Klamath Tribes and the reserved rights of the Yurok Tribe are likely to be compromised if not extinguished should the Deal become law.[2]

• The proposed Klamath Water Deal would give a small, select group of Klamath River Basin irrigators, the Klamath Irrigation Elite,[3] unrestricted control of and first priority to a large amount of the Klamath River’s spring and summer flows. The Irrigation Elite, who control roughly 40% of irrigated lands in the Klamath River Basin through a web of corporate and family ownerships and leases of public and private farmland, would be free to use that water for irrigation or to sell it (through complex exchanges with Trinity River Water) to corporate agriculture in the San Joaquin Valley. If tribes, state or federal agencies or fishermen wanted any of this water for fish, they would have to come with dollars in hand to lease that water from the Irrigation Elite. Furthermore, rental payments would have to continue on an annual basis in competition with other buyers, including San Joaquin River Basin corporate farms.

Given this list of likely negative consequences, the decision on whether or not to endorse the Klamath Water Deal would appear to be a no brainer.

But that is not the case. KlamBlog has learned that the Boards of Directors of environmental, restoration and fishing organizations are having intense debates about whether or not to accept a Water Deal which experts say will not lead to salmon recovery. Word on the street is that at least one lead negotiator for a group that represents commercial salmon fishers is urging his organization to endorse the Deal.

Readers may wonder why organizations which have been staunch advocates for Pacific Salmon would consider a Deal that will not lead to Salmon Recovery. There are three major reason; two are substantive and the third is psychological.

1. Many of those involved in the negotiations from the environmental and fishing communities believe they must accept this Water Deal in order to get the four PacifiCorp dams removed.

The necessary connection between a Water Deal and dam removal is an assumption that has been promoted heavily by the propaganda machine operated by Doctor Craig Tucker under the watchful eyes of Troy Fletcher and Leaf Hillman – the men who call the shots on things Klamath for the Yurok and Karuk Tribes respectively. Doctor Tucker has orchestrated numerous protests, press events and videos designed with special attention to promoting the IDEA that removal of the dams and a rapprochement with the Klamath Irrigation Elite are inextricably linked. That IDEA is now accepted as an article of faith by many rank and file Klamath River Basin Native Americans, environmentalists, restorationists and salmon advocates.

Not withstanding the fact that many well intentioned people BELIEVE dam removal requires accepting a bad Water Deal, is this “necessity” in fact true? Here is KlamBlog’s take on that question:

Many months ago when Mr. Fletcher still spoke to us, he told KlamBlog that officials at the Bush Administration’s Interior Department had stated emphatically that unless the Tribes cut a water deal with Klamath Project Irrigators and got the fishermen and enviros to go along, Interior would oppose dam removal. At the time the Bush Administration was still strong, the Republicans controlled Congress and Bush appointees at Interior had not yet been forced to resign under fear of indictment for lawbreaking. Mr. Fletcher was convinced that a deal with the Irrigation Elite was the only way to get the dams out.

Still there were those among the long-strong coalition of tribes, enviros and fishermen who did not share this perspective. The minority argued that the Achilles’ heal of the dams was not salmon but rather water quality; that there was no way PacifiCorp’s dams could be certified by the State of California as complying with long-established and legally unassailable water quality standards designed to protect all the beneficial uses of the Klamath River.[4]

Legal experts on dam relicensing issues involved on the Klamath have affirmed that PacifiCorp can not get around the fact that the dams must be certified by the states of California and Oregon as in compliance with long-established water quality standards under the Clean Water Act before they can receive a new license. These experts know that the Clean Water Act is the trump card assuring that the dams will come out. But even these experts favor a Deal as a means of resolving the dam issue sooner and without the cost of litigation which may be required if the State of California does not follow the Clean Water Act and declare the dams illegal. KlamBlog, however, is among those who think the proposed Klamath Water Deal will delay removal of the dams.

A Water Deal which requires costly new spending at a time of massive federal debt, which is opposed by environmental groups with power and influence in DC, which excludes certain Klamath River Basin tribes, counties and irrigators from generous “benefits programs” (i.e. the cold cash which will be collected by four of the Basin’s tribes, counties and irrigators if the Deal becomes law ) - such a Deal is likely to stall out in Congressional committees where it will languish far beyond the delays normal in election years.

The highly promoted BELIEF that dam removal requires a Klamath Water Deal that will not lead to salmon recovery has been further weakened by several additional developments.

First, the Democrats took over Congress. They quickly reinstituted pay-as-you-go budget rules which require that legislation which proposes new or increased spending must also specify where cuts will be made to fully offset the new spending. Where do the promoters of this Water Deal think those cuts should come? Have they even thought about that key issue? Shall we fund this Deal by closing down the USFWS offices in the Basin, the NMFS office in Arcata? Where else will the necessary budget “offset” be found? Furthermore, a very expensive San Joaquin water deal has already been introduced into Congress. Because enviros hold a court decree over that deal, however, it will continue to be a much higher priority than the proposed Klamath Water Deal.

With a Californian as leader of the House of Representatives, the increased power of Northcoast Congressman Mike Thompson and California’s two Democratic Senators, KlamBlog believes that a revived and revised Klamath Basin Coalition – made up of tribes, environmentalists, fishing groups, restorationists and progressive farmers – could do much better than pushing an expensive Water Deal which will not lead to Salmon Recovery and which reinforces rather than eliminates the inequities in our communities. So much could be accomplished if and when our leaders wake up and get out of those back rooms!

If our leaders had vision and boldness we could write and pass legislation that would make the Klamath River a model for social and environmental justice. Such legislation would not be aimed at creating winners and losers and would not reinforcing the power of the Irrigation Elite. Instead, a real solution to the Klamath Water Wars would write a new Law of the River – a federal, state, tribal and county compact that would usher in a new era in which irrigation interests and those who depend on a healthy River work together as equals – not as “haves” and “have-nots”.

A new and permanent Klamath Basin Commission charged with restoring our River, coordinating water management with respect for all rights and all interests and strengthening our communities through socially just and equitable policies would not need to depend on taxpayers to solve our water management problems. We would not need to stake the future of Klamath River Salmon on development of mythical “new water”.

Second, the National Academy of Sciences came out with a new report on Klamath flow and water supply modeling that strengthens the calls of fish advocates for increased Klamath flows. Like the Biological Opinion before it, the new NAS study indicates that, in order for salmon to recover, the Klamath needs more water than could eventually be provided under the proposed Klamath Water Deal.

Third, the Bush Administration in general and Bush’s Interior Department in particular have been weakened by scandal; the lame duck Bush Administration is not in a position to pressure Congress to get the proposed Klamath Water Deal passed, nor is it one of the Administration’s top priorities.

Fourth, a new, soon to be published, peer-reviewed study of Lower Klamath rivers, streams, precipitation and snow pack finds that Climate Change is already affecting the flow in Lower Klamath River Basin rivers and streams. Lower Basin rivers and streams depend on snow pack to sustain base flows through the dry summer and fall months. According to the new study, snowpack since 1977 has declined significantly, especially at lower elevations. This has resulted in reduced summer and fall flows even in rivers and streams that do not have dams or significant human water use.

To sum up then:

Orchestrated propaganda not withstanding, the proposed Klamath Water Deal is not needed to get the dams out. Even the assumption that a deal gets the dams out sooner dries up when one considers the multi-billion dollar price tag on the deal and the virtual impossibility that these dams could be certified as complying with water quality standards.

2. The dominant promoters of the Water Deal want certain “benefit programs” that address desires which have little or nothing to do with restoring the Klamath River.

While the details remain protected by a “Confidentially Agreement” (which increasingly looks like it was designed to prevent the People of the Klamath River Basin from learning the details of the Deal until after their leaders agree to it) KlamBlog and others who know what is going on can affirm that the Deal includes several additional costly “goodies” (inside the confidential negotiations these “goodies’ are referred to as “Christmas Ornaments”) including a Tribal Benefits Program and payoffs for counties. These benefit programs are designed to secure taxpayer funds to underwrite tribal and county government bureaucracies – including the tribes’ fisheries departments.[5]

Thus, when one strips away the propaganda hype, the proposed Klamath Water Deal looks a lot less like something needed to get the dams out than an attempt to use the dam issue to pursue other agendas which have little to nothing to do with Salmon Recovery and Klamath Restoration. Salmon may well be the “only thing” for the Indigenous Natives of the Klamath River; but the tribal governments which represent those Natives have other agendas that have nothing to do with Salmon Recovery.

3. The basic psychology of humans creates a nearly irresistible urge to conform to the group mind and the group agenda. For those who have invested so much personal time and effort, the compulsion to go along with “The Group” (no matter what rational self-interest and fidelity to the interest one serves indicates to the contrary) can be overwhelming.

Given that the proposed Klamath Water Deal will not lead to salmon recovery, will not institute a just and equitable approach to whole basin water management, is not necessary to get the dams out;[6] and is unlikely to get the dams out quicker than staying focused on PacifiCorp and the relicensing process…. Why are so many good enviros and salmon advocates willing to sign on?

The answer lies in the basic psyche of our species.

Unlike most of the enviro, agency, county and tribal participants in the Settlement Negotiations, KlamBlog’s principle writer has been in this sort of situation before. In the late 1980s, the Klamath Forest Alliance had the Forest Service and timber interests over a barrel. We had a good lawsuit that would block salvage logging on the entire Salmon River. So the industry and agency invited us to a “mediation group” to seek a “solution”. To make a long story short, KFA was going to give away the store until a hard nosed negotiator from The Wilderness Society arrived to save the day. The result: protection for riparian and roadless areas in exchange for logging going ahead in other areas. We did agree to one road being built in one roadless area.

Again during the Forest Wars, KlamBlog’s principal writer helped negotiated a deal with the Clinton Administration to release a few timber sales from the Northern Spotted Owl no-logging injunction we held with other forest groups from throughout the Northwest. Tagged “The Deal of Shame” we were attacked for allowing Old Growth logging. Those of us who made the deal point to the Aquatic Conservation Strategy and other Northwest Forest Plan protections which we subsequently gained from the Clinton Administration. But others still say we bowed unnecessarily to political pressure from our friends in the Clinton Administration. KlamBlog knows only one thing for sure – the internal and external pressures to go along with the deal were intense.

Finally, at home in Siskiyou County, KlamBlog’s principle writer and colleagues were invited to cut a deal with the timber industry that promised an end to the threats, intimidation, physical attacks and blackballing of self, wife and children that were the true cost of fighting the Timber Wars while living in a anti-environmental timber county. All we needed to do was agree to stop litigating over logging. The pressure to agree was intense; we walked away.

In each of these situations and in several others, KlamBlog’s principle writer has experienced the overwhelming pressure to conform to group norms, adopt the group’s perspectives and myths and go along with the “program” demanded as the price for acceptance by the group and all the good feelings that go along with that acceptance. Never has the main pressure come from the outside; the main pressure always comes from within.

For most of its existence, the human species has lived in small groups. Within these communities the dominant social glue has been the innate desire in each individual to be part of the group, to be accepted and loved.

Struggling to survive in a harsh and unforgiving world; conformance to group norms has been a key to our survival as a species, to avoiding personal and group annihilation. Because of its survival value, the internal compulsion to conform to the group mind has become a basic human trait.

So it should come as no surprise that activists and leaders who have worked long and hard for the Recovery of the Salmon and the Restoration of our River would now feel compelled to accept a Deal which, when looked at logically and in the light of all the facts, is neither necessary nor beneficial.

Knowing whence the strong internal compulsion to go along with the group mind comes, it is possible to resist, to stand back and get perspective, to fight the compulsion when the interest for which you stand is not served. It is possible to JUST SAY NO to a bad deal!

KlamBlog is betting that in the final analysis those who carry the mantle of the Salmon and the Environment, and those who truly serve the People of the Klamath River, will recognize that the Klamath Water Deal is neither necessary to get the dams out nor in the interest of those who depend on the River for their well being and livelihood. KlamBlog knows these leaders and representatives and believes they have the courage which is required if only they will turn from the Group and listen instead to the River as it speaks to their hearts.

---

Endnotes:

[1] It has now come to light that the federal agencies which – along with Yurok and Karuk representatives – have been driving the push for a Klamath Water Deal, will not be signing the Agreement. They are rightly concerned about a little item known as FACA – the Federal Advisory Committee Act – which requires that the public be allowed in whenever a federal agency is taking advice from any corporation or interest group. Oregon Wild –engineered out of the “Settlement Group” because they would not go along with the deal making – has already raised FACA as an issue. KlamBlog expects OW to sue (and win) a FACA challenge if the proposed Deal goes forward. Assertions by Deal promoters that OW might “stand aside” are beyond wishful thinking, they don’t pass the laugh test.

[2] In alphabetical order the six federal tribes are: Hoopa, Karuk, Klamath, Quartz Valley, Resighini and Yurok. The Klamath Tribes (made up of Klamath, Modoc and Yahooskin, descendants) have water rights guaranteed by treaty and affirmed by the US Supreme Court. The Hoopa, Quartz Valley and Yurok Tribes have water rights based on the establishment of their respective reservations on the Trinity, Scott and Lower Klamath River respectively. Experts in Indigenous Water Rights believe that the proposed Klamath Water Deal would negatively affect water rights of the Klamath Tribes and the Yurok Tribe.
There are also ‘tribes” in the Klamath River Basin that are not ‘recognized’ by the federal government. These include the Shasta Tribe and the Hayfork Band of Nor-El-Muk Wintu Indians. There are currently 43 California Native American organizations which have petitioned for federal regulation as tribes (see:http://www.kstrom.net/isk/maps/tribesnonrec.html#california).

[3] The Klamath Basin’s Irrigation Elite control about 40% of Klamath River Basin irrigation. They receive subsidized water from the Bureau of Reclamation. The affluence of this elite is based on leasing vast amounts of land at low prices. Most of this land is held by older former farmers and homesteaders who can no longer make a living on farms that average less than 150 acres in size. According to the Bureau of Reclamation “the project irrigates over 200,000 acres on about 1,400 farms.” This yields an average farm size of about 143 acres. Farms of this size became uneconomical in the 1980s due to changes in markets, labor, input and transportation costs. The Irrigation Elite also has access to almost 23,000 acres of National Wildlife refuge lands which are leased for commercial agriculture under terms of a controversial federal law from the 1960s. Those Klamath Project farmers and homesteaders who live in or near poverty are in this state at least in part because the Irrigation Elite conspires to keep land lease rates extremely low as compared to similar lands with similar access to water anywhere else in the Western US. Ironically, it is these poverty stricken older farmers who were used as the “poster children” for the 2001 “Klamath Water Crisis”. Meanwhile the Irrigation Elite amassed the largest government subsidies ever recorded in the Klamath River Basin for their 2001ag operations which were sold to the public as a “disaster”.

[4] Troy Fletcher, the ‘consultant’ who directs the Yurok Tribal Council’s Klamath policy, is a fisheries biologist. He has little experience with the system by which the State of California implements the Clean Water Act. When Mr. Fletcher was executive director of the Yurok Tribe he ordered the Tribe’s EPA director to not actively pursue recognition of the Tribe by the federal government as the equivalent of a state for purposes of the Clean Water Act. If the Tribe had that recognitions now the Yurok Tribe would be in a position to block certification of the PaficiCorp dams without litigation.
The Hoopa Tribe does have federal regognition as the equivalent of a state for purposes of Clean Water Act enforcement. Because of Mr. Fletcher's decision and because a corner of the Hoopa Reservation crosses the Klamath River above Weitchpec, the Hoopa Tribe is the sole Klamath River Basin tribe in a position to stop relicensing of the dams through its own regulatory action. Too bad the Yurok’s did not pursue obtaining this key regulatory power.

[5] This makes KlamBlog wonder whether some tribal biologists are constrained as much by organizational interest as by loyalty when they remain silent on a deal fellow scientists whom they respect say won’t lead to “salmon recovery”. I suspect, however, that their concerns are more immediate: How likely would it be for a tribal fisheries biologist who spoke out publicly against the Water Deal to retain his/her job?

[6] PacifiCorps will ultimately agree to go along with dam removal because that is what is in the economic interest of its owners. They will, of course, play the game in such a way that the financial cost of dam removal is passed on to taxpayers. But the core reason they will cut a deal for dam removal is that – should the relicensing actually play out and the license to operate them not be granted because the dams can not be certified as complying with water quality standards – PacifiCorp would be solely responsible for removing the dams and mitigating all related impacts. This is a chance that PacifiCorp’s owners have no intention of taking. They will settle and get out with minimum losses. When that happens, not even KlamBlog will complain about them getting a free ride out of the Klamath River Basin!

KlamBlog Correction

Karuk Tribe spokesperson and PhD Craig Tucker has corrected KlamBlog! In our December 13th posting we misquoted Yogi Berra's famous quote. We said the quote was:

"It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings."

According to Doctor Tucker the correct quote is:

"It ain't over til its over"

The first and second quotes are related. You can read about that at:

http://www.santacruzpl.org/readyref/files/d-f/fat.shtml

According to the authorities the first quote was also differently stated:

"The opera ain't over until the fat lady sings"

And, according to the Baseball Almanac, the Yogi Berra quote properly should read:

"The game's isn't over until it's over."

So what does this have to do with the Klamath River? I dunno. But maybe it will remind us all that those who claim to know the way things are sometimes don't really know and don't always even know that they don't know. You know?

Have a blissful Solstice!

COMMON MISCONCEPTION CLOUDS DAM REMOVAL DEAL!

The recent Sacramento Bee scoop - which found that the proposed Klamath River Fish & Farms Settlement will not lead to salmon recovery - contained the following:

"Four small hydroelectric dams operated by PacifiCorp cut the river system in half, diverting so much water to high desert irrigation in southern Oregon that in dry years there isn't enough for both farmers and fish, let alone to flush out parasites and diseases downstream of the dams."

In fact, the "four small hydro dams" do not "divert" any water for "dessert irrigation". The PacifiCorp dams only make power using the highly polluted return flows which the US Bureau of Reclamation allows to pass down the Klamath. Hyper-nutrient enriched irrigation drainage is most of that flow. The dams do make notoriously bad Upper Basin water quality worse. The bad water flows downstream to the dams. By the third and fourth dams - Copco and iron Gate - toxic algae scum is produced in the reservoirs. And below the dams is a death zone where most juvenile salmon die in annual fish disease epidemics.

The erroneous connection of PacifiCorp's hydro dams with diversion of river flows for irrigation is not limited to reporters. Rather it is repeated up and down the River. I've heard it, for example, in a play about the "Klamath Crisis" produced by well meaning but obviously badly informed folks connected with Humboldt State University. The play showed at several locations including Klamath near the mouth.

The Klamath dams-irrigation confusion is perfectly understandable. Many western dams do serve as diversion for irrigation and concurrently for power generation. But why haven't any of the tribes, agencies, fishing, irrigation and environmental groups who all know that the dams are not supply irrigation water and who also have media and scientific staff corrected the often repeated mis-information?

The answer may be that those who are promoting a big package Klamath Settlement that would include both a water deal and dam removal would like the press and public to believe the two issues - water allocation and dam removal - are connected.

The Klamath Water Users Association, which represents the Basin's Irrigation Elite, has always claimed a connection between dams and irrigation. They have maintained that the original deal with the power company that built the dams traded their right to divert the entire flow of the Upper Klamath for agriculture for low power rights. But the Oregon and California Public Utilities Commissions have rejected this claim.

Now it has been revealed that the 26 agencies and organizations engaged in ongoing Klamath Settlement negotiations between closed doors Those who are driving the Klamath Settlement Negotiations - the Klamath Water Users Association, Yurok Tribal consultant Troy Fletcher and Those who closely watch the and What is more interesting is the fact that the confusion has not been corrected by any of the tribes, agencies of environmental groups which all have press staffs who regularly y do you suppose these errors - whether of press or community - are not corrected?

Blockbuster study leaks out of "confidential" negotiations - proposed water deal will not lead to salmon recovery

As we have noted in the past, cracks have appeared in the "confidential" Klamath Settlement negotiations. The latest crack is a blockbuster - a study of the proposed water settlement commissioned by the Northcoast Environmental Center (NEC) with funds from the Sierra Club and others has been leaked to the Sacramento Bee. A news article about the study by the Bee's DC reporter appeared in the December 9th edition.

The Bee article on the leaked NEC reports and a link to it are reprinted below. The bottom line is that the independent scientists commissioned by the NEC do not believe the water deal as proposed will lead to recovery of Klamath River salmon. The independent scientists are also concerned that promised flows for fish may not actually materialize since they depend on creating "new" water through storage and conservation projects controlled by the Bureau of Reclamation and Klamath Irrigators. The "new water" will also dependent on annual federal appropriations.

NEC Executive Director Greg King has promised NEC members that NEC leaders will consult with them before deciding whether or not to endorse the proposed water deal which is being aggressively promoted by representatives of the Klamath Water Users Association (KWUA) as well as by representatives of the Karuk and Yurok tribes. KWUA represents the Irrigation Elite - those irrigators who for nearly 100 years have receive all the subsidized water they desired through the US Bureau of Reclamation's Klamath Project. But the NEC can't consult with its members now or release the report because of the increasingly controversial "confidentiality agreement" under which the negotiations are being conducted.

Support among Karuk and Yurok rank and file members has been solid for the strategy of compromise with irrigators which their leaders have implemented for the past year or two. Recently, however, some tribal members have questioned whether the proposed deal is really in the interest of the Yurok and Karuk People and the "seventh generation". These members say the deal will compromise or extinguish tribal water rights in favor of cash payments for projects and priorities favored by current tribal government leaders.

The assertions of these tribal members are supported by what KlamBlog has seen in other river basins where the Bush Administration has worked consistently to limit or extinguish tribal water rights in exchange for cash payments to tribal governments for restoration projects and other short-term benefits. (For a good example of this Bush Interior strategy goggle "Deschutes River restoration agreement"). Chris Peter's - a Yurok-Karuk traditionalist and president of the Seventh Generation Fund - has pointed out that the push by governments and corporations to extinguish indigenous water rights is a world-wide phenomenon which is being opposed by a plethora of grassroots indigenous groups through the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/) and other efforts.

And so the Klamath Dance gets more interesting! As predicted by KlamBlog, there is a lot more drama ahead (and by this we mean political twists and turns) than those who have long promoted a deal that until recently hasn't even been written down counted on. As the Yogi said "It ain't over 'till the fat lady sings"!

Stay tuned, KlamaBlog will do its best to separate the bull from the compost as this drama unfolds!

________________________

http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/553847.html

Fish benefit of a Klamath pact questioned

As groups plan to vote on water deal, new studies say salmon may get shorted.

By David Whitney - dwhitney@mcclatchydc.com
Published 12:00 am PST Sunday, December 9, 2007

WASHINGTON – Environmentalists, Indian tribes, fishermen and farmers have been meeting in private for months trying to come up with a deal to turn the battle over Klamath River water into a showcase for cooperation and restoration.

Now, just as the 26 organizations involved in the secret talks are about to vote on whether to endorse the nearly completed pact, new studies raise doubts about whether it will send enough water down the ailing 263-mile-long river to lift its salmon runs from the brink of extinction.

No one disputes that the river is killing fish.

Recent runs have been so poor that Congress sent $60 million earlier this year to help relieve a financial disaster for fishermen, the result of a massive fish kill in 2002. Troubling signs now are emerging on the river's tributaries, including the Shasta River, where scientists are puzzled about why hundreds of thousands of small fingerlings die before they reach the Pacific Ocean.

Neither is there any dispute over the leading cause.

Four small hydroelectric dams operated by PacifiCorp cut the river system in half, diverting so much water to high desert irrigation in southern Oregon that in dry years there isn't enough for both farmers and fish, let alone to flush out parasites and diseases downstream of the dams.

Parallel talks are under way with the Portland-based utility to remove the dams. The proposed deal focuses on amicably resolving other issues, including how much water farmers get in the upper basin and how much is sent down the river, on the assumption the dams are coming down.

It is an expensive proposal intended to bring peace to the river system for 60 years. Over the first dozen years, it calls for more than $900 million in federal spending – twice what taxpayers are now spending.

"I think we're on the brink of totally redefining how the Klamath River is operated, and making a landscape change in the upper basin that will be good for everybody," said Craig Tucker of the Karuk Tribe in Northern California, a leading advocate of the deal.

But two recent studies prepared for the Northcoast Environmental Center in Arcata, one of the parties to the talks, raise troubling questions about whether the deal is that good for fish.

William Trush, an environmental consultant on the faculty of California State University, Humboldt, and Greg Kamman, a hydrologist for a San Rafael consulting company, were provided assumptions and text of portions of the deal. Both see huge gains in knocking down the dams but are skeptical about what the deal otherwise would do for fish.

Their Nov. 9 reports question whether the deal can produce the additional water storage that it promises. They are critical of specific allocations of water for irrigation and nothing similar for restoring salmon runs. And the timelines are fuzzy.

"I am concerned that the successful implementation of the settlement agreement hinges on a conceptual plan which has no guarantees of being achieved within a specified amount of time," Kamman wrote.

The reports, which follow a National Research Council study last month supporting higher river flows, pose the potential for pushing some participants away from the deal.

"They could cause problems; I don't know," said Greg Addington of the Klamath Water Users Association. "But we want the agreement to work for fish."

Greg King of Northcoast declined to talk about the studies his group commissioned, saying he was concerned they had been leaked to The Bee in apparent violation of confidentiality agreements.

But the group's board of directors has been meeting to formulate its position on the settlement, and King called river flows the group's "most crucial issue."

"It's dicey," he said of the agreement. "We would be giving up some of our legal rights."

Commercial fishermen involved in the talks also seemed more cautious because the gains they want are outside the power of the negotiators to produce.

"The intent of the settlement agreement is to assure more water in the river, even during droughts, than has historically occurred," said Glen Spain of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations.

Critics of the deal say the studies may make the proposal's funding, already a huge issue, even more problematic. Much of the money would provide power subsidies for irrigators and economic development funds for counties and Indian tribes as well as restoration of the river and basin.

Critics wonder why Congress would agree to spend more than $900 million for this when there are doubts it will recover endangered fish. Some think the salmon runs are being sacrificed for news coverage of the dams someday being torn out.

"What I worry about is the trade-off," said Bob Hunter, a staff attorney for Water Watch of Oregon.

Jim McCarthy, spokesman for Oregon Wild, said he sees a "boondoggle" in the making.

"With no set allocation for fish, it says we are hoping to get the flows they need," he said. "But the flows they are talking about are less than what the scientists say the fish need."

But Tucker, of the Karuk Tribe, said that Water Watch and Oregon Wild – excluded from talks last year after they refused to sign onto the framework for them – are trying to torpedo the deal.

Feedback on Nov. 30th KlamBlog Post

This addition to the 11/30 KlamBlog post .....

The photo below is of the Scott River at Serpa Lane near Fort Jones. It was taken this July. In addition to low flow, you can see the tracks of cattle in the bed of the stream. Scott River farmers have received funding to exclude livestock from the Scott River. However, it is still very common there to see livestock or their tracks in the bed of the river as well as in tributary streams. The riparian vegetation visible in this picture is the result of a government funded bank stabilization project.

...... prompted one Northcoast restorationist to contact KlamBlog to inform us that cattle exclusion is required for 10-years when state or federal salmon restoration dollars are granted for riparian fencing. Scott Valley ranchers have successfully argued for seasonal grazing and river access zones for livestock watering. KlamBlog wui=

(Add basin plan violation here)

__________________________________________

~ New Feature Coming to KlamBlog ~

In the weeks ahead KlamBlog will publish photos and commentary exposing some of the questionable projects in the Scott Valley which have been funded with salmon and watershed restoration funds over the past 20 years.

KlamBlog is doing this because the California Department of Fish and Game is rhumored to be coming out soon with a proposal to give the local Scott Valley Resource Conservation District a master permit under which farmers and ranchers in the Valley would have permission to "take" Coho salmon. The Coho are listed as "threatened" under the California and federal Endangered Species Acts. The rancher-farmer dominated Siskiyou RCD would be Presumably this would insulate ranchers and farmers from responsibility if Coho are found dead on their property.

One of the arguments used to justify the "Take Permit" is the many millions of dollars spent "restoring' the Scott River. KlamBlog will show some of what this investment of taxpayer funds has financed. Stay tuned!

_____________________

Bonus Photo ~

A typical July day in Scott Valley