The California State Grange and the National Grange recently passed the following resolution:
WHEREAS: THE KLAMATH RIVER WAS THE THIRD LARGEST SALMON FISHERY ON THE PACIFIC COAST, AND
WHEREAS: IN SEPTEMBER OF 2002, LOW FLOWS AND WATER QUALITY DEGRADATION CAUSED A KILL OF MORE THAN 33,000 MIGRATING SALMON AND SIMILAR CONDITIONS CAUSED SIGNIFICANT SALMON KIILS IN 1994, 1997, AND 2000 AND,
WHEREAS: A DRAFT KLAMATH BASIN RESTORATION AGREEMENT WRITTEN BY THE KLAMATH SETTLEMENT GROUP (CONSISTING OF 26 STAKEHOLDER ORGANIZATIONS) WAS RELEASED IN JANUARY OF 2008 SETTING FORTH SHORT AND LONG TERM RESTORATION GOALS AND RIVER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES, AND
WHEREAS: THE PLAN IS INCOMPLETE AND DOES NOT INCLUDE INPUT FROM ALL POTENTIAL STAKEHOLDERS AND DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN ACTED UPON, AND
WHEREAS: UNDER THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE, THE WATERS OF THE KLAMATH RIVER ARE OWNED BY THE STATES FOR THE PEOPLE IN PUBLIC TRUST, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED: THE CALIFORNIA STATE GRANGE AND THE NATIONAL GRANGE SHALL PETITION THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE AND THE NATIONAL CONGRESS TO CONVENE HEARINGS TO ACHIEVE A KLAMATH BASIN RESTORATION PLAN AND TO FUND A COMPLETE STAKEHOLDER WORKING GROUP TO PRODUCE A DEFINITIVE KLAMATH BASIN RESTORATION PLAN TO BE SUBMITTED TO CONGRESS FOR FUNDING.
This resolution puts The Grange on a collision course with promoters of the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA) and with the Irrigation Elite who would be that agreement’s main beneficiary. This is an amazing development because for many years The Grange has supported most positions of Big Agriculture. Even more amazing is the endorsement of the Public Trust Doctrine contained in the resolution. This also is in conflict with Big Ag which is working hard to transform public trust water into a private commodity.
The Grange emerged after the Civil War as a populist organization representing small family farmers and their communities. At the time these small farmers were being squeezed by the railroads, the banks and newly emerging industrial agriculture. It was a progressive, activist organization and considered radical by some.
As industrial agriculture expanded and came to dominate, the Grange – like the family farmers it represents – shrunk in membership and influence. It also became staunchly conservative. Late in the 20th century the Grange in Northern California came to be dominated by anti-environmental property-rights activists.
Here’s a link to an article about the Grange and here are links to the National and California State Grange web sites.
So what’s up with the Grange today? What motivated its leaders to take action in opposition to the Irrigation Elite and the KBRA? KlamBlog is not sure but we intend to invite those who championed the Grange Klamath Resolution to clarify their position on this site.
The inside scoop on Klamath River Basin resources issues from someone who actually lives there!
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Monday, December 14, 2009
Mike Thompson says he will introduce Klamath River legislation in January
In response to a question during an electronic Town Hall meeting the evening of December 9th, North Coast Congressman Mike Thompson indicated that he would be introducing Klamath River legislation in January.
Here’s the question that was put to Thompson by a constituent:
"One thing on our minds in Humboldt County is the Klamath Dam Removal Deal.
Given that a number of parties have expressed concerns with the Klamath Settlement Negotiations and the linkage between dam removal and the $985 million Restoration Deal, how do you think you will proceed on introducing legislation?"
Thompson did not appear eager to talk about the Klamath River during a meeting dominated by health care. But he did give a clear indication that he was working with the Interior Department on Klamath legislation. Since the Interior Department is a party to the proposed Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA) and the proposed Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA) this response appears to indicate that Mr. Thompson plans to introduce the legislation which those remaining in negotiators are drafting behind closed doors.
Those with concerns about the Klamath Deals hoped Mr. Thompson would consider ideas, concepts and proposals from all his constituents and other Klamath River stakeholders who are not party to the closed door negotiations or who have rejected the resulting deals before drafting his own legislation.
Leading Northern California environmentalists - including Greg King, Diane Beck and Felice Pace - and prominent environmental organizations based in Mr. Thompson’s district - including the Northcoast Environmental Center (NEC) and Friends of Del Norte - favor dam removal but reject the proposed dam and water deals. Those opposing the deals are concerned because they do not commit to actually removing the dams, delay the removal unnecessarily, do not sufficiently protect water quality in the interim until the dams are removed and because the dam deal is linked to the controversial and costly KBRA. You can read Klamath Campaign Coordinator Jay Wright’s article explaining the NEC’s “new course" on the Klamath Deals on line.
Thompson indicated that he would be introducing legislation with an Oregon congressman but did not indicate whom that might be. The Upper Klamath Basin is represented by Greg Walden. Walden is running for reelection; he has yet to take a position on the Klamath deals. Peter DeFazio – who represents the Southern Oregon Coast - has also been involved in Klamath River issues. Last year he worked with Mike Thompson to obtain funding for fish disease research on the Klamath. DeFazio is a Democrat.
If Mr. Thompson decides to carry legislation being drafted by those remaining in Klamath negotiators he may face opposition from more than those who want to see a better dam removal deal. There is fierce opposition to the deals in the Upper Basin and in Siskiyou County. That opposition includes irrigators who believe that the deals give the Irigation Elite - the small group of irrigators who dominate irrigation on federal Klamath Project - an unfair competitive advantage via the KBRA's power and other subsidies.
The KBRA would require close to $1 billion dollars in spending and many millions more to purchase water from irrigators to meet salmon flow needs during drought years. Nearly half a billion dollars would be new spending. Thompson still caucuses with the Blue Dog Democrats who are deficit hawks. Organizations which fight government waste and subsidies – including Taxpayers for Common Sense - may get involved. While deal spending is being marketed as “restoration” two-thirds is actually subsidies to irrigators, tribes and counties.
One of the details on the Klamath Deals which has not yet been worked out is how to pay for them. The Obama Administration’s Office of Management and Budget is reportedly concerned about the spending – much of which would go to the Irrigation Elite. Congress so-called “pay go” rules would require that Mr. Thompson and other sponsors of legislation identify where they would cut funding to compensate for the new spending.
Another unresolved detail is the proposal to provide the Klamath Basin’s Irrigation Elite with access to cheap power from the Bonneville Power Administration. That proposal is likely being opposed by the aluminum and internet industries which have built plants along the Columbia River to take advantage of cheap Bonneville Power. Giving the Irrigation Elite access to Bonneville Power means less of that power would be available for existing users.
Most Bonneville power comes from Columbia River dams. Those dams have been implicated in the decline of salmon populations in the Columbia River Basin. Bonneville power for the Irrigation Elite would make those irrigators complicit in the Columbia Basin’s salmon decline. Likewise, the linkage of the proposed deals to the California Water Bond initiative could implicate the deal makers in approval of a Peripheral Canal to carry more Northern California water to farmers in the San Joaquin Valley and to Southern California cities. If the Peripheral Canal is built many California water watchers expect new attempts to divert more Klamath and Trinity River water south during the winter. River research indicates that high winter flows play a key role in sustaining river ecosystems - including salmon.
If they make it through Congress as negotiated, the Klamath Deals will carry implications not only for Klamath River Salmon but for Columbia River and Sacramento-San Joaquin Salmon as well.
Here’s the question that was put to Thompson by a constituent:
"One thing on our minds in Humboldt County is the Klamath Dam Removal Deal.
Given that a number of parties have expressed concerns with the Klamath Settlement Negotiations and the linkage between dam removal and the $985 million Restoration Deal, how do you think you will proceed on introducing legislation?"
Thompson did not appear eager to talk about the Klamath River during a meeting dominated by health care. But he did give a clear indication that he was working with the Interior Department on Klamath legislation. Since the Interior Department is a party to the proposed Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA) and the proposed Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA) this response appears to indicate that Mr. Thompson plans to introduce the legislation which those remaining in negotiators are drafting behind closed doors.
Those with concerns about the Klamath Deals hoped Mr. Thompson would consider ideas, concepts and proposals from all his constituents and other Klamath River stakeholders who are not party to the closed door negotiations or who have rejected the resulting deals before drafting his own legislation.
Leading Northern California environmentalists - including Greg King, Diane Beck and Felice Pace - and prominent environmental organizations based in Mr. Thompson’s district - including the Northcoast Environmental Center (NEC) and Friends of Del Norte - favor dam removal but reject the proposed dam and water deals. Those opposing the deals are concerned because they do not commit to actually removing the dams, delay the removal unnecessarily, do not sufficiently protect water quality in the interim until the dams are removed and because the dam deal is linked to the controversial and costly KBRA. You can read Klamath Campaign Coordinator Jay Wright’s article explaining the NEC’s “new course" on the Klamath Deals on line.
Thompson indicated that he would be introducing legislation with an Oregon congressman but did not indicate whom that might be. The Upper Klamath Basin is represented by Greg Walden. Walden is running for reelection; he has yet to take a position on the Klamath deals. Peter DeFazio – who represents the Southern Oregon Coast - has also been involved in Klamath River issues. Last year he worked with Mike Thompson to obtain funding for fish disease research on the Klamath. DeFazio is a Democrat.
If Mr. Thompson decides to carry legislation being drafted by those remaining in Klamath negotiators he may face opposition from more than those who want to see a better dam removal deal. There is fierce opposition to the deals in the Upper Basin and in Siskiyou County. That opposition includes irrigators who believe that the deals give the Irigation Elite - the small group of irrigators who dominate irrigation on federal Klamath Project - an unfair competitive advantage via the KBRA's power and other subsidies.
The KBRA would require close to $1 billion dollars in spending and many millions more to purchase water from irrigators to meet salmon flow needs during drought years. Nearly half a billion dollars would be new spending. Thompson still caucuses with the Blue Dog Democrats who are deficit hawks. Organizations which fight government waste and subsidies – including Taxpayers for Common Sense - may get involved. While deal spending is being marketed as “restoration” two-thirds is actually subsidies to irrigators, tribes and counties.
One of the details on the Klamath Deals which has not yet been worked out is how to pay for them. The Obama Administration’s Office of Management and Budget is reportedly concerned about the spending – much of which would go to the Irrigation Elite. Congress so-called “pay go” rules would require that Mr. Thompson and other sponsors of legislation identify where they would cut funding to compensate for the new spending.
Another unresolved detail is the proposal to provide the Klamath Basin’s Irrigation Elite with access to cheap power from the Bonneville Power Administration. That proposal is likely being opposed by the aluminum and internet industries which have built plants along the Columbia River to take advantage of cheap Bonneville Power. Giving the Irrigation Elite access to Bonneville Power means less of that power would be available for existing users.
Most Bonneville power comes from Columbia River dams. Those dams have been implicated in the decline of salmon populations in the Columbia River Basin. Bonneville power for the Irrigation Elite would make those irrigators complicit in the Columbia Basin’s salmon decline. Likewise, the linkage of the proposed deals to the California Water Bond initiative could implicate the deal makers in approval of a Peripheral Canal to carry more Northern California water to farmers in the San Joaquin Valley and to Southern California cities. If the Peripheral Canal is built many California water watchers expect new attempts to divert more Klamath and Trinity River water south during the winter. River research indicates that high winter flows play a key role in sustaining river ecosystems - including salmon.
If they make it through Congress as negotiated, the Klamath Deals will carry implications not only for Klamath River Salmon but for Columbia River and Sacramento-San Joaquin Salmon as well.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Keep KlamBlog Indpendent and Non-commercial
Whatever your politics I hope you will agree that KlamBlog brings to light information and perspectives on Klamath River issues which are not available elsewhere. That is why I founded the Blog: as one antidote to the epidemic of secrecy and back room dealing that has become far too prevalent in the Klamath River Basin. But it takes time to uncover what others would like to keep hidden. KlamBlog takes 8 to 10 hours per week to research, write and distribute. Neither it nor I receive grant or organizational funding for that work; nor does KlamBlog accept advertising. But the financial burden of supporting KlamBlog through my other work has become problematic. That’s why I’m inviting you to make a contribution in support of KlamBlog’s continued existence. Your contribution will help keep KlamBlog independent and non-commercial.
Newspapers and other formal media sources have cut budgets for news collecting – many of them now rely on press releases for information. Press releases reflect the biases of the organizations which write them. As a result of the demise of independent, investigative news reporting the public has had to turn to non-traditional sources of information in order to keep informed. For the Klamath River Basin KlamBlog is the only non-traditional information source with both a biocentric perspective and a commitment to democratic process.
The blog is rooted in the belief that the public should be informed and involved in decisions about public resources. But experience has taught me that foundation funding and commercialization can compromise ones ability to just tell it like it is. Some foundations overtly use funding to control the agenda of organizations they fund. Others don’t interfere. But either way those who want to receive grants pay attention to what the foundations are funding and tailor their programs to conform to those foundation agendas.
KlamBlog has sought to avoid that funding game and its potential influence – however subtle - on the information presented and the opinions expressed on the blog. But that has become a financial burden. And so I am coming to you – KlamBlog’s readers – to help out.
Donations to KlamBlog are not tax deductible. Checks should be made payable to Felice Pace and mailed to 28 Maple Rd. Klamath, California 95548. Donors who wish to remain anonymous can use a money order or cashiers check.
Water – the source of life – is the most public of all resources. Help keep information on the management of water in the Klamath River Basin flowing. Please contribute if you can.
Felice Pace
Newspapers and other formal media sources have cut budgets for news collecting – many of them now rely on press releases for information. Press releases reflect the biases of the organizations which write them. As a result of the demise of independent, investigative news reporting the public has had to turn to non-traditional sources of information in order to keep informed. For the Klamath River Basin KlamBlog is the only non-traditional information source with both a biocentric perspective and a commitment to democratic process.
The blog is rooted in the belief that the public should be informed and involved in decisions about public resources. But experience has taught me that foundation funding and commercialization can compromise ones ability to just tell it like it is. Some foundations overtly use funding to control the agenda of organizations they fund. Others don’t interfere. But either way those who want to receive grants pay attention to what the foundations are funding and tailor their programs to conform to those foundation agendas.
KlamBlog has sought to avoid that funding game and its potential influence – however subtle - on the information presented and the opinions expressed on the blog. But that has become a financial burden. And so I am coming to you – KlamBlog’s readers – to help out.
Donations to KlamBlog are not tax deductible. Checks should be made payable to Felice Pace and mailed to 28 Maple Rd. Klamath, California 95548. Donors who wish to remain anonymous can use a money order or cashiers check.
Water – the source of life – is the most public of all resources. Help keep information on the management of water in the Klamath River Basin flowing. Please contribute if you can.
Felice Pace
Sunday, December 6, 2009
The Klamath Justice Coalition is the grassroots, Indigenous-led group which – with help from Klamath Riverkeeper, the Seventh Generation Fund and others – has organized and led protests and direct actions from Portland, to Omaha and Scotland to call on PacifiCorp and its stockholders to take down the dams. Lately the Justice Coalition has been holding forums and discussion so that river residents can find out what is actually in the KBRA and KHSA, the dam and water deals. Yesterday, the Coalition – along with the Eureka Times Standard and others sponsors - held a panel discussion at Humboldt State University. About fifty people – including council members from the Hoopa Tribe and Yurok Tribe – attended.
For those who are regular readers of this Blog, not much of what was discussed at the Forum will be new. But there was one new piece of information revealed which may prove important as the focus shifts from negotiations among stakeholders to the US Congress.
Craig Tucker, who represents the Karuk Tribe, spoke first. He presented a power point promoting the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA) and emphasized that the roughly $1 billion dollars of federal spending which the KBRA calls for is needed for restoration activities.
Several other speakers later pointed out that much of the money Tucker claims is for “restoration” is actually subsidies to the Irrigation Elite. Study of Appendix B1 and B2 of the proposed (KBRA) confirms that this is the case. Of a total ten year budget of $985,202,000 only $322,495,000 – or 32.7% - would go for restoration projects. Of the remaining 67.3%:
Jay Wright and Scott Greacen represented the Northcoast Environmental Center (NEC) at the Forum. Wright explained that the NEC strongly favors dam removal but is concerned because the proposed Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA) does not commit PacifiCorp, the federal government or the states to dam removal but only to a process to consider dam removal. He said the NEC does not think it is a good idea to force dam removal and the controversial and costly KBRA into the same legislation. The NEC has joined with Oregon Wild, Water Watch and other conservation organizations to advocate for clean dam legislation which Wright claimed would result in the dams coming out much sooner.
The Yurok Tribe and the Hoopa Tribe each presented their positions. The Hoopa do not favor the tribal waiver of rights which is in the KBRA and KHSA. They are also seeking assurances that funding for the Klamath River Basin will not be taken out of funds required to restore the Trinity River. The Yurok Tribe’s Troy Fletcher presented the Yurok Tribe’s view that the waiver only applies to past actions and is in other ways so limited that it is not important. KlamBlog can not help but wonder why the Bush Administration insisted that the waivers must be part of the deal if they are unimportant.
Back and forth between those representing the Hoopa Tribe and those representing the Yurok Tribe occupied much of the meeting. These two tribes have a history of conflict going way back. That conflict seems to be alive and well in spite of the fact that many members of each tribe have ancestors from both tribes and that they participate in each others traditional ceremonies.
One of the few new pieces of information presented at the forum came from long-time Klamath River activist Felice Pace who is also the primary author on this blog. Pace pointed out that the proposed KBRA calls for a drought plan. This indicates that under the flows and irrigation water allocations proposed in the KBRA there would not be enough water to meet flow targets in very dry years and during extended droughts.
Pace said he had worked with government and other specialists to determine how many years there would have been insufficient water supply to meet KBRA flow targets if those targets and KBRA proposed irrigation water allocations had been in place over the past 30 years. What they found was that in 7 out of the past 30 years there would not have been enough water supply to meet both KBRA flow targets and KBRA priority water allocation to the Irrigation Elite. Under these circumstances the water fish need would have to be leased from irrigators.
Pace said that the largest yearly deficit would have been 55,637 acre feet (an acre foot is the amount of water needed to cover 1 acre of land with water 1 foot deep). In 2009 the California State Water Bank paid $275 per acre foot of water. At this price, meeting the flows KBRA proponents say fish need would have cost over $15 million dollars in that one year alone. Pace asserted that leasing water to meet the needs of salmon is not sustainable and bad policy to boot.
The cost of the Drought Plan that KBRA flow and irrigation water allocations would necessitate is a major reason opponents of the KBRA say the deal is not a good idea. If Congress goes along with the KBRA and gives the first right to Klamath River water to irrigators then irrigators must be paid if some of that water is needed for fish. Under the Public Trust Doctrine as expressed in California Water and Fish & Game Codes, fish have a right to the amount of water they need to survive and thrive. Federal legislation implementing the KBRA would preempt those Public Trust rights.
Toward the end of the Forum, Kathy McCovey and Georgianna Myers of the Klamath Justice Coalition made pleas for unity. They expressed concern that Klamath River tribes and others who had previously made common cause to get the dams down were now divided and observed that divide and conquer had long been a federal policy with respect to tribes. This led to calls for a tribal summit and to pleas for unity from some of the council members present.
The Klamath Justice Coalition made a video of the Forum. To make a contribution in support of their Coalition’s work or to request a copy of the Forum video contact Georgianna Myers: sregonlady@gmail.com.
For those who are regular readers of this Blog, not much of what was discussed at the Forum will be new. But there was one new piece of information revealed which may prove important as the focus shifts from negotiations among stakeholders to the US Congress.
Craig Tucker, who represents the Karuk Tribe, spoke first. He presented a power point promoting the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA) and emphasized that the roughly $1 billion dollars of federal spending which the KBRA calls for is needed for restoration activities.
Several other speakers later pointed out that much of the money Tucker claims is for “restoration” is actually subsidies to the Irrigation Elite. Study of Appendix B1 and B2 of the proposed (KBRA) confirms that this is the case. Of a total ten year budget of $985,202,000 only $322,495,000 – or 32.7% - would go for restoration projects. Of the remaining 67.3%:
- • 34.4% ($338,002,000) would go directly to the Irrigation Elite – the small group of wealthy irrigators who receive water from the federal Klamath Project. Public oversight of how that money would be spent is constrained by the proposed KBRA. Most of this money is for studies; it is unclear if any of it would be used for restoration.
- 8% ($80,000,000) would go directly to tribes. This would likely be used to support tribal fisheries and water resources departments.
- 2.4% ($23,200,000) would go directly to counties (most to Siskiyou County). There’s no telling how this money would be spent but it is unlikely it would go toward restoration.
- 4.8% ($47,500,000) would go for “Regulatory Assurances”. Irrigators have demanded protection from state and federal endangered species laws. The bulk of this money would go for development and agency review of Habitat Conservation Plans which – once approved – would provide a permit to Upper Basin Irrigators to “take” endangered species including Coho Salmon, Bald Eagles and Bull Trout. This is the sort of wink-and-nod ESA procedure which allows proponents of the deals to claim they are not changing any laws at the same time that they tell irrigators they won’t have to worry about the ESA.
- 11.9% ($117,541) would go to pay for “monitoring”. The funds would actually go to the entities doing the monitoring whether agencies, tribes or irrigators. We already have lots of monitoring in the Klamath River Basin but additional monitoring would be needed for reintroduced salmon and for the sort of active real-time water management the KBRA envisions.
- 5.4% ($53,159,000) would go to actively reintroducing salmon into the Upper Klamath Basin. Many salmon advocates favor passive restoration, i.e. allowing salmon to reinhabit the Upper Basin on their own once the dams are removed. Passive restoration would be much cheaper; only monitoring the salmon’s progress would be required. ESA-listed salmon which passively find their way to new habitats automatically receive full ESA protection; salmon which are actively reintroduced by humans (as proposed in the KBRA) do not have full ESA protection. Actively reintroduced salmon populations can be removed at the discretion of federal and state wildlife agencies.
- .4% ($3,307,000) would go for “governance” including managing the money and supporting the advisory committees and technical teams the KBRA would establish.
Jay Wright and Scott Greacen represented the Northcoast Environmental Center (NEC) at the Forum. Wright explained that the NEC strongly favors dam removal but is concerned because the proposed Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA) does not commit PacifiCorp, the federal government or the states to dam removal but only to a process to consider dam removal. He said the NEC does not think it is a good idea to force dam removal and the controversial and costly KBRA into the same legislation. The NEC has joined with Oregon Wild, Water Watch and other conservation organizations to advocate for clean dam legislation which Wright claimed would result in the dams coming out much sooner.
The Yurok Tribe and the Hoopa Tribe each presented their positions. The Hoopa do not favor the tribal waiver of rights which is in the KBRA and KHSA. They are also seeking assurances that funding for the Klamath River Basin will not be taken out of funds required to restore the Trinity River. The Yurok Tribe’s Troy Fletcher presented the Yurok Tribe’s view that the waiver only applies to past actions and is in other ways so limited that it is not important. KlamBlog can not help but wonder why the Bush Administration insisted that the waivers must be part of the deal if they are unimportant.
Back and forth between those representing the Hoopa Tribe and those representing the Yurok Tribe occupied much of the meeting. These two tribes have a history of conflict going way back. That conflict seems to be alive and well in spite of the fact that many members of each tribe have ancestors from both tribes and that they participate in each others traditional ceremonies.
One of the few new pieces of information presented at the forum came from long-time Klamath River activist Felice Pace who is also the primary author on this blog. Pace pointed out that the proposed KBRA calls for a drought plan. This indicates that under the flows and irrigation water allocations proposed in the KBRA there would not be enough water to meet flow targets in very dry years and during extended droughts.
Pace said he had worked with government and other specialists to determine how many years there would have been insufficient water supply to meet KBRA flow targets if those targets and KBRA proposed irrigation water allocations had been in place over the past 30 years. What they found was that in 7 out of the past 30 years there would not have been enough water supply to meet both KBRA flow targets and KBRA priority water allocation to the Irrigation Elite. Under these circumstances the water fish need would have to be leased from irrigators.
Pace said that the largest yearly deficit would have been 55,637 acre feet (an acre foot is the amount of water needed to cover 1 acre of land with water 1 foot deep). In 2009 the California State Water Bank paid $275 per acre foot of water. At this price, meeting the flows KBRA proponents say fish need would have cost over $15 million dollars in that one year alone. Pace asserted that leasing water to meet the needs of salmon is not sustainable and bad policy to boot.
The cost of the Drought Plan that KBRA flow and irrigation water allocations would necessitate is a major reason opponents of the KBRA say the deal is not a good idea. If Congress goes along with the KBRA and gives the first right to Klamath River water to irrigators then irrigators must be paid if some of that water is needed for fish. Under the Public Trust Doctrine as expressed in California Water and Fish & Game Codes, fish have a right to the amount of water they need to survive and thrive. Federal legislation implementing the KBRA would preempt those Public Trust rights.
Toward the end of the Forum, Kathy McCovey and Georgianna Myers of the Klamath Justice Coalition made pleas for unity. They expressed concern that Klamath River tribes and others who had previously made common cause to get the dams down were now divided and observed that divide and conquer had long been a federal policy with respect to tribes. This led to calls for a tribal summit and to pleas for unity from some of the council members present.
The Klamath Justice Coalition made a video of the Forum. To make a contribution in support of their Coalition’s work or to request a copy of the Forum video contact Georgianna Myers: sregonlady@gmail.com.