Thanks to Oregon Senator Ron Wyden,
Klamath water issues finally received a hearing in Congress. Sadly,
however, the hearing produced little that is new....at least not from
the witnesses. Leaders from state, tribal and county government,
federal and private irrigation and environmental groups repeated the
same tired old arguments once again. Plenty of “press” resulted
but little that could be termed real “news”.
What was new came not from the
testimony (which you can read on line) but rather from Senator Wyden.
For one thing, the Senator announced that irrigation interests served
by the US Bureau of Reclamation would receive cheap, federal power
courtesy of the Bonneville Power Administration. This will provide
federal irrigation interests with a competitive advantage over
private irrigators in the Upper Basin, Shasta and Scott Valleys. It
is another example of why we call these federally-served irrigation
interests the Basin's Irrigation Elite.
Massively Inefficient: three of dozens of energy guzzling pumps used by Klamath
Project Irrigators to move water and wastewater to and from subsided fields
Senator
Wyden appears
to reject
the KBRA
as a
viable solution.
In his
remarks opening
the senate
hearing (also available online) he
noted that
the KBRA
“is
making
a
big
difference
for
the
on-project
irrigators.
But
the
fact
is
hundreds
of
farm
households
and
citizens
have
been
left
behind.”
Wyden
backed that up at another point:
“...all
parties
should
have
a
chance
to
have
input
before
the
committee
advances
any legislation
and I
state that
whether or
not they
have been
for the
previous agreements
or have
differing
views.”
The
Senator noted that “the KBRA and essentially what has been agreed
to at this point is simply unaffordable in the current federal budget
environment.”
When
Senator Wyden
announced
that
the
Irrigation
Elite
and
Reclamation
had
obtained
access
to
inexpensive
federal
power,
he
offered
support
for
similar
lower
power
rates
for
private
irrigators.
By this he meant irrigators above Upper Klamath Lake; no one has
suggested that irrigators in the Shasta and Scott Valleys also
receive Bonneville power. And
the Senator committed
to
“sitting
down”
with
“basin
interests
to
find
a
long
term
solution
that
reflects
both
the
anticipated
water
supply
in
the
years
to
come”
and
the
“economic
issues”
faced
by
“family
farmers.”
Senator
Wyden
concluded
his
opening
remarks
with
a
commitment:
“I
want
everybody
to
understand
that
we
are
going
to
stay
at
this,
we are
going to
stay at
it until
we find
a solution
this time.”
What remained in the 2002 Farm Bill was
$50 million dollars to improve on-farm irrigation efficiency with the
promises of leaving more water for fish and wildlife. Known as
Klamath EQIP, that Farm Bill program gave $50 million to irrigators
in the Upper Basin, Shasta and Scott Valleys. As KlamBlog documented,
much of that money was used to drill new wells, buy new pumps and
extend groundwater irrigation to new land. As a result it is likely
that Klamath EQIP – while promising to reduce irrigation water use
– actually increased use of water by irrigation interests.
This Klamath EQIP Project in Scott Valley provided federal funding to extend
groundwater irrigation and the irrigation season on this low value pasture land
What the KBRA has – and has not -
delivered
Senator Wyden was correct in noting
that the KBRA has delivered benefits to irrigators within the Bureau
of Reclamation's Klamath Irrigation Project but not to other
interests. Benefits to the Irrigation Elite include a new approach by
Reclamation to managing Upper Klamath Lake, a new biological opinion
on operation of the Klamath Irrigation Project, an agreement to
transfer Keno Dam and Reservoir to Reclamation, a new Drought Plan
and – above all else - funding to create and operate the Klamath
Water and Power Agency (KWAPA). These all have been crafted and
serve to maximize irrigation water delivery within the Klamath
Irrigation Project at the lowest possible price.
On the other hand, other KBRA promised
benefits - including higher spring river flows for salmon and water
for the Klamath Refuges - have failed to materialize. Flows in the
Klamath River have been cut in fall, winter and spring and, since
the KBRA was signed, Klamath Basin Wildlife Refuges have been used by
Reclamation as water storage facilities to be filled or drained not
based on the needs of wildlife but in order to maximize irrigation
water delivery.
Under cover of the KBRA, the Bureau of Reclamation has used the Klamath Refuges
as reservoirs to be filled or drained in order to maximize irrigation water delivery
The KBRA's failure to deliver for the
River and Klamath Salmon has been recognized by one of the main
promoters of the KBRA – the Yurok Tribe – which recently filed a
KBRA dispute alleging that the benefits to the River it “bargained
for” in the KBRA were being denied to it by the State of Oregon.
We'll soon see if the KBRA's dispute resolution process produces any
more water in the Klamath River. Given Oregon water law and the new
Biological Opinion on Klamath Project operations, however, more water
for Klamath Salmon looks doubtful at best.
Judging the KBRA not by the rhetoric
and promises of its promoters but by what has actually been
accomplished, KlamBlog concludes that the agreement has delivered for
federal irrigation interests but not for salmon or the refuges.
Judging from their reaction, many of the Basin's non-federal
irrigators – like Senator Wyden - also find the KBRA does not
deliver for them. Any deal which delivers for federal irrigation
interests at the expense of the river, refuges and private irrigation
interests is doomed to create more, not less, conflict. And that is
exactly what the KBRA has done.
Under "cover" of the KBRA and with the support of some self-styled
"Klamath Salmon Defenders" flows in the Klamath River have been
cut far below the long-term average in fall, winter and spring
Klamath contradictions
Senator Wyden is among a growing number
of politicians who recognizes that the KBRA is not a viable solution.
In light of that reality, the leaders who crafted the KBRA face a
choice: They can continue down the KBRA path – cutting out some of
the pork and making a few concessions to irrigation interests above
Upper Klamath Lake - and hope year-after-year that legislation will
pass and bring the promised “balance” - or those leaders can
chart a new, more balanced course now.
Judging from their testimony to Senator
Wyden, most basin leaders appear incapable of letting go of the KBRA
– either as “solution” or “bogey man”. These leaders can't
even agree on how to fix the agreement's most obvious flaws. And that
is not even considering the KHSA Dam Deal which, as they stated
clearly in testimony to Senator Wyden, California officials have
linked to the fate of the water tunnels they want to build around the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
Those who understand California water
politics, believe the tunnels are intended to someday carry more
Klamath-Trinity water to San Joaquin Valley agribusiness. California
politicians hope popular dam removal and the promise of Klamath
Salmon restoration will be just the ticket to sell their latest water
scam to voters.
The Pacific Coast Federation of
Fishermen and other promoters of the Klamath Deals want to ignore
that connection just as they avoid the question of who would step
forward as a “dam removal entity” should the KHSA be endorsed by
Congress.
PCFFA's Glen Spain once chaired an environmental-fishermen-tribal coalition
which he helped destroy via the KBRA. He is now one the Deal's main promoters
The path to Klamath solutions
Senator Wyden says the KBRA will not
fly; that a new approach is needed. He asked all those for and
against the KBRA to once again come together to forge an agreement
which is politically viable because it is more balanced. Now we will
see how the leaders who crafted the KBRA and linked it to the KHSA –
as well as those who built careers opposing the deals - respond.
Here KlamBlog will offer a prediction:
Those leaders who do not adapt to the new reality - those who insist
on hanging on to the KBRA and KHSA – will steadily lose credibility
and, sooner or later, they will be replaced. KlamBlog hopes the
leaders spare us that grief and adapt now.
In disunity there is weakness
Division among those who care about the
Klamath River and Klamath Salmon and the abandonment of the best
available science in favor of political deal making has allowed the
US Bureau of Reclamation to control KBRA implementation. Once again
Reclamation is allocating Klamath River water as it sees fit; but now
it also controls federal restoration funding decisions. As should
have been expected, Reclamation has used the control provided to it
by the KBRA to serve the Irrigation Elite it
created and nurtures.
History
here and in river basins across the West teaches that the only
counterweight to Reclamation control of a river is unity among those
who really care about that river. The KBRA shattered that unity on
the Klamath; leaders are needed capable of restoring it.
KlamBlog looks for that leadership to
emerge from the Yurok, Hoopa and Karuk Tribes leading to a unified
position by all six of the Basin's federal tribes. If the tribes can
come together, local environmental groups will support them and the
outcome will be positive for the River and Klamath Salmon. Without a
strong and unified tribal position, Reclamation will likely continue
to call the shots and the River – along with the Refuges – will
continue to suffer.
No comments:
Post a Comment