river information

Special Report KB Restoration Agreement

North State Outdoor News Service JAN1808

KLAMATH RIVER RESTORATION SETTLEMENT SETTLES NOTHING

[Author's Note: Despite large bold headlines reading "Klamath Dams may go" don't be misled. An Agreement to Agree is not legally binding. It may sound rosy but nothing is actually settled. This is my critique of the "Proposal." My six prior articles about these "settlement" talks are worth another look if you want to gain a better understanding of what amounts to the "Poster Child" for the west's interminable water wars. FG]

The so-called "Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement" was released for public review on January 15. Well, here's my review. It's hilarious, preposterous, ridiculous and, well, un-American!

It's an impractical joke, one that's already falling apart. It only got this far because its major victims were either not at the table or were forced to surrender in the face of an even worse fate.

A lot of time and money has already been wasted on something that can't be done. We can't even estimate the cost of doable projects correctly.

You can be sure the estimated cost of this "restoration" ($1 billion over ten years) is vastly understated. Even this WAG (Wild Ass Guess) doesn't include the cost of dam removal. And the dam owners and operators haven't agreed to that! Worse yet, despite the rosy picture painted by dam removal advocates, taking down the barriers do not guarantee any of us, including the Indian Tribes, salmon will be more plentiful.

First, an "Agreement to Agree" is not legally binding. Any of the "entities" who signed onto this deal could walk at any time. The Hoopa Tribe already has, claiming that the farmers are getting too much water.

The Off-Project Water Users (those who farm more than 100,000 acres in the upper Basin regions who left the talks when their interests were attacked) think the deal is "devastating" and does not remotely represent an agreement.

The Resource Conservancy, which represents another group of Klamath Basin irrigators, claims it was denied a seat at the final table and won't be able to go home and farm in peace or prosperity. So does Water Watch of Oregon, which claims it was removed from the talks involuntarily.

Oregon Wild, another environmental group, backed off with a press release entitled "No Dam Deal..." saying: Despite a $1 billion dollar price tag, the agreement does not include any provisions for dam removal. Additionally, the agreement fails to stipulate river flow levels for salmon consistent with what the best available science calls for, and contains language aimed at locking in commercial agricultural development on Tule Lake and Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuges for the next 50 years.

This group is "wild." They blame the Bush Administration for everything. The "river flow science" or "Hardy Flow Studies" to which they refer are considered flawed by many. Those flows deemed necessary by Hardy are referred to as purely speculative. They are based on flow records from 1905 to 1912 - an era of data distorted by changes in the upper basin hydrology and very high precipitation in the upper basin. Some scientists think they greatly overestimate historical flows in the lower river. This has fostered that false perception that more water always equals more fish.

Oregon Wild creates another myth by whining about water being allocated to the refuges. The walking wetlands programs on the refuges are highly beneficial to wildlife, especially waterfowl but also hundreds of other species. Crops rotated onto wetlands also reduce the use of chemical fertilizers. And some refuge water eventually gets back to the river.

Of course there's No Deal! PacifiCorp, the dam owners and operators, didn't participate in these talks nor did any of its thousands of customers. They say "What Settlement?"

Many small businesses who depend on farming, ranching, tourism and outdoor activities weren't represented either.

What about the Klamath Basin Water Users Association? They put out a vanilla-favored press release that implied consent -- BUT read between the lines.

Greg Addington, their president said: "The result of the negotiations is a series of compromises and proposed commitments between farmers, tribes, conservationists, counties and state and federal agencies aimed at keeping all of the Klamath's rural communities economically and ecologically viable."

In other words, the farmers and ranchers have their backs to the wall. Either they go along with these compromises or continue to live under the threat of past and future biological opinions, the Endangered Species Act, water cutoffs, increased power rates for pumping water, fickle rules for water levels in Upper Klamath Lake, numerous lawsuits they can't afford to contest, river flow studies financed by their adversaries and the potential loss of their homes, farms and communities.

We can't go back in time or turn back the clock. The Klamath Basin Reclamation Project did not cause this water crisis. It actually helped the river (see my prior articles). There isn't enough water today to support all the "perceived needs" (another myth - see below), but why blame just the basin farmers or the dams for all our troubles? The dams are not the only factor related to the decline of fish populations. Focusing on just the upper part of this watershed is not the way to restore the salmon, and even if the plan worked it should not be done on the backs of those who live, toil and raise families in the upper part of the Basin. That's inhuman and un-American. If we proceed with this settlement, we'll just make those people more dependent on the rest of us taxpayers. And there's no guarantee it will help the commercial fishermen, the in-river businesses along the Trinity and Klamath River systems or the recreational anglers.

So who wins? No one really, except perhaps the bureaucracies, the Indian Nations, most environmental special interest groups and the Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuges.

For the federal and state employees, the Indian Tribe leaders and the environmental group reps, it's a Full Employment Act. They will go on meeting forever spending our money on hotels and meals and ordering up more studies and PowerPoint presentations. With headlines such as "Klamath Dams may go," all the environmental groups can raise more money from their constituencies. More grant money will become available for everyone, too.

Being a diehard waterfowl hunter I'm very glad that the refuges are coming out ahead on paper, but can we really "guarantee reliable water deliveries" to anyone, including the ducks? And are we trying to meet real needs or perceived needs for the fish? Mother Nature has a spotty record but man's ability to distort her contributions is worse at times.

There is a big difference between "needs" and "perceived needs." It is well known that before the white man changed the hydrology of the basin there were times when flows down the river were far below what they are today in late summer or early fall. What's more, Indian artifacts found in Upper Klamath Lake when lake levels were very low in 1992 and 1994 suggest that at times Indians camped in areas that are now under water because lake levels are maintained high.

Let's put that in perspective. The water "needs" talked about today are based on estimates of what might be best for fish, now what was there before the Reclamation Project was begun. Thus, perceived needs can account for over-appropriation of water. Evidence shows that could cause the death of sucker fish not higher survival rates. The records show that all major sucker die-offs that have been documented occurred in years when the lake levels were relatively high - not in the years of very low lake levels noted above. A high number of suckers spawned in 1991 - a low water year, the year of the water cutoff. Suckers actually thrived in the low water years. So, it can be argued that high lake levels in Upper Klamath Lake may not be good for suckers.

Likewise, some of the high populations of returned salmon in the past 10 years coincide with hatches that occurred in years of low water supply. More study is needed to see how these salmon returns correlate with low and high water years.

As for the refuges, if the rains come, I know the wildlife, the farmers and the communities in the Klamath Basin are totally interdependent - they help each other. Let it pour!

What else? If the dams are removed there is absolutely no guarantee that enough storage space can be made available in Upper Klamath Lake to insure the delivery of water as needed. Dam removal may cause damage to the mainstem salmon spawning habitat for years. No one knows for sure what is behind those dams. The power being generated by those dams must be replaced. With the "nuclear" option off the table thanks to the environmental groups, how is that going to be done?

There is also no guarantee that the salmon can make the passage up a much-changed Klamath River channel, up the fish ladders and across Upper Klamath Lake to their traditional spawning grounds in Southern Oregon's rivers. They must also come back! Upper Klamath Lake is a warm body of water than is prone to algae blooms. No one knows for sure how much of its water will be lost to evaporation. And, if the lake level gets too low the ESA kicks in to "protect" the endangered sucker fish. As noted above that may not be helping the suckers, and the salmon could be deprived of water when it's most needed in the hot months of August, September and October.

This restoration agreement is also stacked with loaded words such as "stabilized" and "subsidized." Those are nice words for price controls and handouts. The settlement also establishes a Coordinating Council. Well, based on the makeup of the settlement talk tables, how can we possibly create a governing council that is fair and balanced? Finally, the agreement states that 96 percent of the budget is dedicated in some way or another "to the fish." When did any federal or state program ever go to Washington DC, Sacramento or Salem and back without being cut in half or more by the bureaucrats?

Want to spend some money? Let's pay the Indians not to fish for salmon. We've paid farmers not to grow. The Indian's get half of the salmon allocated to rivers each year. This year that was about 40,000 fish. Why not let those fish proceed up the Klamath for a few years to the many tributaries below the dams to spawn. Or why don't we find out what happens to the salmon in the ocean. That's where they spend 70 to 85 percent of their time. We don't know where they go or why their populations fluctuate in the briny. Or why not spend some money to reduce the population of sea lions. They eat thousands of salmon every year. We have so many sea lions they've become bigger pests than rats. The Feds just announced a plan to kill sea lions on the Columbia River. Let's do that here, now!

Don't get me wrong. I'm very much in favor of collaboration, peace negotiations and settlement of issues out of court whenever possible but there are too many flies in this ointment for me.

The bureaucrats should go back to work at their real jobs. The scientists should produce some studies we can believe and find ways to clean up the water behind our dams. The environmentalists should start supporting nuclear power. Anglers, the fish and game managers, landowners and government land stewards should be working harder to improve tributary habitat. Practicing catch and release will help, too, all you anglers! The hatcheries should be producing far more fish. The Indian's should stop fighting us and turn their reservations into showplace tourist attractions and guide services. The farmers should be thinning their ranks voluntarily as market pressures dictate and be allowed to work in peace without threat of annihilation while making adjustments. Everyone in the Klamath River Watershed should be working toward a common goal - restoration of the fish population without stabbing each other in the back or sacrificing human lives. As for this Restoration Agreement, Oregon Wild is right. Congress should say "No Deal."

EasyWriter's columns are copyright protected and published exclusively on the Internet by LocalNews1.LLC. Unauthorized use will be prosecuted.