2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

Forgive me for offering some alternative perspectives.

The reservoirs behind the four dams that are being removed are not used for irrigated agriculture, as is the case with most dams in the west. The two dams that do provide for agriculture are the Link River and the Keno Dams. They will remain, with fish ladders.

The dams don't provide the electric power for Klamath county. They do contribute 160 megawatts of power (about 2% of the PacifiCorp's total capacity), and they have said they will be replaced with energy from solar, wind or other renewable sources.

Upper Klamath Lake levels are part of the considerations for managing flows, for migratory birds as well as fish, and dam removal will not diminish the size of the lake.

Hydroelectric power is indeed clean energy, and in that sense it's a valuable source of energy. At the same time, the dams have had a serious impact on the ecosystem of the Klamath Basin, including water quality and salmon. It's only by taking all that together, the pluses and the minuses, that we can understand the decisions made this week.

posted 4 years, 6 months ago
view in context

Having lived in Klamath Falls for the past 27 years, I've witnessed the impacts of limited water for both the ecosystem and the people that depend on it. While it's tempting to characterize the opposition as either "agribusiness that would sacrifice fish for profit" or "environmentalists who want to drive farmers out of business," these characterizations are true only in the very small minority of people on each side.

I don't see "agribusiness," I see farming and ranching families who live in a county where the average household income is less than $34,000, people who love the land and for whom conservation is a given.

I don't see "environmentalists," I see people who love the natural beauty of the Klamath Basin, and the fish and wildlife within it, and who will work tirelessly to protect them.

And I see Tribal members who revere the fish and the river as gifts from the Creator that sustained them for centuries, until just a few years ago.

But for many years, the minorities have used characterizations to drive fear and polarize people against one another, thereby perpetuating a multi-million dollar legal nightmare. Sometimes agricultural interests have prevailed, with inadequate flows going downstream and thousands of fish dying. Sometimes environmental interests have prevailed, with irrigation water to farms being shut off as in 2001.

But in 2005, a few Tribal members and a few irrigators started talking. "There has to be a better way," was perhaps the only thing they had in common. That, and an awareness that they had invested millions of dollars in lawsuits that resulted only in a pendulum that swung from one side to the other, usually depending on which party was in office. Other groups and agencies became involved and ultimately, they found they had more in common than they had thought ? Sustainable Fisheries AND Sustainable Local Communities.

The proposed Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA) is 257 pages long, with more to be fleshed out for the "off-Project irrigators," those farmers and ranchers above Klamath Lake whose irrigation is not through the Klamath Reclamation Project. But the essence is a series of give-and-take moves for fish, farmers, ranchers and Tribes.

The fish get the dams out, so they can migrate up to their historic spawning grounds in the Upper Basin. They get more water, especially in dry years, and much-needed restoration of historic habitat and water quality.

The farmers & ranchers get an amount of irrigation water they can depend on when they plant in the spring, and if they give up water, they get compensated for it. They also get start-up funds for a renewable energy program to offset the increasing power rates.

The Tribes get to help restore their historic fisheries to levels that can again sustain them, and they get resources for economic development while the fisheries are rebuilding.

The Klamath National Wildlife Refuges, prime breeding-grounds and preserves for migrating birds, also get more water. And the counties get reimbursed for any losses to their tax bases due to dam removal.

Is it a perfect agreement? No way. Much work remains, especially for off-Project irrigators.

Is it better than suing each other ad nauseum? By a long shot.

posted 4 years, 6 months ago
view in context