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

Thanks for the response Scott.

Putting aside questions of the tone of the post, the post is still inaccurate on two major points:

1. The power rate point is incorrect. The irrigators gave up nothing voluntarily on rates in the negotiation. The 10 fold increase in rates that you reference in the post was solely the result of two trials in the Oregon and California Public Utility Commissions, not any voluntary action in the negotiation by the irrigators in the negotiations.

2. In the proposed deal, the irrigators do not agree to adhere to the Endangered Species Act. Rather, Klamath Project irrigators would be protected FROM ESA liabitity if they stayed within the very generous water allocations provided for in the proposed deal. Irrigation gave up nothing on this point. And the distinction is very significant.

We really need to get beyond the glib press statements on this proposal and understand the details of this proposal. I hope OPB is up to that.

I would also point out that the one ostensible reason for release of the proposal was to let the public review it and comment. However, neither Oregon or the Federal government have set up any mechanism to receive, review and repsond to public comments. Instead, the public review and comment happens anecdotally in posts like this one. Hardly adequate for a proposal of this magnitude invloving public resources of this importance.

posted 5 years, 3 months ago
view in context

The teaser for this story was highly inaccurate. No party has signed this proposal. Many never will unless it is substantially improved. It has substantial and unacceptable flaws that must be addressed. It is a product of the Bush Administration, which the Daily Astorian recently described in an Op-ED on this deal as the "most villainous environmental administration in history." Even Greg Walden has advocated for a go slow approach on this stinker.

Let's start with process concerns -

First the two Oregon conservation groups with a long track record in the Klamath - WaterWatch of Oregon and Oregon Wild were summarily kicked out of the negotiations by the Bush Admninistration and its minions - from a process expressly set up as a consensus based process mind you. Why? Because those two groups refused to accede to Administration threats that unless all present signed a deal term sheet early in the negotiation, the Administration would refuse to file strong mandatory conditions for the new FERC license for PacifiCorp's hydro project.

Second, the Klamath Water Users Association, due to highly placed political connections in Washington DC, had what was essentially veto power over the drafting process that resulted in the "deal" that is now being touted (by OPB even, for shame!) as providing "peace on the river." Peace indeed. The Klamath Water Users Association significantly overreached on this negotiation.

The process was highly flawed, even putting aside the basic premise that your government should not be setting public policy on these issues in secret.

Next let's look at flaws in the proposed deal -

1. There is no deal to remove any dams. That was the premise of the entire negotiation. PacifiCorp was not even present in the secret negotiations in much of 2006 or all of 2007.

2. This proposed deal would do the following:

a. Institutionalize commercial lease land farming on 22,000 acres of two of the premier National Wildlife Refuges in the nation for waterfowl for the next 50 years. At the same time, the "deal" will even funnel lease land farming payments to the Bureau of Reclamation to pay off the capital debts of the Klamath Project Irrigators for the Project. It is a bad deal for the refuges, particularly Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Lower Klamath Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

b. Guarantee specific allocations of water to the Klamath Project irrigators (at levels above what they have ever used historically in certain water year types) while providing absolutely no streamflow gaurantees for fish in the Klamath River, including those (coho salmon) listed under the Endangered Species Act.

Far from ADHERING to the ESA as reported above, the Klamath Project irrigators would instead by provided safe harbor FROM the ESA. It's incredible to this reader that OPB does not understand or report correctly that distinction here. Don't take my word for it. Read the agreement.

c. The proposed deal would undermine the Endangered Species Act by requiring the parties that sign to advocate that the water deliveries provided to the Klamath Project Irrigators are legally sufficient for Endangered Species Act purposes, even though models show that the contemplated water allocations will result in less water in the river for threatened coho salmon than under the current Biological Opinion or under the current best available science that the recent National Research Council vetted (Hardy Phase II flow study, among others. Frankly, there appears to be no evidence of any biological justification or scientific vetting of the flow levels in the agreement by the state of Oregon.

d. The proposed deal would wheel cheap Columbia River power to the Klamath and provide a direct payment/subsidy of $41,000,000 to basin irrigators as a power subsidy.

Quite contrary to what is reported above, irrigation interests have NEVER accepted voluntarily a ten fold increase in their power rates. That's hogwash. Rather, the Oregon and California Public Utility Commissions detemined, after a trial in each PUC, that the old rates paid for power by basin ag interests were discriminatory and not permitted by law. Oregon is now ramping Klamath irrigators to the standard power rate paid by other ag interests in Oregon using a seven year ramp. California is using a four year ramp. It's baloney to suggest, as above, that irrigators somehow voluntarily agreed to a power rate increase or that they gave up anything related to power in this negotiation. You also fail to point out that they previously enjoyed power rates that were approximately 1/10th what other Oregon farmers pay.

e. The deal would turn over water management on the Klamath Project to the Klamath Project and give the Klamath Project irrigators $92,000,000 to come up with their own water management plan, in private and without any public review or scrutiny. That is directly contrary to how we manage water in Oregon. Water is a public resource and the state has a legal duty to manage it through public and transparent processes. What will likely happen here is the users will simply turn to groundwater. But in the Klamath, groundwater and surface water are essentially one resource. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is no solution.

These are just a few of the chestnuts in the proposed deal. There are many others. In sum, this is a political compromise achieved in secret through a process run by the Bush Administration. The deal is not based on sound science or the biological or water needs of ESA listed species or the affected National Wildlife Refuges in the basin.

I think the Hoopa Tribe got it right when the tribe called this an "old style, Wild West water deal." The Klamath has a long history of backroom dealing, political compromises, and ignoring and manipulating science. This deal is more of the same and it will meet with substantial opposition until it addresses meaningfully the issues above and others.

posted 5 years, 3 months ago
view in context