View
full sizeDrought
is already hitting the Klamath Basin, as it has in
years past, and the water call by tribes and the
federal government will put great pressure on
irrigators in the upper Klamath Basin.The Klamath Tribes and the federal government called their water rights in
southern Oregon's Klamath Basin for the first time Monday, likely cutting off irrigation water to hundreds of cattle ranchers and farmers in the upper basin this summer.The historic calls come after Oregon set water rights priorities earlier this year in the basin, home to one of the nation's most persistent water wars. Drought has cut water flows in upper basin rivers to 40 percent of normal.
"This is a devastating day," said Becky Hyde, a longtime cattle rancher in the upper basin's Sprague River Valley. "This is such a core piece of our economy. It's not like we can lean back on tourism and things can be OK."
The Klamath Tribes' water rights apply to flows in Upper Klamath Lake tributaries, including the Sprague, Williamson and Wood rivers that run through the tribes' former reservation.
In March, a
fter 38 years of work, the state found that the tribes' water rights dated to "time immemorial," making them by far the most senior. That means the tribes will get water to protect fish in traditional fishing grounds, including two species of suckers on the endangered species list.Farmers irrigating through the federal government's
1905 Klamath ReclamationProject, covering roughly 200,000 acres that draw from the lake, will also get water, though they'll face restrictions, too.But "off-project" irrigators on about 150,000 acres above the lake generally have junior water rights to reclamation-project irrigators. They'll have to tap wells if they can or see their water supplies reduced or shut off.
Some 300 to 400 irrigators – and 70,000 to 100,000 cattle – could be impacted, upper basin water groups estimated. State officials said shut offs could begin as soon as Wednesday, and would be calibrated throughout the summer as river flows and weather dictate.Jeff Mitchell, lead negotiator for the Klamath Tribes, said the tribes worked with Gov. John Kitzhaber's office and other water users in recent months to try to reach a compromise.
"We didn't get there," Mitchell said. "What we had left to protect our treaty resources was seeking an enforcement of our right. That's the only tool we have available to us right now."
The Klamath Basin's water struggles first hit the national spotlight in the drought year of 2001, when farmers using irrigation water from Upper Klamath Lake went dry and their plight became a rallying cry against putting fish before people.
In 2010, O
regon and California officials, along with PacifiCorp and tribal and environmental groups, signed a deal to remove four Klamath River hydropower dams and a Klamath Basin Restoration Agreeement to plow an extra $500 million into restoration.The reclamation agreement set out sharing agreements in dry years between the tribes and reclamation project irrigators. It was also supposed to kick-start deal making with off-project irrigators.
But both deals have stalled in Congress, amid tight budgets and Republican opposition to dam removal. Klamath County voters elected opponents to the county board, which voted to withdraw from the agreements in February.
The tribes are still following the allocation agreements with reclamation project farmers. There are few in place with off-project irrigators.
Hyde is among those who support the deals. Had they passed Congress, she said, agreements likely would have been reached to share water equitably, helped by federal money to compensate ranchers who agreed to use less water. As it stands, she said, "we're going to take the big hit."
Other upper basin irrigators oppose the deal as too light on firm commitments. Opponents have also challenged the state's water rights allocations in court.
Garrett Roseberry, a cattle rancher and past president of the Sprague River Water Resource Foundation, said the restoration agreement doesn't have "any meat on the bones" when it comes to upper basin water allocations.
"There's still room to negotiate a solution that includes all parties," he said. "Everybody needs to keep a cool head and communication needs to be maintained no matter how difficult the situation gets."
., chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has set a hearing June 20 to discuss Klamath Basin water issues.In the short-term, the state is considering possibilities for subsidizing cattle feed to keep ranches going, perhaps drawing on federal dollars. Kitzhaber has declared a drought emergency in the area, allowing state agencies to request federal money and aid farmers and ranchers.
But upper basin irrigators said they're not banking on subsidies filling the gap. Feeding and watering 70,000 cattle for four months – rather than relying on irrigated pasture – would cost about $27 million, Hyde said.
Some ranchers are already moving cattle to more plentiful water supplies, though such spots are limited. They could sell cattle, but risk selling at fire-sale prices. Ranchers could ask to graze cattle in the basin's marshy wildlife refuges, but that would set off an environmental battle.
With the dry season underway, weather isn't likely to help out much, either.
"You can't keep praying for rain," said Danette Watson, a consultant to the Upper Klamath Water Users Association. "That's not the solution."
-- Scott Learn
First: The Salmon fish kill that occurred earlier this century had multiple paramaters that accounted for same. A call for a water pulse by the Tribes for a water boat celebration that when it arrived at the estuary the Salmon beieved it was time to move upriver. However, after the ceremony the water was turned back down leaving tens of thousands of Salmon high and dry on low sandbars. Secondly, there is adequate documentation from the Sheriffs Departments of Del Norte and Siskiyou County that the fish kill was enhanced by the dumping of toxic chemicals from an illegal drug operation.
As to the Salmon population along the Pacific Coast, in 1950 the total landings of Salmon was 149,000 metric tons and in 2010 it was 403,000 metric tons. This represented a 273% increase in Salmon as a result of water storage behind dams and hatcheries.
There was a time when the resource of water in the United States was as follows: 1. Human use 2. Agricultural Use 3. Industrial applications and somewhere down the list was fish. From the reality numbers of Salmon landed in the Pacific Ocean there is little argument that the Salmon industry is in excellent condition.
Another point is that the native habitat for Coho Salmon in the Klamath Basin is from the Willamette River in Oregon and the Coho Salmon in the Rogue River are from the Columbia River.
Do we care about aquatic ecosystems? Of course food and jobs are important. Nobody is arguing that they aren't. It is just that we now know it isn't worth the sacrifice in some locations. The natural world is finite and necessary.
Some farmers are learning to farm sustainably and tremendous research is being done to work to that goal. Based on our rant, you see the land as yours to exploit temporarily for profit. You are not the kind of farmer who I would want as a steward of the land. You say you love the land but rail against sustainability. That doesn't reason out but you are not alone in thinking that way as I have met my share of your type. How many tons of fertilizer, herbicides, and insecticides do you go through a year? How much waste runs off your property into aquatic ecosystems? How much low grade diesel do you burn up annually?
2. The farmers having their water shut off are not those in the Reclamation Project, they are upstream of Upper Klamath Lake. Their water is being shut off to protect the senior water rights of the Klamath Project and the Klamath Tribes.
3. The salmon die-off was in 2002, not 2001. Arguable whether it was due to diversion to farms.
The Klamath Basin's water struggles first hit the national spotlight in the drought year of 2001, when farmers using irrigation water from Upper Klamath Lake went dry and their plight became a rallying cry against putting fish before people.
The next year, farmers got more water under Bush administration directives and salmon died en masse near the Klamath River's mouth in Northern California.
What makes ranchers so special, that they cannot be expected to change with the times, and different situations, like so many other Americans doing what they must to adjust to a different world.
As for "Native tribes" who are these mysterious folks? What makes them "native"? Here first? Can they prove that? There has and always will be "someone here first" before the last group claiming such. Give the water to those who produce the most for the rest of us. Period.
Junior water right holders wouldn't get water in a drought year regardless of the politics.
Those of us in rural Oregon, who support this policy, are calling BS on your rationale
Everyone on this board isn't drinking a Chai latte in the Pearl District and even if they are, their opinions still are just as valid as yours.
Bush listened (using your logic) and the fish died. Maybe an acceptable sacrifice in your mind.
Of course the farmers will still be wiped out, but this is a give and take kind of thing...
The upper basin farmers have known since 1909 that their water right is junior to the Klamath Project, quite aside from any right the Tribes might obtain through adjudication. Why ANY of them have chosen not to promote the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement and its stakeholder-negotiated solutions is beyond me.
These are important points that needs to be addressed. God forbid it wasn't reported and if so, it should be repeated along with the ongoing dialogue.
Best regards.