A Time To Choose - From The Klamath Tribal Newsletter

Also not surprising, but always disheartening, local and national racist elements have been making their presence known. Months ago, locals linked with a national anti-tribal group drove around rural Klamath County placing anti-tribal DVDs in mailboxes. Two weeks ago, elected officials released results of a poll that was blatantly designed to elicit anti-tribal sentiment. As is always the case, those who push these kinds of views rely on the fact that most people are not well informed on whatever issues are in view. Their task is easy to do here, since the issues surrounding tribal rights, dams, and water are complex.

Two good examples are the emotional debates surrounding water rights and dam removal. Before addressing these issues, however, several facts must be emphasized. the Klamath tribes have lived here for millennia – this is our home, and we are not going anywhere. We signed a Treaty in 1864, and so did the United states, and this continues to hold both moral and legal significance which we will not abandon.

We have valid, substantial rights and interests in water, in fisheries, and in many other areas. Our commitment to collaborative, settlement-based solutions to complex, divisive issues is real, as we have demonstrated over the past several years of productive negotiations. The Klamath Tribes hold the most senior water right in the Upper Klamath Basin – time immemorial.

A question asked in the poll was whether respondents thought that “the KBRA will give the Klamath Tribes too much control over our water”. Water rights in the West follow a pretty simple rule – “first in time is first in right”. Who was using the water in the year 1200? Perhaps you can understand our gut reaction to the question asked by the poll, which clearly states that the water belongs to someone else. We realize, of course, that nobody knows how much water they have a right to until the ongoing water adjudication has run its course. Those who commissioned the poll know this as well.

After many more years of litigation, the water adjudication will establish how much water each party has a right to, and in what priority order. even if the tribes only partly prevail in the adjudication, there will be significant reductions in the availability of irrigation water. While the ultimate outcome of the water adjudication remains uncertain for all parties, one thing is certain. enormous amounts of money have been spent in the adjudication by all parties since it began in 1975, and much more will be spent if settlement is not achieved. One of the things this money will buy is continued conflict.

We are working hard to collaboratively settle water rights issues in ways that meet our needs and the needs of others. the Klamath Basin Restoration agreement is a remarkable example of such settlement with the irrigators in the Klamath Project. We remain committed to seeking similarly remarkable, collaborative outcomes with other Basin interests. We welcome the recent formation of the Upper Klamath water Users association because there has for too long been no voice for the rational, reasonable people who we know exist in the area outside of the Klamath Project.

In regard to the dam removal issue, it is true that removing the lower four Klamath River dams will increase costs to rate payers by about $1.50 month. Legislation capping rate payer costs at this amount, Senate Bill 76, is making its way through the legislature. What rate payers – that is, all of us – should understand is that if settlement efforts fail, and the dams proceed through relicensing, costs that will face rate payers will be substantially higher, and will have no cap.

PacifiCorp sees settlement as the best option for rate payers, which is why they support the legislation and are working hard on settlement. Efforts to relicense the dams have been ongoing since 2000. In 2006, a judge upheld a series of mandatory measures PacifiCorp will have to implement if the dams are relicensed. They will have to build and operate upstream and downstream fishways. They will have to allow significantly more flow to go down the Klamath River below JC Boyle Dam, and severely curtail their peaking operation at JC Boyle, both of which decrease generation of electricity. Next in the relicensing process, should settlement fail, comes battles over a required permit under the Clean water act.

Reservoirs behind the dams create conditions that support blooms of toxic algae that pose health risks for humans and the ecosystem, and they also store heat that warms the Klamath River downstream to damaging levels when Fall Chinook are trying to swim upstream to spawn. They create many other problems as well, but these two alone are major obstacles to meeting Clean water act requirements.

So there are two choices. One is to keep the dams in place and pursue relicensing, a course that guarantees many years of expensive litigation and, if successful, expensive structural and operational changes. Under this option, all expenses will be covered through rate increases which will be passed on to you the rate payer. The other choice is to resolve issues through settlement resulting in dam removal, avoid most litigation, and cap costs to rate payers. we think settlement is a better deal for rate payers. the Citizen’s Utility Board, a Portland-based group that advocates for Oregon rate payers, agrees and supports Senate Bill 76, which is designed to cap settlement-based costs to rate payers.

Finally, to senator Whitsett and Representative Garrard we say this: Get out of the way. the mindset you represent is deadly to building collaborative solutions to complex problems. Stop expending all of your effort trying to tear down what others have built through years of supremely difficult work. We ask both of you, where are your solutions? After you tear down the settlement, what will you replace it with?

If you succeed in your efforts to dismantle settlement, then you doom the Basin to the ensuing conflict as all parties turn to litigation as the only available pathway to meeting their needs. the Klamath tribes have neither seen nor heard from either of you during these negotiations. You have never shared your thoughts or ideas with us, or attempted to meet with our leadership to help craft solutions.

Citizens of Klamath County and the state of Oregon deserve much better leadership than you are giving them. You do not have to like the Klamath tribes, and it is clear that you do not, but it is simply irresponsible to attempt to destroy what we have built with the Klamath Project irrigators and many other parties, especially when you offer no viable alternatives.

more information contact: Klamath Tribal Councilman, Jeff Mitchell (541) 891-5971 or Email: Mohiswaqs@aol.com Klamath Tribal Water Attorney, Bud Ullman (541) 783-3081