Save the Family Farm

The Klamath Settlement was conducted in secret meetings, many water users were prohibited from even having a seat at the table. The settlement has been released for complete text of the settlement click here

This proposal will have devastating effects on Agriculture and the Klamath Project while providing no real power assurances. For cliff notes of the settlement explaining how they do not provide any real assurances.

In a proposed settlement released today, a limited number of special interests agreed to tear out the dams on the Klamath River, establish a Klamath Tribal Reservation, and seek federal funding for tribes and certain irrigators to the detriment of the rest of the basin. The Resource Conservancy was not permitted to participate in the settlement talks despite the fact that the settlement will significantly impair its members’ legal rights.

“The settlement parties have been playing a high stakes game of poker with our livelihoods, without letting us have a seat at the table,” said Roger Nicholson, President of the Resource Conservancy. “Not only were we repeatedly rejected in our efforts to join the settlement process, but this group decided that our water rights should be put in jeopardy,” explained Nicholson.

Irrigators outside the Klamath Project are being asked to “sell” their water on the unfounded assumptions that drying up these irrigated lands will result in more fish that can be commercially harvested in California. The settlement is also based on the unfounded assumption that fish stocks not native to the Upper Basin can be successfully introduced into habitats that are currently occupied by other species.

The select few allowed to participate have been so narrowly focused that they have lost sight of the economic, social, and environmental impacts to our community. The settling parties propose to use taxpayer dollars to buy over 30,000 acre feet of water thereby drying up over 18,000 acres of irrigated farm land. Not only will this action take away the economic value of the lands that are purchased, but the regulatory burdens that will be imposed upon the remaining ranch and farming operations who do not sell will result in dramatic reductions in the economy of Klamath County. This will result in a multimillion dollar economic loss to Klamath County.

The settlement also proposes to grant the Klamath Tribal Claims as filed in the Klamath Adjudication, which would give the Klamath Tribes title to virtually all of the water in the Klamath Basin with a time immemorial priority date (before everybody else). This has the potential to shut down all water use in the Klamath Basin. The Klamath Tribes promise not to enforce these claims only as against the Klamath Project. Even if such a promise was enforceable, other users would see no benefit since this agreement attempts to tie groundwater and surface water together, potentially making well users susceptible to shutdown by these massive instream claims.

We are concerned this agreement is being sold under the false pretenses that it will provide a guaranteed block of water for the Klamath Project. There is no such guarantee in the settlement. The Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) is not being changed and the agreement is very clear that National Marine Fisheries Service and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service retain all regulatory authority under the ESA. The Resource Conservancy believes shutdowns similar to that of 2001 are more likely, not less likely, to occur.

The settlement is a blatant attempt to provide millions of taxpayer dollars to those who had a seat at the table. These monies will come from raiding existing programs along with additional funding, and have little to do with the relicensing process at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which the settlement was intended to resolve..

“Roger Nicholson noted that, “this is not a comprehensive settlement of Klamath Basin issues, rather it is simply a select group of people who, under the guise of advising the Federal agencies, embarked on a path that provides them with taxpayer dollars, yet destroys the economic base of the Upper Klamath Basin, including the Sprague River, Williamson River, and Wood River subbasins. This is a path that is not only based on unproven assumptions, but also sends the economic foundation of Klamath County to California."

The Resource Conservancy is working with other groups to put together a coalition, Save the Family Farm, to try to defeat this settlement, along with the massive instream claims.

The Resource Conservancy is a nonprofit organization representing the majority of irrigated lands above Upper Klamath Lake.

KLAMATH OFF PROJECT WATER USERS OPPOSE KLAMATH PROJECT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AS HARMFUL TO THE RESIDENTS OF KLAMATH COUNTY

Portions of a proposed settlement associated with the relicensing of the Klamath Hydroelectric projects were released today. The Klamath Off Project Water Users, known as KOPWU, opposes the settlement agreement on the basis that it is very harmful to its members and the region. This settlement, if approved and implemented, would, among other things, require the removal of PacifiCorp’s dams on the Klamath River and remove 30,000 acre feet of water from use by upper basin irrigators. The settlement would also create a new 90,000 acre reservation for the Klamath Indian Tribes.

KOPWU has participated in the Klamath Settlement talks for several years. KOPWU was initially excited about the opportunity for settlement last year when various parties worked together to develop a settlement framework that attempted to meet the needs of all parties.

“KOPWU had hoped the settlement talks would provide a suitable outcome to our breach of contract suit against PacifiCorp, and provide peace on the river. This settlement, however, has failed on all counts,” said Edward Bartell president of KOPWU. KOPWU members hold a fixed price contract for power delivery which does not have a termination date.

“Efforts to meet all parties needs have rapidly degenerated into a proposed settlement that benefits only a select few and will be devastating for our members and others.” Bartell said. “The proposed settlement agreement makes it difficult if not impossible for most of our members to qualify for the power benefits that are proposed in the agreement. This settlement also requires water users to surrender legal remedies to protect their property and water rights.”

Even if KOPWU members qualify for power rate offsets KOPWU feels those offsets would be extremely small. KOPWU estimates that it will cost at least $250 million dollars (due to the high cost of alternative energy) to achieve the offset rate goal, yet the settlement only proposes $33 million in long-term rate offsets. Additionally, there are no guarantees that these monies will ever be provided. .

KOPWU’s efforts to reach a fair and balanced settlement have been soundly rejected in favor of attacking the interests of various upper basin irrigators who were not allowed to be at the table. This settlement will be a disaster for our local economy, forcing the retirement of over 18,000 acres of farming and ranch land. Despite this massive land retirement, the settlement will not provide any end to the water fights in the Klamath basin.The settlement requires support for massive in-stream claims, and attempts to tie groundwater and surface water together which threatens existing well users.

Klamath Off-Project Water Users Inc., is a non-profit organization representing agricultural power users in Klamath County outside the Klamath Project.

Off-Project group: Water pact will have negative result

by Steve Kadel, Herald and News 12/22/07

Members of a stakeholder group representing agriculture say the Klamath River settlement agreement, due to be released any day, will have negative consequences for the Klamath Basin. "We think what is being proposed is extremely Draconian," said Edward Bartell, who represented the Basin's off-Project irrigators during the talks. He couldn’t be specific, citing an agreement among participants to keep details secret until the document is released.
Representatives of 26 stakeholder groups - those most affected by water policy - have been meeting for three years to find solutions to the Klamath Basin's water allocation problems. They include representatives of state and federal government, tribes, environmentalists and agriculture interests.

   Goals not met
   Bartell said the off-Project irrigators — farmers who draw water from the system who are not part of the Bureau of Reclamation Project — saw three goals identified in framework documents going into the talks: a reliable and affordable power rate for their members, access to a sustainable water supply, and protection from new Endangered Species Act regulations that might result from the settlement.
   None of those will be met by the final document, he said.  The off-Project irrigators’ board of directors sent a letter to the working group's other stakeholders stating their objection to the recommendations. Bartell said the group represents people with 700 irrigation power meters throughout the Basin, although some families have more than one meter.

   400-page document
   Carole Canevari and Martin Kerns, other members of the off-Project group, agreed with Bartell, and said they also oppose the coming recommendations. They fear policies will be fasttracked before the public has a chance to understand the effects.   “People need to read it and understand it before any decisions are made,” Canevari said.
   Kerns said the settlement document would be about 400 pages. Bartell said the working group was stacked against agriculture from the beginning. Only off-Project users and the Klamath Water Users Association had seats at the table, he said. In addition, he said the agriculture interests were prevented from attending all discussions.

‘Extremely negative’
“We feel it was being actively promoted behind the scenes,” Bartell said of the settlement agreement. “What is there now, we see as extremely negative. I think it’s bad for everyone in the Basin.” Other stakeholders say that the agreement is imminent. Toby Freeman , spokesman for Pacifi-Corp., while not stating support or opposition to an agreement, last week expressed concern that the group might not be fully assessing impact of possible removal of dams.

Check agreement before signing on

December 26, 2007 Letter to the editor of Herald and News by Carole Canevari, Dairy, Oregon

This letter is to encourage all water users in the Klamath Basin to not sign on to the settlement document until it has been made public in its entirety. There is a lot of misinformation being circulated about the contents of this document.

People should not accept generalized statements of what the settlement document contains to form their opinion of the document.

Individual water users should contact the officers of their water districts and ask that they wait until the settlement document is available in its entirely to all members. Furthermore, the final critical decision should be made only after the document has been discussed with and by all members of the water districts.

Senator Whitsett regarding Klamath Settlement: "does not pass the smell test"

We are being told that the binding confidentiality clause in the Klamath Basin Settlement Agreement precludes allowing the agreement to be seen and read by Basin citizens before its adoption by the parties. The parties participating in the settlement are apparently self-selected and represent groups and agencies with certain interests.

For instance, PacifiCorp is one of the parties whose ratepayers were not represented at the negotiation table. The exclusion of participation extends to most of the elected representatives of the people. This closed process brings into question whether participation by Oregon agencies, and paid employees, may be in violation of Oregon’s open public meeting laws. At least, it certainly creates the specter of potential conflicts of interest, if not of outright favoritism, toward the interests of certain parties.

It is my understanding that the current tenth draft of the agreement was only drafted and printed December 18^th, and that some portions of the agreement may not yet be finalized. We are also being told that the state and federal parties to the Agreement may simply walk away if the yet to be completed agreement is not signed by all the parties to the agreement by the first week in January. Of course, there is at least the implication by the federal agencies, that water may not be made available for project irrigation in 2008 if the agreement is not timely completed.

This prescribed timeline provides little time for evaluation of the plan even by the members of the organizations that were allowed a seat at the negotiation table. Further, this evaluation timeline is focused on the Christmas and New Year holiday season, a time when communication is often difficult. We are told that there is no provision for input from those not represented until after the parties to the settlement have agreed to support the agreement.

It is my observation that private ownership promotes conservation and that government ownership does not. In my opinion, federal and state agencies have exhibited a very poor track record in managing public trust lands and water in the Klamath Basin.

I encourage all Klamath Basin people to closely watch this process where the title to both land and water rights would allegedly be transferred to government entities, supposedly to make the basin whole again.

As a matter of fact, for me a whole lot about this entire process does not pass the smell test.