Dear Klamath Irrigation Project
Landowner,
I am writing you to share some conservation community perspectives on
the Bureau of Reclamation’s Klamath Irrigation Project and the Klamath
River Basin. I am communicating directly in hope that – at a minimum – you
can better understand the conservation community’s actions that seek
reform of project operations to meet a broader array of economic, social
and environmental needs. I also want to share with you a specific proposal
that you may be able to support.
Why the Klamath River Basin is So Important to Conservation
Despite a century of mismanagement, the Klamath Basin still represents
the largest interior freshwater wetland west of the Mississippi River, and
is often called the "Everglades of the West." The entire Klamath River
Basin remains one of the richest biological areas in North America.
- Wetlands Importance and Loss.
113 out of 410 fish and wildlife
species identified in the Klamath Basin are of concern or at risk,
mainly due to wetland habitat loss. Wetlands have been reduced from
350,000 acres in 1905 to less then 75,000 acres – with much of that in a
degraded condition.
- Upper Klamath Lake.
In 1884, Dr. E. D. Cope wrote that Upper
Klamath Lake sustained "a great population of fishes" and "was more
prolific in animal life" then any body of water known to him. Several
formerly abundant mullet species in Upper Klamath Lake historically
supported a tribal subsistence harvest of more then 50 tons/year, an
active and economically valuable recreational fishery and at least one
cannery. Today, two fish species in the lake are officially listed as
endangered and others qualify for protection and its water quality is
often toxic to fish.
- Waterfowl.
About 80% of the all the waterfowl on the Pacific
Flyway use the Upper Klamath River Basin. In the fall of 1955 – several
decades ago, but several decades after the Klamath Irrigation Project
was commenced – seven million birds at one time could be found on the
Lower Klamath and Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuges, certainly the
greatest concentration of waterfowl in North American and probably the
world. It has been estimated there were even more birds earlier in that
century. Thomas C. Horn, the Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuge
manager in 1957 wrote: "at the time the area was made a refuge, in 1908,
literally clouds of birds of many species darkened the sky; the thunder
of their wings was like the roar of distant surf, and their voices
drowned out all other sounds." Today, at the peak of migration, despite
habitat losses throughout the flyway, waterfowl estimates on the two
national wildlife refuges are approximately one million birds at one
time.
- Pacific Salmon.
Historically, chinook, coho and steelhead
inhabited Upper Klamath Marshes and rivers nearly all the way to the
headwaters. The Lower Klamath Basin included spring/summer, fall and
winter run steelhead, spring and summer/fall run chinook and coho, chum
and pink salmon. Fish runs ranged from 600,000 to 1.1 million adults
returning to every tributary and occupying every ecological niche in
what was once the third largest salmon producing river system on the
West Coast. Additional important fisheries resources included white and
green sturgeon, pacific lamprey, coastal cutthroat trout and eulachon
(candlefish).
The Klamath’s once great salmon runs once supported a large salmon
fishing fleet that
stretched for nearly 200 miles along the Pacific coast from Florence to
Fort Bragg. Today,
that economy is decimated, primarily by habitat destruction due to
logging, grazing,
mining, farming and dams.
Farming Increasingly Problematic in Klamath River Basin
As you well know, while the soil is relatively productive, the frosts
stay late and come early, severely limiting the crops that can be grown in
the Klamath Irrigation Project. The economics of farming is also changing
as agriculture and capital globalizes. Chinese onions, Mexican sugar and
Canadian potatoes are bigger threats to basin farming than environmental
protections.
Future Actions of Environmental Community
The conservation community’s commitment to the protection and
restoration of the Klamath River Basin is increasing. Formed in 1999, A
Coalition for the Klamath Basin originally included Institute for
Fisheries Resources, Klamath Basin Audubon Society, Klamath Forest
Alliance, Oregon Natural Resources Council, Pacific Coast Federations of
Fishermens’ Associations, Sierra Club (Oregon Chapter), the Wilderness
Society and WaterWatch. Later, the Northcoast Environmental Council
joined. Recently, American Rivers, Defenders of wildlife, Headwaters and
World Wildlife Fund have come on board. Here are some of our activities:
- Water Rights Adjudication.
Eventually, water rights will be
adjudicated for the project. The questions of how much water (whether
the right is held by the individual landowner, irrigation districts or
the Bureau of Reclamation) will eventually be decided. What has already
been decided is that tribal rights and the needs of endangered species
come before irrigation.
- Endangered Species Act Litigation.
More litigation is inevitable
over several listed species including the bald eagle, c’wam and qapdo
(fish species in Upper Klamath Lake), bull trout and coho salmon (in the
Lower Klamath River). The Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine
Fisheries Service and the Bureau of Reclamation are failing to fulfill
their legal obligations.
- Endangered Species Act Listings.
Other species – often found
only in the Klamath Basin – are in serious decline, including, but not
limited to: green sturgeon, eulachon (or candlefish), Klamath lamprey,
Pit-Klamath brook lamprey, Pacific lamprey, largescale sucker and
slender sculpin. Steps are underway to obtain Endangered Species Act
protection for these fish.
- Leaseland Farming on National Wildlife Refuges.
Intensive
row-crop agriculture, and the pesticide use that accompanies such
farming, is incompatible with good wildlife management. Conservationists
have a three-pronged strategy to end lease farming on refuge lands.
* Litigate to End the Leases. We believe that National Wildlife
Refuges should be for wildlife. More importantly, that’s what the law
says.
* Persuade Congress to Phase-Out. In 2002, the US House of
Representatives voted 223 to 201 to defeat an amendment that would
phase-out row crop agriculture within the basin’s National Wildlife
Refuges. While we lost, it was a darn fine showing the first time out. We
only need to switch 12 votes to win in the House of Representatives and
then it is on to the Senate. We anticipate congressional action again in
2003.
* Lease Some Lands for Conservation Purposes. Last spring,
conservationists bid on a parcel on the Lower National Wildlife Refuge. We
didn’t win, but we’ll likely be back. If we are successful, we will
display how restored wetlands are refuges for wildlife
Knowledgeable landowners believe that lease rates for private farmlands
within the Klamath Irrigation project would double to triple if the
federal government wasn’t undercutting private landowners by leasing
public lands for farming. Even if you are not particularly concerned about
wildlife on a national wildlife refuge, you, as a project landowner, may
be concerned about the federal government flooding the lease market for
farmland. As you may know, private farmland in the Klamath Irrigation
Project wasn’t leased for farming this year, due to lack of demand. What
private land was leased did not command a good or fair price.
- Clean Water Act Litigation.
ONRC is continuing with its
litigation against the Bureau of Reclamation over the return of polluted
irrigation water to the Klamath River. We are also suing to regulate the
use of acrolein in irrigation canals, a chemical toxic to fish and other
wildlife. Non-point (so-called "total maximum daily loads") pollution
reductions are in the works. In many ways, Klamath Irrigation Project
operations likely violate the Clean Water Act. Our lawyers are exploring
options to ensure that agriculture complies with clean water standards
as municipalities and industries must. We are also looking into whether
pesticide spraying on refuge lands is a violation of one or more federal
laws.
- Bonanza Drinking Water.
Each year, excessive groundwater pumping
dries up Big Springs at Bonanza, allowing polluted water backed by the
Harpold Dam to flow into the local water table and contaminate the
drinking water of numerous residents. The conservation community is
examining options to litigate under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response Compensation and Liability Act, aka "Superfund") and/or
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
- Electric Power Subsidies.
Klamath Irrigation Project farmers
haven’t had a rate increase since 1917. In fact, rates went down in
1956. Because power has been so cheap (project pumpers pay about
0.5cent/kilowatt-hour, while farmers elsewhere in California and Oregon
pay an average of 5.5 cent), the project was designed and is operated
more relying on electricity than gravity. On January 31, 2006, the
preferential subsidy will end. A lot has changed since 1956 when the
contract was last renewed, including, but not limited to:
* The benefits to PacificCorp of using Upper Klamath Lake as a
reservoir allow it to operate its dams for "peak" demand power have
changed due to requirements to maintain minimum (albeit ecologically
inadequate) river flows and lake levels. Therefore, the Bureau of
Reclamation, which Oregon granted the waters of Upper Klamath Lake on
behalf of project farmers, has little-if any-bargaining power this time
around.
* The California and Oregon Public Utilities Commissions now strongly
disfavor such narrow special interest subsidies. Consumer protection
organizations will also oppose the continuation of this subsidy.
* Power rate hikes and spikes, particularly in California, mean that
consumers will have little sympathy for Klamath Basin farmers, especially
when other farmers are paying eleven times more for their electricity, and
still well below average residential and commercial rates.
* It is probably not prudent to expect a Bush Administration (even if
re-elected in 2004) to support a continuation of power subsidies. The
free-market, fiscal-conservative-talking administration is philosophically
opposed to subsidies. President Bush signed the 2002 farm bill, not
because he thought it was good policy, but because the subsidies were
expected to be politically critical to the election of Republicans. Such a
political dynamic may not again be in place until the next farm bill in
the fall of 2008, over two years after January 31, 2006.
- Klamath Hydroelectric Project relicensing.
In addition to
PacificCorp deriving fewer benefits for using the waters of Upper
Klamath Lake for hydroelectric power production, other factors may
contribute to make continued operation of the hydroelectric project
infeasible. The six dams will need certification under the Clean Water
Act and to provide for fish passage. To operate the dams so they don’t
pollute and to pass migrating fish will likely mean that their operation
is uneconomical. Even if the dams can continue to operate, there is
little, if any, benefit to PacificCorp to support continuation of the
power subsidy presently received by project.
- Out-of-Basin Water Transfers.
Conservationists are challenging
diversion of Klamath Basin water to the Rogue Basin. This represents
approximately 30,000 acre-feet (about one-half feet of Upper Klamath
Lake). Such water is not available for Klamath River Basin fish or
farms.
And It’s Not Just the Conservationists
Several Native American tribes, including The Klamath Tribes in the
Upper Basin and the Kurok, Yurok, Hoopa and other tribes along the lower
Klamath River share many of our concerns. The Yurok Tribe has recently
joined some of our ongoing litigation. Jolted by the death of over 33,000
returning salmon due to inadequate water quantity and quality, Humboldt
County and some local governments near the lower river have voted to weigh
in on these issues.
A Win-Win-Win-Win-Win-Win Opportunity
The Bureau of Reclamation has recently announced that irrigators in the
project are going to need to get by with 20-25% less (100,000 acre-feet)
water annually. Conservationists, tribes and commercial fishermen believe
that more reductions are necessary. The Bush administration wants to leave
it up to the "market" to determine how this reduction is allocated, with
some landowners paying other landowners for their water. Such a market is
problematic, especially prior to final adjudication of water rights. We
don’t want to see a future where many landowners will go broke and few
will get even richer.
Instead, conservation organizations are supporting a proposal that
would benefit:
- landowners who want to sell their land or interest in water;
- farmers who want to continue farming;
- commercial fishermen downstream who want to continue fishing;
- Native American Tribes both up and downstream who want to put food
on their table,
- taxpayers; and
- the environment.
By almost any reckoning, the United States has a surplus of farmlands
and a shortage of wetlands. Twenty-six conservation organizations have
proposed that any farmland owner within the Klamath Irrigation Project
be eligible for a voluntary program to sell their land or interests in
water to the federal government.
Conservationists are proposing that the federal government pay
$4,000/acre for the land. This in contrast to the estimated $1,450/acre
average market value today of project farmland. Land values will likely
continue to decrease as markets, water supply, electricity rates and other
factors continue to go against farming as it has been done in the Klamath
Basin.
Conservation organizations support the nearly three times market value
compensation to account for the decline in property values due to the
uncertainty of water delivers and chronically low crop prices due to farm,
finance and trade policies of the federal government. (We don’t propose
that the government acquire any houses and or many outbuildings under this
program.
Those who wish to sell their interest in water and continue dryland
farming would be similarly compensated under our proposal at the rate of
$2,500/acre for non-irrigation conservation easement. We propose
compensation based on "interests in water" because project landowners have
no adjudicated water rights.
Under our proposal, eligible landowners would decide whether or not to
participate. After it is determined which lands are in the buyout program,
suitable lands would be included in national wildlife refuges. Lands not
suitable for refuge status would be first used as trading stock with other
project landowners to consolidate both private and refuge ownership. Any
remaining lands would then be used as trading stock for other beneficial
conservation in basin land exchanges.
Revenues to county governments would go up under such a program,
because federal payments in lieu of taxes for public lands are higher then
local property taxes for private farmlands. Conservationists are also
supportive of programs to maintain local government revenues and provide
for economic transition assistance (such as was done for the "spotted owl"
counties).
We also similarly propose that interests in lands and waters in the
headwater areas be acquired for the water quality, water quantity and
wildlife benefits they can provide.
There are substantial benefits to those who decline to opt into the
program and chose to continue farming. As there would be less farmland,
the water that is available to agriculture each year would be greater and
more certain.
The proposal would:
- Resolve conflicts between various water interests in the Klamath
River Basin.
- Reduce water conflicts between irrigation and wildlife in the
Klamath Irrigation Project.
- Increase the natural supply of water and water quality throughout
the Klamath River Basin,
- Help diversify the economy of the upper Klamath River Basin by
restoring commercial, sport and Native American fisheries, promoting
ecotourism and waterfowl hunting.
- Give options to landowners squeezed by chronically low crop prices
and/or wanting to retire.
- Help conserve and restore the bald eagle, bull trout, c’wam, qapdo
and coho salmon so they no longer need to be on the endangered species
list and restore all these fish species to healthy levels that allow
for a sustained Native American, commercial and/or sport harvest.
- Help conserve and restore the economic base of commercial fishing
off the southern Oregon and northern California coasts, in the Klamath
Basin and along the Klamath River.
- Help meet the federal government’s obligations to Native American
tribes.
- Improve the viability and sustainability of farming in the Klamath
Basin.
- Expand the National Wildlife Refuge System to adequately protect
migratory bird habitat.
- Help restore waterfowl numbers for both hunting and viewing
enjoyment and the economic benefits it brings to local communities.
The estimated the cost of a voluntary buyout, watershed and habitat
restoration, local government revenue maintenance and economic transition
assistance programs to cost between $730-820 million dollars. While is no
small amount of money, if conservation, commercial fishing interests,
waterfowl, tribal and other interest join in support with enough Klamath
Irrigation Project and other basin landowners, such programs can be
enacted and funded by Congress. In the long run, such program will save
the taxpayers money, by reducing farm subsidies and costs associated with
managing endangered species, meeting tribal trust obligations and the
maintenance of water quality and quantity.
Congressional Consideration Has Begun
In response to the massive salmon kill, Congressman Mike Thompson (who
represents people along the lower river) and Congressman Earl Blumenauer
(who represents east Portland) introduced H.R. 5698, the "Klamath River
Basin Restoration and Emergency Assistance Act of 2002." Among other
things, the bill would provide $100 million for the:
Purchase or lease, from a willing seller or lessor, or land, water
rights associated with land, and other property interests in the Upper
Klamath Basin above Iron Gate Dam and within the Scott and Shasta River
Valleys and other Lower Klamath Basin areas, including acquisition of
non-irrigation conservation easements that preclude the grantor of such
an easement from irrigating lands that are subject to such an easement.
Although the bill died in the last Congress, we anticipate it will be
reintroduced early in the 108th Congress. While an important
step, as introduced, the bill would not authorize enough money and
presumes such buyouts would only be at market value. In addition, most
conservationists disfavor leases because of their high short-term costs
and uncertainty of long-term benefits.
Make Your Voices Heard
Unless enough Klamath Irrigation Project and other basin landowners
support a voluntary buyout program, it won’t happen. In a democracy,
silent support doesn’t count. You have to make your voice heard.
The four United States Senators from Oregon and California, along with
the three members of House of Representatives that have Klamath Irrigation
Project lands within their districts all want to do right by their
constituents. However, Oregon US Senator Gordon Smith and the three House
members in particular, have been listening exclusively to an irrigation
elite and not to a majority of project landowners. This is understandable
because the majority has not been making their voices heard.
Eighty-percent of democracy is showing up. Those that have been showing up
regularly are the irrigation elite that consists of:
- Chemical, seed, fertilizer and implement dealers who make money each
year the farmer plants, whether the farmer does or not.
- Farmers who dominate leasing of subsidized farmlands on the national
wildlife refuges; and
- Farmers who own little or none of their own farmland, but lease (for
a song) farmland from retirees, widows and absentee owners who have no
other options.
If you believe that their interests are not the same as your interests,
then you and others in similar circumstances need to make your voice
heard. If you want the option to sell your farmland or interests in water
at a just price, you have to directly inform your elected officials:
Senator Barbara Boxer Senator Dianne Feinstein
United States Senate United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510 Washington, DC 20510
(202)224-3553 voice (202)224-3841 voice
(415) 956-6701 fax (202) 228-3954 fax
senator@boxer.senate.gov (email through web
site)
http://boxer.senate.gov http://feinstein.senate.gov
Senator Ron Wyden Senator Gordon Smith
United States Senate United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510 Washington, DC 20510
(202) 224-5244 voice (202) 224-3753 voice
(202) 228-2717 fax (202) 228-3997 fax
(email through web site)
oregon@gsmith.senate.gov
http://wyden.senate.gov
http://gsmith.senate.gov
Klamath County Modoc County Siskiyou County
Rep. Greg Walden Rep. John Doolittle Rep. Wally Herger
U.S. House of Representatives U.S. House of Representatives U.S. House
of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515 Washington, DC 20515 Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-6730 voice (202) 225-2511 voice (202) 225-3076 voice
(202) 225-5774 fax (202) 225-5444 fax (202) 225-1740 fax
greg.walden@mail.house.gov
doolittle@mail.house.gov (email through web
site)
www.house.gov/walden
www.house.gov/doolittle
www.house.gov/herger
You can write (slow due to anthrax concerns), call, fax or email them.
If you can’t get them on the telephone personally, ask to speak to the
staff person who handles Klamath Basin issues.
In Conclusion
So, why are conservation organizations urging Congress to establish
such a voluntary and generous compensation option? Obviously, we want
wetlands restoration for the fish and wildlife habitat, water quality,
commercial fishing, tribal fishing, recreation and economic values it
provides. Besides being ecological imperative, a restructuring of the
Klamath Irrigation Project is economically rational, fiscally prudent,
socially just and politically pragmatic.
Conservationists also want something else. For too long, farmers and
conservationists have just argued in both courts of law and the court of
public opinion about science, water, wildlife and values. I expect we will
continue to disagree on many matters. Nonetheless, most of us should be
able to agree on this: If a landowner in the Klamath River Basin wants
to sell their land or interest in water to the federal government at
well-above market value, then they ought to be able to do so.
Permit me to close on the issue of social justice for project
landowners. While federal government has trust obligations to Native
American tribes and legal obligations to endangered species, it also has
social obligations to project landowners. For decades, the federal
government reliably provided irrigation waters to project farmers. New
laws, old laws now enforced, changed social conditions, changed government
policies in other areas (globalization of agriculture and capital, NAFTA,
shipping rates, etc.) and other factors have combined to irrevocably
change farming conditions in the Klamath Irrigation Project.
These changed federal policies have left Klamath Irrigation Project
landowners with what are essentially stranded investments. Land prices
today-and probably in the future-aren’t reflective of what the land was
worth or needs to be worth to get clear of the bank and have something
left over for retirement, a new start, college education’s for loved ones,
etc. What conservation organizations are proposing for Klamath Basin
landowners is nothing less then the recapitalization of the rural American
West. We hope you can also support that too.
Sincerely,
(signed)
Jay Ward
Conservation Director
P.S. In the interests of space and readability, I have not included
sources and citations for the factual assertions made in this letter.
Please see our website at
http://www.onrc.org/programs/klamath.html
for more information and documentation.