Time to Take Action
Our Klamath Basin Water Crisis
Upholding rural Americans' rights to grow food,
own property, and caretake our wildlife and natural resources.
 

http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130531/OPINION/305310318&emailAFriend=1

Klamath water agreement won't deliver what is needed

In response to a guest opinion published in the Mail Tribune on May 16 by Gary Derry and Luke Robison (BELOW), titled "Klamath commissioner inflames water dispute":

As an elected Klamath County commissioner, I am tasked to represent all of the citizens of Klamath County. I do not expect to please everyone. However, the results of the last election proved overwhelmingly that my very well-known positions and desired directions were indeed supported by the majority of the voters. (Approximately 73 percent in the 2012 general election)

The authors of the opinion article are major supporters of the Klamath Dam Removal Agreement and Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, or KBRA. It seems they may have forgotten that the election results included all of Klamath County. For the record, I am still against the Klamath River dam removal proposal, (four dams), and the current KBRA. The current KBRA simply does not deliver what is needed.

I am, however, in complete agreement that a viable comprehensive settlement for all the Klamath Basin water is needed. This is my belief not only for the sake of the entire Klamath Basin, but also for the sake of irrigated agriculture within the Rogue Valley. The Rogue Valley receives approximately 30,000 acre feet of water from the Klamath Basin on a yearly basis. This water is used to irrigate pear orchards, hay fields, pastures and many other crops. Under the current agreements, I believe the Rogue Valley diversion will be in jeopardy during a short water year. Larry Menteer, Oregon state watermaster for Jackson County, acknowledged this in an interview with Ron Brown of KDRV Channel 12 on Sept. 21, 2011.

One of numerous examples in the KBRA that are detrimental to the Rogue Valley diversion, section 20.5.2E, states, "This prioritization list shall be used to target future opportunities to restore instream water within the Klamath Basin consistent with and to implement this Agreement."), also, (15.3.2 B ii within the Klamath Project Water Users-Klamath Tribes-United States Bureau of Indian Affairs Stipulation, Attachment 1 reads: "Recognize the tribal water rights at the claimed amounts and with the priority date of time immemorial.")

According to my reading of the recent Yurok Tribes dispute initiation process, they are saying the Oregon Water Resources Department has agreed to provide, through the KBRA, "environmental water" in the adjudication, such that calls will be made to provide for this water. These calls based on environmental water would be made upon irrigators who are not a party to the KBRA. It certainly appears as though the state of Oregon has now surrendered to the federal government and other KBRA parties by creating a water right for "environmental water" out of thin air, which could now be enforceable against all irrigators.

The guest opinion insinuates that I have put out "a thinly veiled threat and, worse, a justification for violence." These accusations are 100 percent false and 100 percent unfounded. I have actively been doing the exact opposite. I have been taking every opportunity to keep local perspectives composed and tempers calm. However, to ignore the possible negative consequences of another major water shutoff would be totally irresponsible.

The writers of the guest opinion are doing nothing more than repeating history. Whenever supporters of a failing, misguided direction become desperate, they resort to unfounded personal attacks. As an elected official, I will openly accept criticism from any citizen; however, I also promised to never avoid the hard decisions but rather meet them head-on and work for solutions that are supported by all the citizens I represent. Again, not everyone will be satisfied when tough choices have to be made, but I am disappointed the authors have once again descended to this level.

I do look forward to a united community and my door is always open for further discussion and enlightenment.

Tom Mallams is a Klamath County commissioner.
Correction: Tom Mallams' name has been corrected here.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130516/OPINION/305160309/-1/NEWSMAP

Klamath commissioner inflames water dispute

by Gary Derry and Luke Robison May 16, 2013, Medford Mail Tribune

It's time for some of our local elected officials here in Klamath County to take accountability for their statements on the water challenges facing our community. In a May 8 Associated Press article about the Klamath Basin Water Adjudication that appeared in the Mail Tribune, Klamath County Commissioner Tom Mallams is quoted as saying, "I hope that nothing bad happens here. But if something bad happens, I am going to point the finger at the state Water Resources Department and state leadership as the cause of it "" Earlier, Mallams was quoted in the April 19 edition of the Wall Street Journal, stating, "they shut water off here, there could be some violence."

Commissioner Mallams' comments are ironic and irresponsible. Ironic because before he was elected he was a staunch advocate for the water rights adjudication process, claiming it was the solution to the basin's water challenges. He helped lead the attack against the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA), which includes a negotiated settlement of tribal water claims, urging fellow irrigators to rely instead on adjudication despite the well-documented fact that tribal water right claims regularly rise to the top in adjudication proceedings elsewhere in the West. That's what happened in the Oregon process, too. The Klamath Tribes received the most senior rights.

That our county commissioner would be disappointed, even angry about this outcome is understandable. He and his Upper Basin off-Project neighbors may experience water shortages this summer and in the future as a result of enforcement of state water rights, and we don't wish that on anyone. It's Mallams' allusions to violence that are irresponsible. His professed concern about "something bad" happening feels more like a thinly veiled threat and, worse, a justification for violence. He certainly said nothing to discourage "something bad" from happening. Responsible elected officials just don't act that way.

The family farms and ranches that are part of the Klamath Reclamation Project's irrigation districts chose a different path. Most of us decided not to leave our fate up to uncertain outcomes decided by someone else. Instead, many of us did our homework and chose to civilly negotiate a water rights settlement with the Klamath Tribes that would provide security for those we represent. As a result, the senior tribal water rights won't be exercised in a negative way against farms and ranches in the Klamath Project.

In 2001 when the Endangered Species Act caused water to be shut off to irrigators on the Klamath Reclamation Project there was no violence, despite a heavily publicized standoff between federal marshals and parties who supported irrigation interests. Mallams talks often about how he stood to support Project irrigators at the head gates that year. He and others with water rights junior to the Klamath Project were also able to irrigate their farms and ranches during that time because the adjudication process was still grinding slowly forward and could not be enforced. Notably, Mallams took the position in the adjudication that water rights do not even exist for a majority of lands in the Klamath Reclamation Project; in other words, most family farms and ranches in the Klamath Project (including ours) should never get water. Unsurprisingly, and like his challenges to other claims, this position was rejected.

Despite comments to the contrary by Mallams, relying on adjudication didn't work for the off-project water users that insisted on that path. Hoping to change the outcome of this process that started decades ago, he and a small group have now challenged the adjudication decision, filing litigation to stop the application of the prior appropriation doctrine in the Basin for many more years.

Certainly, Mallams and his neighbors have the right to challenge decisions they don't like. Where we think that he goes wrong is in his finger-pointing and implied threats of violence as well as his hypocrisy about supporting all of the irrigated agriculture in Klamath County.

Some of us held out hope that, once in office, Mallams would take the high road and look to be a statesman; instead he is choosing to use the bully pulpit to further divide our community. If "something bad happens" this year, the blame won't be on those upholding a century-old water law, or those exercising a legally enforceable senior water right. The blame should be pointed squarely at the Klamath County Government building.

Gary Derry of Malin and Luke Robison of Merrill farm and are part of small irrigation districts that manage water in the southern portion of Klamath County in the Klamath Reclamation Project. They and their families primarily raise alfalfa and grass hay as well as a variety of small grain crops.

 

 

 

 

 

 

====================================================

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

Home Contact

 

              Page Updated: Tuesday June 04, 2013 12:51 AM  Pacific


             Copyright klamathbasincrisis.org, 2001 - 2013, All Rights Reserved