We’ve studied the issue — looked at the economics, the politics, the history, the cultural aspects — and we’ve used hundreds of column inches in reporting on it. What convinced us to endorse the agreement? People.
We’ve met with stakeholders and supporters. We like them and believe they are community minded. We think they are astute and they employed a sound negotiating process. We trust them.
This by no means indicates we reject those against the settlement; we’ve met them, and like them, too. But the majority of stakeholders are committed to the settlement. They continue to work improving it, negotiating with individual water users, and talking it up in their circles. We’re going with them.
If you are a community
member, you should consider being supportive, too. Even if
there are parts you don’t entirely like — such as dam
removal — you should consider supporting the agreement as
a whole. Our commissioners should vote to endorse it,
because the settlement is good for our economy and good
for the greatest cross-section of our people. Our state
and federal politicians should look to receive the
agreement, champion it and make it work through policy and
funding.
What’s best for the community is what each of the
stakeholders should have been thinking as they came to the
table over the past couple years. What they strived for
was mutual benefit through certainty, predictability and
sustainability of water and other resources up and down
the entire Basin.
Is it the perfect settlement? There is no perfect
settlement; there never will be. If the process were
reopened now in order to try to make more people happy, it
would only make more people unhappy.
Adversaries include some off-Project irrigators (those who
rely on the water to irrigate their crops, but who are not
located in the Klamath Reclamation Project); some
downriver concerns who believe the settlement doesn’t do
enough to restore fisheries; Siskiyou County commissioners
who worry about several items, including loss of property
valuation of the dams; and PacifiCorp officials (they say
they aren’t philosophically for or against dam removal,
but publicly take an adversarial posture).
Klamath County commissioners haven’t voted.
In favor of it are several community interests, most
on-Project irrigators and associations, the Klamath
Tribes, and other local governmental interests up and down
the Basin, fishing interests, environmental groups and
state and federal agencies.
State and federal officials indicate receptiveness.
Supporters feel that it’s important to round up all the
support possible and hand it off to state and federal
officials.
U.S. Rep. Greg Walden, R-Oregon, says that the present
administration is interested in the Klamath Basin and
willing to do something.
“They know how important it is and would like to get
something done on their watch,” he says. He adds that
there is realistic hope that some progress could be made
by the fall, and there’s no telling just yet what the next
administration will do.
In the meantime, the state has refused to stay
adjudication of water rights and claims; they evidently
believe that the extra pressure might bring about greater
consensus on the settlement (that’s a joke). It is
reported that the legal costs of adjudication for farmers,
the Tribes, anyone at all involved, is thousands of
dollars every single day.
The agreement stops the bleeding of legal fees and
addresses most of the major issues of our Basin community.
We should push to have it accepted and supported.
“The thing to think,” says Walden, “is, ‘if not now then
when ... if ever?’” He’s exactly right.
Editorial board
Steve Miller wrote today’s editorials. The members of
the Herald and News editorial board are Publisher Heidi
Wright, Editor Steve Miller, Day Editor Marcia McGonigle
and Opinion Editor Pat Bushey.
| Top issues in the agreement |
Reader Comments
The County's consultant indicated that it is likeley the river bed will raise below the dam, which might innundate homes and threaten bridges. (When Marmot dam was raized at 955,000 cubic yards of stored sediment, the riverbed rose 13 feet.) The sediment is likely to wipe out the benthic (bottom) ecology of the river and cause turbidity lethal to salmon. The consultant analyst indicated it is likely the dioxin will remain suspaended in the estuary for a long time.
The comprehensive studies have not been done to properly guage the full damage that could be caused by dam removal. It is irresponsible to proceed without them, but no one wants to really quantify the liability of dam removal bacuase that would make it less attractive to the public.
In addition, PacifiCorp spokespeople have stated that the costs of dam retrofitting for fish bypass can be amortized over 30 years and rates would reflect that. Costs of dam removal are immediate and would hit the rate payers in a huge lump immediately.
How come your article makes no mention of any of these concerns? "