The agreement would put less stress on the aquifer and leave more of the water in the ground
by Jim Carleton, guest columnist, Herald and News 2/24/08
________________________________

Home

   After attending the public meeting held by the county commissioners Feb. 11, it became apparent that there are several misconceptions being circulated. 

   I would like to address one. 

   It seems that a large section of the public believes that the settlement agreement is proposing that groundwater be used at a higher level than has been done in the past and that the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement is an advocate for that. 

   First of all, the restoration agreement was never intended to take control over the groundwater in the Basin. It only would use groundwater in a supplemental fashion, approved by the Oregon Water Resource Department. The department already has laws in place governing groundwater and has been doing so for many years. It will continue to do so in the future — that is its job. 

   As I see it there are three options for the future concerning groundwater. 

   Continue with the status quo, which, under the current biological opinions has required the Bureau of Reclamation to pump groundwater every year for the last six irrigation seasons in some fashion to meet lake levels, stream flows and maintain water deliveries to project irrigators and wildlife refuges. 

   Reject the settlement and wait for the next “2001” water-type year and then all well-owners will be forced to pump water from wells all summer long to meet crop demands for their individual farms. 

   Support the restoration agreement and get some guarantees for water supplies to the project. Models have shown that through this agreement groundwater would only have to be pumped in 50 percent of the years or less, and give the aquifer a rest from pumping and time to recharge, neither of which has happened in the last six years. 

   It seems to me that for all of the people concerned about groundwater in the whole Basin, the most sensible action would be to support the agreement and put less stress on the aquifer and leave more water stored in the best reservoir available to us today, the ground. 

   I would encourage all people to give some thought to these three scenarios and then decide which one would be best for all the people of the Basin. My guess is that the restoration agreement offers the best option for sustainable ground water into the future.

 

 

 

About the author:

 

Jim Carleton is a fourth-generation farmer in the Merrill area.  He is president of the Mid-Basin Water Group, an organization of about 25 well owners on the Oregon side of the border.

Klamath Water Users Association
2455 Patterson Street, Suite 3
Klamath Falls, Oregon 97603
Phone (541) 883-6100
FAX   (541) 883-8893  
kwua@cvcwireless.net