The 2008 Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement started more than two and a half years ago, with 26 representatives coming to the table to work out a deal to solve water issues. Discussion started as part of the federal relicensing process for four PacifiCorp dams several years ago. The issues those groups brought up were so complex and far-ranging that the talks turned to working out a comprehensive settlement.

A 256-page document outlining a detailed and wide-ranging agreement was created. At the crux of it all is agreement on who gets how much water, when and how. But there is so much else — it’s an amazing thing, really.

It doesn’t make everyone happy. It makes a lot of people satisfied. It’s expected to cost $1 billion, supporters say. We think the reality is that it will cost much, much more than that. But it will still be quite worth it. The long-term payback is tremendous.

Some major issues:

•  Water rights and claims adjudication. This has been an ongoing issue and will remain so until there is general agreement or until all court cases are cleared up (that process could take decades at a significant cost). This is reason enough, economically, to support the agreement and covers the costs.

•  Migratory fish species could be re-established through the watershed. That means economic, cultural and recreation gains.

•  There could be limited water usage for irrigators, but it would be more certain, more predictable and more sustainable. Those factors take away some of the worst risk of the business of farming.

•  Negotiating would continue and investments made in green energy to relieve some of the stress on irrigators of radically increasing power rates.

•  The Klamath Tribes would receive finances to secure the purchase of 90,000 acres of private forestland. It would benefit their tribal economy; it would benefit the economy of the Basin.

“I watched Restoration (the act that reinstated Tribal status),” says Jeff Mitchell, Klamath Tribal Council member. “We’re waiting for that to bring economic prosperity. It’s never happening. This (the agreement) will help finally start rebuilding the economy of the Tribes.”

•  There is some assistance earmarked to counties to compensate for lost property tax revenues.

• Dams would be removed and that sustainable power lost. But that would be offset by economic gains elsewhere in the Basin. Community members and leaders should not get totally caught up in the issue of dam removal — it’s just one aspect, important as it is. And they shouldn’t look at this as a general statement about dams and rivers, because it’s not. It is a settlement agreement on a multitude of issues.

 “This is not a blanket endorsement of dam removal,” Addington says. “This is a unique place and situation.”