It appears that some of our elected leaders are
missing the point about the proposed Klamath Basin
Restoration Agreement.
State Rep. Bill Garrard, State Sen. Doug Whitsett, and others seem to be going out of their way to preserve the treacherous status quo on water.
A recent example is a claim made on radio station KFLS and in the Herald and News that the agreement is illegal because of a statute that allows Oregon to negotiate water rights with a federally recognized tribe “to define the scope and attributes of rights to water.”
At no time during the settlement has the state, or other parties, attempted to “define the scope and attributes of tribal water rights.”
Some attributes of the tribal claims were defined in the Adair litigation. Others will be determined by the state in the adjudication process. The state has exercised extreme caution to preserve the integrity of adjudication and avoid predetermining any person’s or entity’s water rights.
Unfortunately, this attempt to chip away at the work of many Klamath County residents is unfounded. It has nothing to do with the agreement’s substance. The allegation is not relevant.
The state did not participate to negotiate water rights. Project irrigators negotiated a settlement of adjudication contests with the Klamath Tribes and, should the agreement move forward, will submit that proposed settlement to the adjudicator for consideration. The tribes still have to prove their water rights. The state still has the obligation to determine the attributes of those rights. The state’s role was to protect the interests of the state and parties to the adjudication.
My concern is not about raising legitimate issues or fostering meaningful discussion, rather I am concerned about motivation. If elected representatives don’t like the proposed agreement, then let’s hear a viable and politically justifiable alternative. The critics are awful quiet on that subject.
Dave Solem
Klamath Falls
Editor’s note: Dave Solem is manager of the Klamath Irrigation District, one of the districts on the Klamath Reclamation Project.
State Rep. Bill Garrard, State Sen. Doug Whitsett, and others seem to be going out of their way to preserve the treacherous status quo on water.
A recent example is a claim made on radio station KFLS and in the Herald and News that the agreement is illegal because of a statute that allows Oregon to negotiate water rights with a federally recognized tribe “to define the scope and attributes of rights to water.”
At no time during the settlement has the state, or other parties, attempted to “define the scope and attributes of tribal water rights.”
Some attributes of the tribal claims were defined in the Adair litigation. Others will be determined by the state in the adjudication process. The state has exercised extreme caution to preserve the integrity of adjudication and avoid predetermining any person’s or entity’s water rights.
Unfortunately, this attempt to chip away at the work of many Klamath County residents is unfounded. It has nothing to do with the agreement’s substance. The allegation is not relevant.
The state did not participate to negotiate water rights. Project irrigators negotiated a settlement of adjudication contests with the Klamath Tribes and, should the agreement move forward, will submit that proposed settlement to the adjudicator for consideration. The tribes still have to prove their water rights. The state still has the obligation to determine the attributes of those rights. The state’s role was to protect the interests of the state and parties to the adjudication.
My concern is not about raising legitimate issues or fostering meaningful discussion, rather I am concerned about motivation. If elected representatives don’t like the proposed agreement, then let’s hear a viable and politically justifiable alternative. The critics are awful quiet on that subject.
Dave Solem
Klamath Falls
Editor’s note: Dave Solem is manager of the Klamath Irrigation District, one of the districts on the Klamath Reclamation Project.