Honorable Earl Blumenauer
U.S. House of Representatives
2446 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Blumenauer:

On behalf of the Klamath Water Users Association (KWUA), I would like to thank you and your staff for altering your schedule and taking the time to meet with members of our association, local agricultural producers, business leaders and Klamath County Commissioner John Elliot last Thursday in Klamath Falls. Your visit to the Klamath Basin and your willingness to meet with our association sends a hopeful message to our agricultural community of your commitment to understand the true nature of the challenges we face.

I moved to the Basin to assume my current position in late 2001, nearly three years ago. In that time, I have been amazed by the sheer number of assessments and "solutions" that have been proposed, often times by outside advocacy groups who do not appear to understand the complexity, history and unique nature of the Klamath Project. While it is important to consider all views when trying to craft solutions, I have witnessed a focused attempt to apply "solutions" and arguments that have been forwarded in other irrigated areas (e.g. the Central Valley Project of California) that simply do not, and cannot, be applied to the Klamath Project. Some times, these solutions are advocated against a background of pending catastrophe, where our national wildlife refuges, Upper Klamath Lake or the lower Klamath River are portrayed as teetering on the brink of destruction. We believe that environmental exaggerations like this scare the public and make us more likely to spend our resources and attention solving phantom problems while ignoring real and pressing issues.

We were heartened at our meeting last week when you expressed an interest in hearing "both sides of the story". Towards that end, we have prepared the following attachments that we hope will tell our story:

1. KWUA’s comments sent earlier this summer regarding "Scoping Document No. 1" prepared by FERC in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"). This should provide you with the additional detail you requested regarding our stance on, and related history of, the current power rate enjoyed by Klamath Project irrigators.
2. Description of pre-Project hydrology, relative to downstream flows in the Klamath River.
3. Description of Klamath Project efficiency.
4. Summary of cropping patterns and irrigation.
5. Summary of March-October diversions, 1962-2001.
6. Summary of refuge water demands, 1951-2001.

Attachments 2-6 were all derived primarily from KWUA’s "Klamath Project Water Bank" proposal, developed in late 2002. Please note that our proposed water bank differs substantially from the one currently being implemented by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.

In our visit last week, you also noted concerns regarding the sustainability of local groundwater aquifers. Throughout the past few years, we have worked closely with the Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) to assess groundwater conditions. I suggest that your staff contact Ned Gates, OWRD hydrogeologist (541-388-6669), who is very familiar with Klamath Basin groundwater. I believe he will note that, while there are definite areas of concern, the actual conditions and related causes are not as extreme or simple as some activist organizations portray them to be.

In the past 40 to 50 years, while the cropping pattern in the Klamath Project has varied from year to year, the overall planted acreage has remained consistent. On the other hand, the 2002-2012 biological opinion created by NOAA Fisheries for coho salmon established the river flow schedule and the water bank – which ratchets up to 100,000 acre-feet in 2005, regardless of actual hydrologic conditions – that is the primary source of new demand for water in the Klamath River watershed. The result: stored water that has flowed to farms, ranches and the refuges for nearly 100 years is now sent downstream at such high levels, that groundwater pumped from the Lost River basin is being used to supplement the resulting coho salmon demand in the Klamath River.

On behalf of KWUA, I would like to thank you again for your willingness to meet with us in Klamath Falls. We look forward to your return visit in the near future, and we are pleased that you are interesting in participating in a "hands-on" tour of the Klamath Project. If you or your staff have any questions or further information needs in the coming months, please do not hesitate to call me at 541-883-6100.

Sincerely,

Steve Kandra Dan Keppen
President Executive Director

Under pre-Project conditions, natural controls existed below both Upper Klamath Lake and Lake Ewauna which stabilized lake levels except during critical droughts. Those controls were natural reefs of hard earth material in the channel and other channel constrictions. Under these pre-Project conditions, the Klamath River flowed into Lower Klamath Lake area. The United States Reclamation Services 1906 map titled "Topographic and Drainage Map, Upper and Lower Klamath Project" shows the invert of the Klamath Strait approximately the same level as the Klamath River channel bottom near Keno. In addition, the Lost River terminated at Tule Lake. These flows flooded approximately 183,000 acres within Lower Klamath and Tule Lake. In general, under pre-Project conditions, Klamath River flows downstream of Keno may have occurred after a certain water level was reached in the Klamath River and Lower Klamath Lake. The exact timing and frequency of the division of flow between Klamath Straits and the Klamath River is not clear based on historical documents.

During many dry years under pre-Project conditions, there were times of little or no flow in the Link River below Upper Klamath Lake and Klamath River below Keno. These conditions occurred as a result of dry runoff conditions and were controlled by the same natural reefs identified above. During dry years and years of low runoff, evaporation from Upper Klamath Lake likely exceeded the inflow to the lake resulting in little or no outflow. In addition to these events, high winds from the south periodically kept water from overflowing the natural reefs into the river channels which left certain reaches of the Link River completely dry.

Under current Project conditions, greater quantities of water can be stored in Upper Klamath Lake for later beneficial use, including agriculture, refuge water, and in-stream flows. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is completing it’s draft "Undepleted Natural Flow of the Upper Klamath River", which concludes that downstream flows in the Klamath River have increased 30 percent over discharges before agricultural settlement occurred. The flow increases are attributed to the fact that irrigated land uses less water than evaporation loss from the swamps and marshes that existed before the shallow lakebeds were reclaimed for agricultural use.

The Klamath Project changed the timing of flows but has not reduced the overall volume of flow. The change in timing of flow is discussed above. A primary component of the difference in volume of water under pre-Project versus post-Project conditions would be the difference in consumptive use within the Lower Klamath and Tule Lake areas. According to a map of this area during the summer of 1906, approximately 152,000 acres were either marshland or flooded in excess of the current National Wildlife Refuges. The evaporation from an open body of water in the Tule Lake area during March through October is between 3.0 to 3.5 feet. This also is a reasonable approximation of the consumptive use of marshland tules and grasses. Lower Klamath Refuge presently requests 3.5 AF/acre to sustain permanent marshes. Therefore, the total pre-Project consumption was in the range of 456,000 to 532,000 acre-feet. Assuming these same lands are all in agricultural production and receiving water, the estimated consumption is in the 304,000 acre-foot order of magnitude. This is based on the total evapotranspiration of potatoes at approximately 2.0 AF/Ac which is the highest water using crop behind alfalfa and pasture. If all of the lands were alfalfa or pasture, we would expect the consumption to be comparable to the lower end of the pre-Project conditions.

Davids Engineering prepared a draft report in October of 1998 for the Bureau of Reclamation titled "Klamath Project Historical Water Use Analysis." This report is based on water use data beginning in October of 1961 and ending in September of 1997. The following is a quote of Section 5.4, discussion of Project efficiency, from the report.

The subregions identified in the above quote are described in general as follows:

The crops grown within the Klamath Project area consist of grain, hay, pasture, silage, mint, potatoes, onions, vegetables, alfalfa, and horseradish. This list of crops represents the majority of crops grown within the Klamath Basin over the last 40 to 50 years. The cropping pattern has varied from year to year, but the overall planted acreage has remained consistent.

Irrigation water requirements from the Klamath River are diverted and measured at the A Canal, Station 48, Miller Hill Pumping Plant, North Canal, and Ady Canal. The unmeasured sites include Number 1 Drain, miscellaneous private diverters along the Lost River diversion channel, and diversions made from Spring Lake. The following plot shows the combined volume for all diversion points from the Klamath River. This plot includes an estimate of the diversions made at the unmeasured locations. As can be seen from the plot, diversions from Klamath River have remained relatively consistent between 400,000 and 550,000 acre-feet during March through October, with the exception of 2001 when curtailments by the Bureau of Reclamation were made to Project water users.

Lower Klamath and Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge demands are met from tail water from irrigation, diversions from Klamath River, and diversions from Lost River. The relative quantities from each of the sources is unknown due to the lack of available data and likely changes monthly or seasonally, depending on availability The one source that has available data is the diversions from the Klamath River to the Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge through the Ady Canal. The following is a plot of the March through October and January through December diversions to the Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge for the period 1951 through 2001.

As can be seen from the plot, Klamath River diversions to the Lower Klamath Refuge have varied significantly since 1951 but have remained at a higher level since 1985.