Unfortunately, I'm not calling auditions for Shakespeare, we have plenty of competition for Don John's character.  Last week in Salem, the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA) and Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA) (more commonly referred to as “the settlement agreements”) were married, signed, and sealed.  While there were far too many references to Schwarzenegger movies with the California governor in attendance last week, the day marks an important turning point in Oregon Wild's long history in the Klamath Basin.  Indeed, we were out of step with the masses.

Oregon Wild has been working in the Klamath for over two decades.  We were inspired by the remarkable refuges, troubled by water quality, and bound by the 2002 fish kill.  Our work in the basin has ranged from ESA petitions, to birding trips, to legislative efforts with Congressman Blumenauer and Senator Wyden, to litigation on fish, dams, flows, and pesticides.  You name it and we’ve probably touched upon the issue over the course of our sharp-elbowed past. 

This month though marks a new stage in one of our toughest fights.  Negotiated over the last several years the KBRA is a deal to apportion the basin’s water, while the KHSA focuses more specifically on dam removal.  As many readers, legislators, and Oregon Wild members know, we were was disinvited from negotiations after raising concerns about the KBRA’s treatment of National Wildife Refuges and Klamath River flows.  Last week, as the story of diverse interests holding hands in the basin went to print, there remain no guaranteed water flows for fish or improvements to the  National Wildlife Refuge lands currently leased for commercial agriculture.  Nearly $1 billion dollars and the supposed plan to restore the basin doesn’t include guaranteed flows for fish or wetland restoration of public lands?

As a water resource scientist, it’s baffling, as a conservation advocate, it’s heart wrenching.  Similarly troubling is the fact that 32,000 acres of public land will remain plowed under as alfafa, onions, and potatoes, as we watch migratory bird populations shift and plummet as habitat losses rise.  Oregon Wild long argued that refuges should not be part of a deal about water, but if they were, let’s use it as an opportunity to really restore the basin and the wetlands at its headwaters.  Unfortunately, we lost that battle with irrigation interests calling the shots.  Similar battles on river flows, tribal waiver language, subsidies, and guaranteed dam removal have been lost by the Northcoast Environmental Center, the Hoopa Valley Tribe, WaterWatch of Oregon, and Friends of the River.  Grassroots organizations with eras of institutional knowledge questioning these deals should raise red flags.  So, as the ink dries on these deals, it’s hard not to feel like this is all much ado about nothing.

On February 11^th, Oregon’s junior Senator, Jeff Merkley, took the stage in the Oregonian online to lend his support to the settlement agreements.  Without legislation finalized and without an Oregon-based group on board, Senator Merkley applauded the efforts of those holding hands on the deals.  While Oregon Wild and others are discouraged by some of the remaining conservation sacrifices in the deals, we are committed to working toward more balanced compromises and solutions as these deals make their way through Congress.  Some have argued that our sharp elbows have disabled us from recognizing how to strike a bargain.  I disagree, as evidenced in the Eastside Bill for the protection of old growth and creation of jobs—we do know how to play with others.  

What Oregon Wild would like to see in the Klamath Basin is a basinwide approach that does not depend on crossed fingers and better than average water years.  In a changing climate and an overly engineered system like the Klamath, compromise is possible, and not at the expense of endangered fish and wildlife:

Wildlife Refuges -- Ensuring the future ability to manage these refuges for wildlife, rather than private commercial agriculture.  Phasing out commercial agriculture on these federal public lands would not only benefit wildlife, but also provide for a secure and reliable water source and storage on Tule Lake NWR (100,000 acre foot potential).  Expanded wetlands on the refuges would also help improve water quality in the river.  To be fair and equitable, any such phase out should include financial or other reasonable compensation for current refuge land farmers.

Water -- The irrigators want certainty of their water supply.  We support certainty for irrigators if similar enforceable certainty is extended to water for fish and the National Wildlife Refuges.  The actual water volume should be based on scientific analysis of what is sustainable after science-based flows for the river, and water levels for Upper Klamath Lake and the wildlife refuges have been addressed (the KBRA does the opposite).  To make the whole scheme work, it is likely that we would need some sort of reduction plan (like Sen. Wyden proposed in 2002) to balance demands.

Drought and Climate Planning -- Drought and climate plans should be developed by the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) rather than the US Bureau of Reclamation (or the Klamath Water Users Association).  Any water plan must pass muster with all of the Basin’s Tribes—we absolutely should not be legislating a water scheme over the objection of Tribal leaders in the basin.

Electricity -- Subsidized electricity rates are a core issue for Klamath Project Irrigators within the settlement (currently subsidized at $50 million in the KBRA).  We have been willing to support this in the past, and continue to do so in exchange for the phase out of agriculture on public refuge land.

Klamath Tribes land acquisition -- We support The Klamath Tribes current land acquisition proposal (purchasing private timber land east of Crater Lake NP).  In the KBRA, they would be granted federal tax dollars to make this purchase.  

Restoration funding/money for other Tribes -- Nearly half the KBRA's $1 billion budget goes to agenda items that have nothing to do with salmon restoration.  Retention of the funding in the KBRA that addresses the much-needed restoration work in the basin is necessary.  Partial funding for Tribal natural resources departments should also be retained. Overall, restoration funding could provide a substantial economic benefit by generating jobs in rural areas of the Klamath Basin.