on the cover / By Hank Sims

The Klamath Settlement

Weighing the pros and cons of a proposal to end the crisis on our most important river

(Oct. 8, 2009)  The troubles on the Klamath River are much older than the 2002 fish kill, and they continue to this day. But seven years ago, when as many as 70,000 Chinook and coho washed up dead on the banks of the river, a desperate new sense of urgency was born in the public consciousness. For the first time, it seemed possible that California’s second most productive salmon fishery could turn completely barren, and that it could happen soon. And in the intervening years, in fact, commercial salmon fishing has shriveled, banned entirely for some years due to a lack of fish. The river has seen numerous other mass die-offs, mostly of juvenile salmon, since the 2002 crisis.

Solutions are not easy to come by. As it stands, the river is broadly divided between upstream agricultural interests in the Klamath Basin, which straddles Oregon and California in the east, and fishing communities in the west. In between are four electricity-producing dams ultimately owned by Warren Buffett, one of the world’s richest men. Apart from the river itself, the only thing that unites these interest groups is their unhappiness. The farmers had their own traumatic event a year before the fish kill — in 2001, irrigation was shut off completely due to drought conditions. This led to a political uprising in the Basin that ultimately reached the ear of then-Vice President Dick Cheney, who pressured federal agencies to give water to the farmers next year, regardless of the consequences. (Hence the fish kill, some say.) Upstream and downstream were at war for several years.

GALLERY >

Since 2005, though, groups with an interest in the river — including farmers’ associations, fishermen’s associations, Native American tribes and environmental organizations, along with representatives from local, state and federal government — have been meeting in an attempt to find compromise. The goal has been to find new ways to manage the river and to distribute its resources more equitably. In January 2008, the negotiators released a draft management plan — the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement. But the plan was incomplete; it was written to be contingent upon an agreement to remove the four hydropower dams downstream from the Klamath Basin. Just last week, negotiators announced an agreement with the dam owners — the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement — that would see the dams removed by 2020.

In most cases, the details of both agreements, which have to be signed in tandem, must be approved by the boards of directors of the various stakeholder organizations that have been involved in the talks — including the government of Humboldt County — before those organizations officially sign on. In general, though, many have already signaled broad support or opposition to the settlement agreement. Those in support include the Yurok Tribe, the Karuk Tribe, the Klamath Tribes (of Oregon), the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishing Assocations and several national conservation organizations, including American Rivers, Trout Unlimited and the National Center for Conservation Science and Policy. Those opposed include the Hoopa Valley Tribe and two Oregon-based environmental groups — Oregon Wild and WaterWatch of Oregon.

The Northcoast Environmental Center has strongly opposed the Klamath settlement agreement in the past, but Jay Wright, the NEC’s current Klamath coordinator, said last week that organization — which has been in flux lately — is reconsidering that position, and neither supports nor opposes the settlement at this time.

Like the river itself, the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement is immensely complex. With the hydropower agreement, it amounts to over 400 pages of dense text, and much — including provisions for what to do in years of extreme drought — remains to be accomplished. The states of California and Oregon and the federal government will have to pass legislation to implement the settlement. So people might need a road map: The following is just a brief outline of the key points of contention between some local organizations that may share the same goal — removal of the hydropower dams and restoration of the Klamath ecosystem — but deeply differ on the question of whether this agreement is the best way to get there.

Executive summaries and the full text of both the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement and the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement can be found at edsheets.com.

THE FOCUS

1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE >SHARE