Print Version
Email this story
Comment
Buy the Barnes Ranch for water storage? We better think this over
 |
| Douglas K. Whitsett, is a retired food animal veterinarian affiliated with Klamath Animal Clinic, Inc., for 30 years. He and his wife own and operate two farms in the Klamath Basin where they breed and raises horses for dressage and jumping. He is past president of the Klamath County Cattlemen's Association, as well as a past president of the Oregon Veterinary Medical Association. |
By Doug Whitsett
The American Land Conservancy recently announced that it has secured a sale option to purchase the 2,785-acre Barnes Ranch in the Wood River Valley of the Upper Klamath Basin for $3,250 per acre, totaling $9 million.
The group's representatives claim that acquisition of this property by the United States government would allow the Bureau of Reclamation to fully utilize the 45,000-acre-foot storage potential of the combined Bureau of Reclamation Agency Lake Ranch-Barnes Ranch complex, as well as acquire the 7,900 acre-feet of annual water rights appurtenant to the Barnes property.
We believe that a few unintended consequences may occur as a direct result of this land acquisition and its proposed management.
Much of the Agency Lake Ranch acreage has a surface elevation several feet below seasonal lake surface level. A part of that difference in surface elevation is due to the dikes or levees that separate the lake and the former fertile agricultural fields. However, a larger part of the surface elevation difference has been caused by subsidence of the soils that has occurred as a result of dewatering the old lake bed, and by the accelerated oxidation of the peat soils caused by exposure to the air and by years of tilling.
Over a period of years, as the water content of the soils has diminished, and the organic components of the peat soils are digested, the soils compact and sink down, or subside, in elevation.
A 1997 United States Geological Survey scientific study by Snyder and Morace determined that the agricultural management practices and periodic pumping of water from the farmed areas resulted in a significant increase in phosphorous loading to the waters of Upper Klamath Lake.
We question why rehydrating the peat soils would not be expected to cause rebound of their surface elevation that would reverse the subsidence. Over time, this could significantly reduce the potential storage capacity of the proposed complex. Further, we question why the storage management process of repeated flooding and pumping would not re-create the phosphorous loading of Upper Klamath Lake that the original purchase of the property was alleged to prevent.
Only prior to hot weather
In the Upper Klamath Lake area, annual evaporation from the surface of open water averages about 3-1/2 feet. The preponderance of that 3-1/2 acre-feet per acre of open water evaporation occurs during the heat of the late spring and summer months.
The proposed storage project appears to be beneficial only in the event that the proposed 45,000 acre-feet of stored water can be pumped off the lands and utilized prior to the onset of hot weather. However, in the event that the water must be stored until later in the season to be beneficially used for agriculture or to enhance instream flow for the Klamath River, the potential evaporation loss from up to 10,000 acres of flooded former agricultural land appears significant and counter productive to the proposed action.
During this past summer, water temperatures were measured exceeding 80 degrees Fahrenheit in shallow water behind breached dikes on former agricultural lands adjacent to the lake. If the stored water is pumped and used later in the season, the temperature of the stored water may be expected to create a major problem for water quality in Upper Klamath Lake. In fact, its use may violate the water quality standards established for the Upper Klamath Lake total maximum daily load as well as adversely affecting endangered Coho salmon in the lower Klamath River.
Wind-induced wave action on the shallow water covering the former agricultural land creates continual significant resuspension of sediments, as well as the suspension of unconsolidated surface peat soils into the water column. The total maximum daily load identifies suspended sediments as a major water pollutant. Pumping this sediment-laden water into Upper Klamath Lake at any time may violate the water quality standards established in the total maximum daily load.
The Agency Lake Ranch was reportedly purchased for its water storage potential. Incredibly, only after its purchase was it determined that most of that potential storage could not be utilized without flooding the Barnes property.
Instead of either explaining, or attempting to mitigate, this error in judgment, the involved agencies simply determined the Barnes property as a key to the Bureau of Reclamation's ability to fully utilize the storage capacity of the Agency Lake Ranch.
Price looks high
Perhaps as a direct result of this determination, the price "negotiated" by American Land Conservancy for this sale option on the Barnes property appears to be several times higher than the price paid per acre for the comparable purchases of the Agency Lake Ranch and the Wood River Ranch.
The "7.5 percent administrative and cost reimbursement fee" to be paid to the American Land Conservancy by the purchasing federal agency as a part of this sales option amounts to nearly $680,000. Although the American Land Conservancy claims to have earned this "fee" through its diligent efforts, others may construe this fee as largely an unauthorized federal contribution of tax dollars to this "conservationist" nongovernment agency.
This proposed transaction would permanently remove the 2,785-acre Barnes Ranch from the Klamath County property tax roles. This amount of land removed from agricultural production is subject to rollback taxes amounting to about $300,000.
Because of this transaction's alleged "benefit to the community," American Land Conservancy is negotiating with Klamath County to eliminate the "burden that these taxes would add to the transaction." Shouldn't the burden to our county infrastructure caused by the permanent removal of these significant agricultural properties from the Klamath County property tax roles be considered?
We believe that prior to expending another $9 million on the "restoration" of the Upper Klamath Lake watershed, these potential unintended consequences must be adequately addressed.
The group's representatives claim that acquisition of this property by the United States government would allow the Bureau of Reclamation to fully utilize the 45,000-acre-foot storage potential of the combined Bureau of Reclamation Agency Lake Ranch-Barnes Ranch complex, as well as acquire the 7,900 acre-feet of annual water rights appurtenant to the Barnes property.
We believe that a few unintended consequences may occur as a direct result of this land acquisition and its proposed management.
Much of the Agency Lake Ranch acreage has a surface elevation several feet below seasonal lake surface level. A part of that difference in surface elevation is due to the dikes or levees that separate the lake and the former fertile agricultural fields. However, a larger part of the surface elevation difference has been caused by subsidence of the soils that has occurred as a result of dewatering the old lake bed, and by the accelerated oxidation of the peat soils caused by exposure to the air and by years of tilling.
Over a period of years, as the water content of the soils has diminished, and the organic components of the peat soils are digested, the soils compact and sink down, or subside, in elevation.
A 1997 United States Geological Survey scientific study by Snyder and Morace determined that the agricultural management practices and periodic pumping of water from the farmed areas resulted in a significant increase in phosphorous loading to the waters of Upper Klamath Lake.
We question why rehydrating the peat soils would not be expected to cause rebound of their surface elevation that would reverse the subsidence. Over time, this could significantly reduce the potential storage capacity of the proposed complex. Further, we question why the storage management process of repeated flooding and pumping would not re-create the phosphorous loading of Upper Klamath Lake that the original purchase of the property was alleged to prevent.
Only prior to hot weather
In the Upper Klamath Lake area, annual evaporation from the surface of open water averages about 3-1/2 feet. The preponderance of that 3-1/2 acre-feet per acre of open water evaporation occurs during the heat of the late spring and summer months.
The proposed storage project appears to be beneficial only in the event that the proposed 45,000 acre-feet of stored water can be pumped off the lands and utilized prior to the onset of hot weather. However, in the event that the water must be stored until later in the season to be beneficially used for agriculture or to enhance instream flow for the Klamath River, the potential evaporation loss from up to 10,000 acres of flooded former agricultural land appears significant and counter productive to the proposed action.
During this past summer, water temperatures were measured exceeding 80 degrees Fahrenheit in shallow water behind breached dikes on former agricultural lands adjacent to the lake. If the stored water is pumped and used later in the season, the temperature of the stored water may be expected to create a major problem for water quality in Upper Klamath Lake. In fact, its use may violate the water quality standards established for the Upper Klamath Lake total maximum daily load as well as adversely affecting endangered Coho salmon in the lower Klamath River.
Wind-induced wave action on the shallow water covering the former agricultural land creates continual significant resuspension of sediments, as well as the suspension of unconsolidated surface peat soils into the water column. The total maximum daily load identifies suspended sediments as a major water pollutant. Pumping this sediment-laden water into Upper Klamath Lake at any time may violate the water quality standards established in the total maximum daily load.
The Agency Lake Ranch was reportedly purchased for its water storage potential. Incredibly, only after its purchase was it determined that most of that potential storage could not be utilized without flooding the Barnes property.
Instead of either explaining, or attempting to mitigate, this error in judgment, the involved agencies simply determined the Barnes property as a key to the Bureau of Reclamation's ability to fully utilize the storage capacity of the Agency Lake Ranch.
Price looks high
Perhaps as a direct result of this determination, the price "negotiated" by American Land Conservancy for this sale option on the Barnes property appears to be several times higher than the price paid per acre for the comparable purchases of the Agency Lake Ranch and the Wood River Ranch.
The "7.5 percent administrative and cost reimbursement fee" to be paid to the American Land Conservancy by the purchasing federal agency as a part of this sales option amounts to nearly $680,000. Although the American Land Conservancy claims to have earned this "fee" through its diligent efforts, others may construe this fee as largely an unauthorized federal contribution of tax dollars to this "conservationist" nongovernment agency.
This proposed transaction would permanently remove the 2,785-acre Barnes Ranch from the Klamath County property tax roles. This amount of land removed from agricultural production is subject to rollback taxes amounting to about $300,000.
Because of this transaction's alleged "benefit to the community," American Land Conservancy is negotiating with Klamath County to eliminate the "burden that these taxes would add to the transaction." Shouldn't the burden to our county infrastructure caused by the permanent removal of these significant agricultural properties from the Klamath County property tax roles be considered?
We believe that prior to expending another $9 million on the "restoration" of the Upper Klamath Lake watershed, these potential unintended consequences must be adequately addressed.
 |
||
| Cloudy evidence doesn't justify deaths of innocent Iraqi victims |
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of HeraldAndNews.com. Comment Disclaimer: The editors of heraldandnews.com reserve the right to refuse publication of any comment posted for consideration. We may refuse for any reason, including use of profanity, disparaging comments, libelous comments, etc. Any reader who notices a comment they believe is particularly offensive, should notify us at webmaster@heraldandnews.com.
RSS