Print Version
Email this story
Comment
Irrigators counter fish kill claims
 |
| David Anderson, associate director of agriculture and public land issues for the White House's Council on Environmental Quality, tells local water users what the Bush administration has done for the Basin in the past, and what it plans to do in the future. |
Water users cite research on temperature of streams
published April 25, 2003
By DYLAN DARLING
Local irrigators were told Thursday that they'll have a scientific rebuttal over last year's salmon die-off, and that they continue to have the attention and backing of the Bush administration from the top.
"The president is committed to the people of Klamath ... your well-being, that's what he asks about," White House lawyer David Anderson told a crowd of about 200 at Oregon Institute of Technology.
Anderson was the keynote speaker at a meeting that focused on litigation, water temperatures and the potential for negotiation over the water struggle in the Klamath Basin.
Anderson is a staff member of the Council on Environmental Quality and a key player in the Klamath Working Group, the Cabinet-level task force President Bush set up in the wake of the 2001 water cutoff.
Anderson told irrigators that the working group will give a report to Bush later this year, but it will probably continue to operate after that.
He said the group helped to get the new fish screen and headgates at the A Canal, a $15 million project that had been talked about for years, but not accomplished because of the cost. "That was one thing where I could have impact," he said.
Ahead for the working group, he said, is integrating all the activities of the federal government in the Klamath Basin, and coordinating the federal government's work with that of the states of California and Oregon.
Much of the meeting dealt with irrigators' response to the deaths of 33,000 salmon on the Lower Klamath River last September, widely blamed on low flows in the river.
Dan Keppen, executive director of the water users group, said Klamath Reclamation Project water users took the blame immediately and didn't have ammunition to come back with. "We kind of bit the bullet and took some hits," he said.
Now, he said, the water users have evidence emerging from the work of David Vogel, a biologist from Red Bluff, Calif., who's worked for the water users during the last decade.
Keppen said Vogel believes the fish kill was caused by warm water, an early run of salmon, and unusual warming and cooling in the lower Klamath River.
Late last summer and early last fall, Vogel put electronic temperature sensors on the river that recorded the air and water temperature hourly. "Fortunately they were in place when the fish die-off occurred last year," Keppen said.
He said Vogel is preparing a technical report, and he has submitted some of his findings in a brief for a case in which environmental groups have asked a federal judge to require higher flows in the river at the expense of irrigation.
Keppen said that if any flows should be increase they should be ones from the Trinity River in Northern California, which merges with the Upper Klamath River 43.5 miles from the Pacific Ocean to make the lower Klamath River. Those, he suggested, would be just part of the complex task of making all the interests in the 10 million-acre Basin happy.
To come to any lasting solution, all of the interests, from states to tribes to fishermen to farmers, need to work together, he said.
As a model of how to do so, Keppen talked about the Calfed Bay Delta program which he was involved with before he came to the KWUA in 2001. In it, he said, the different sides agreed to a ceasefire in the courts.
Anderson, the associate director of agriculture and public land issues for the Council on Environmental Quality, also offered models that could be used as study tools as to how to get the parties involved in the Klamath on the same page.
Along with the Calfed program, he pointed out resolutions in the Florida Everglades and the Chesapeake Bay that were based on bringing disputing parties into a process to resolve disputes.
But, although those other were successful, it doesn't mean they can be used for an exact blueprint for solving the Basin's problems.
"There is not one size that fits all," he said.
To find the solution that fits he wants to get the federal agencies working with the two states and local groups.
The irrigators were told that the most immediate threat to this year's water deliveries is based on arguments that U.S. District Court Saundra Armstrong rejected a year ago, said Paul Simmons, a lawyer for the Pacific Legal Foundation, which is representing the water users, the Tulelake Irrigation District and two individual growers.
Simmons also gave the irrigators an update on some of the actions in a lengthy list of lawsuits.
Court case watch
Among legal actions that could affect Klamath Reclamation Project water users are:
Takings lawsuit - Klamath Project water users seek compensation under the Fifth Amendment for taking of their property rights in 2001, when water was cut off for much of the planting season. A hearing is set for May 5 in Washington, D.C.
Downstream flows case - Klamath River downstream interests, including tribes, fishermen and counties, want more water for salmon. A hearing is set for May 20 in Oakland, Calif.
Lease lands case - The Wilderness Society and others object to farming practices on lands leased from the federal government. A hearing is set for May 27 in Sacramento.
published April 25, 2003
By DYLAN DARLING
Local irrigators were told Thursday that they'll have a scientific rebuttal over last year's salmon die-off, and that they continue to have the attention and backing of the Bush administration from the top.
"The president is committed to the people of Klamath ... your well-being, that's what he asks about," White House lawyer David Anderson told a crowd of about 200 at Oregon Institute of Technology.
Anderson was the keynote speaker at a meeting that focused on litigation, water temperatures and the potential for negotiation over the water struggle in the Klamath Basin.
Anderson is a staff member of the Council on Environmental Quality and a key player in the Klamath Working Group, the Cabinet-level task force President Bush set up in the wake of the 2001 water cutoff.
Anderson told irrigators that the working group will give a report to Bush later this year, but it will probably continue to operate after that.
He said the group helped to get the new fish screen and headgates at the A Canal, a $15 million project that had been talked about for years, but not accomplished because of the cost. "That was one thing where I could have impact," he said.
Ahead for the working group, he said, is integrating all the activities of the federal government in the Klamath Basin, and coordinating the federal government's work with that of the states of California and Oregon.
Much of the meeting dealt with irrigators' response to the deaths of 33,000 salmon on the Lower Klamath River last September, widely blamed on low flows in the river.
Dan Keppen, executive director of the water users group, said Klamath Reclamation Project water users took the blame immediately and didn't have ammunition to come back with. "We kind of bit the bullet and took some hits," he said.
Now, he said, the water users have evidence emerging from the work of David Vogel, a biologist from Red Bluff, Calif., who's worked for the water users during the last decade.
Keppen said Vogel believes the fish kill was caused by warm water, an early run of salmon, and unusual warming and cooling in the lower Klamath River.
Late last summer and early last fall, Vogel put electronic temperature sensors on the river that recorded the air and water temperature hourly. "Fortunately they were in place when the fish die-off occurred last year," Keppen said.
He said Vogel is preparing a technical report, and he has submitted some of his findings in a brief for a case in which environmental groups have asked a federal judge to require higher flows in the river at the expense of irrigation.
Keppen said that if any flows should be increase they should be ones from the Trinity River in Northern California, which merges with the Upper Klamath River 43.5 miles from the Pacific Ocean to make the lower Klamath River. Those, he suggested, would be just part of the complex task of making all the interests in the 10 million-acre Basin happy.
To come to any lasting solution, all of the interests, from states to tribes to fishermen to farmers, need to work together, he said.
As a model of how to do so, Keppen talked about the Calfed Bay Delta program which he was involved with before he came to the KWUA in 2001. In it, he said, the different sides agreed to a ceasefire in the courts.
Anderson, the associate director of agriculture and public land issues for the Council on Environmental Quality, also offered models that could be used as study tools as to how to get the parties involved in the Klamath on the same page.
Along with the Calfed program, he pointed out resolutions in the Florida Everglades and the Chesapeake Bay that were based on bringing disputing parties into a process to resolve disputes.
But, although those other were successful, it doesn't mean they can be used for an exact blueprint for solving the Basin's problems.
"There is not one size that fits all," he said.
To find the solution that fits he wants to get the federal agencies working with the two states and local groups.
The irrigators were told that the most immediate threat to this year's water deliveries is based on arguments that U.S. District Court Saundra Armstrong rejected a year ago, said Paul Simmons, a lawyer for the Pacific Legal Foundation, which is representing the water users, the Tulelake Irrigation District and two individual growers.
Simmons also gave the irrigators an update on some of the actions in a lengthy list of lawsuits.
Court case watch
Among legal actions that could affect Klamath Reclamation Project water users are:
 |
||
| Court delay assures water for 3 weeks |
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