Print Version
Email this story
Comment
Basin water plans should aim toward providing mutual gains, coexistence
 |
| J. Marshall Staunton is co-chair of the Upper Klamath Basin Working Group and a third-generation farmer on the Klamath Reclamation Project. |
Published May 25, 2003
By J. Marshall Staunton
Guest columnist
The Klamath Project was engineered, designed and constructed beginning in 1905. "Fields of Dreams" were built and our great-grandfathers and grandfathers were drawn toward the invitation. They persevered and fell in love with the land and this Upper Klamath Basin.
During the spring of 2001, biological opinions of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service accused farmers of conducting activities that jeopardized existence of coho salmon and Lost River and shortnose suckers. Their opinions and edicts delivered in accordance with the Endangered Species Act assessed millions of dollars in damages in punishment for modifying habitat.
Later in summer 2001, the National Academy of Sciences ruled in an interim report that the biological opinions were not scientifically defensible - specifically, that mandatory lake levels and river flows, which cut refuges and farms out of the Klamath River water pie in 2001, were not justified.
While farmers feel vindicated because we have consistently be-lieved our irrigation project is not jeopardizing the existence of listed species, another point needs attention: Today's Klamath Project farmers are not accountable, and should never have been held accountable, for conducting activities threatening endangered fish because our ancestors were invited onto this system of canals and dikes and reservoirs at our nation's legislative and technical direction.
Today's farmers are descendants. We were not alive when the Klamath Project was built, yet fisheries agencies acting through the Endangered Species Act have conducted a witch hunt, labeling the farmers as habitat modifiers and cutting off our surface water deliveries during the spring 2001 planting season. The Endangered Species Act forced an outcome that no other law in America would allow. It punished descendants for habitat modification, undertaken legally through implementation of the Reclamation Act of 1902.
Family farmers and ranchers live accountably. Every growing season we are reminded of our connection to the earth when we interact with soil, sun and especially water, to grow our crops.
Adopt Israeli state of mind
We are connected to our irrigation project, designed for our ancestors to colonize, utilize and maintain. The rural western homeland created by the irrigation project is under our care.
Our best alternative defending against any decision leading toward a heinous outcome for our communities is to adopt an Israeli state of mind. Therefore, we will strive to protect our Klamath Project "homeland" against those who deny our right to existence. The most strategically important element, allowing our families to thrive and co-exist is an adequate supply of irrigation water.
The Upper Klamath Basin farm community approached the tribal, environmental and bureaucratic communities in a cooperative manner by agreeing to convert 25,000 acres back into wetlands and out of agricultural production. (This to my knowledge is the largest wetland restoration effort to be undertaken west of the Mississippi River).
Instead of rewarding proactivity, tribes, environmentalists and bureaucrats took ultra-competitive political and biological approaches by demanding that pre-project Upper Klamath Lake levels had to be adhered to in 2001 biological opinions for Lost River and shortnose suckers and by demanding river flows out of the Upper Klamath River Basin in excess of today's natural stream flow.
In fact the biological opinions for salmon and suckers demanded 110 percent of all available Upper Klamath River surface water (April-September) resulting in dueling demands, which exceeded by 100,000 acre-feet available Upper Klamath Lake and River water supply during summer 2001. This ultra-competitive approach even resulted in out-of- basin diversions from the Lost River Basin to the Klamath River Basin to meet fishery flow targets.
When one pole takes a cooperative approach while the other pole competes, the result is, initially, a horrible result for the cooperators. Agricultural leaders cooperated, and Upper Klamath River Basin irrigated agriculture was downsized by more than 25,000 acres prior to 2001 and instead of reward, we were stripped of all surface water deliveries. This in our minds was morally reprehensible.
Unsurprisingly, we are in a political war with each other in the Klamath Basin. Strategic lawsuits, rampant political polarization, dueling scientific claims and "eye for an eye" responses rule the day. Under assault, much like the Israelis, Klamath Project farmers will take reciprocal steps to defend our homeland.
A friend, who has lived throughout the world, tells of a wildlife park that was recently established in Kenya. Inside the new park's boundaries lived ranchers, specifically Maasai cattle grazers. Predictably, environmentalists and bureaucrats who
supported the park saw the rural people as ecologically destructive and economically insignificant and refused to recognize the culture and customs of the Maasai people. Grazing within the park had to end. Homes within the park were taken down.
Settlement follows hostility
The Maasai took affront to "urban, white, ecosystems-based park regulations" harming their communities. The situation quickly degenerated into an intense struggle. One strategy used by the Maasai people included cutting off rhinoceroses' horns to spite the tourist trade. People and animals were harmed in the violence. Throughout the struggle the rural Maasai demonstrated they stood firm on their right to a good outcome.
Finally, after a decade of hostility, a mutual gains approach in negotiations was adopted which led toward settlement.
With settlement some of the money earned through park proceeds now goes toward cattle dips and local school funding. Cattle are allowed inside the park during drought cycles. Homes were rebuilt outside the park. New jobs were created with Maasai people being hired as wildlife conservation workers and tourist guides. Settlement provided a good outcome for multiple interests who now support coexistence of abundant wildlife intertwined with stable rural communities.
The best strategy for improving the Klamath River Basin is for the competitors to adopt a mutual gains approach.
Continuing the patterns of lawsuits, of computer modeling, and of scientific wrangling guarantees conflicts, which will harm the species we are entrusted to protect, which will, in turn, harm the rural communities intertwined. Switching tactics towards "mutual gains approaches" allows us to develop and fund a multi-year Klamath River restoration plan that allows healthy rural human communities to coexist with healthy and abundant fish and wildlife populations.
Amazingly, I believe farmers and ranchers love this Klamath River Basin enough to return to a "mutual gains" approach when tribal communities formally recognize our right to coexist and thrive. When they do, we will move positively forward into a brighter future together.
When environmental groups formally recognize our continued coexistence and our right to a good outcome, we will then garner support for ecosystem restoration together.
When bureaucrats and agency biologists formally recognize our right to coexist, we will demonstrate compassion for all living creatures together and we will restore the Klamath River Basin.
By J. Marshall Staunton
Guest columnist
The Klamath Project was engineered, designed and constructed beginning in 1905. "Fields of Dreams" were built and our great-grandfathers and grandfathers were drawn toward the invitation. They persevered and fell in love with the land and this Upper Klamath Basin.
During the spring of 2001, biological opinions of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service accused farmers of conducting activities that jeopardized existence of coho salmon and Lost River and shortnose suckers. Their opinions and edicts delivered in accordance with the Endangered Species Act assessed millions of dollars in damages in punishment for modifying habitat.
Later in summer 2001, the National Academy of Sciences ruled in an interim report that the biological opinions were not scientifically defensible - specifically, that mandatory lake levels and river flows, which cut refuges and farms out of the Klamath River water pie in 2001, were not justified.
While farmers feel vindicated because we have consistently be-lieved our irrigation project is not jeopardizing the existence of listed species, another point needs attention: Today's Klamath Project farmers are not accountable, and should never have been held accountable, for conducting activities threatening endangered fish because our ancestors were invited onto this system of canals and dikes and reservoirs at our nation's legislative and technical direction.
Today's farmers are descendants. We were not alive when the Klamath Project was built, yet fisheries agencies acting through the Endangered Species Act have conducted a witch hunt, labeling the farmers as habitat modifiers and cutting off our surface water deliveries during the spring 2001 planting season. The Endangered Species Act forced an outcome that no other law in America would allow. It punished descendants for habitat modification, undertaken legally through implementation of the Reclamation Act of 1902.
Family farmers and ranchers live accountably. Every growing season we are reminded of our connection to the earth when we interact with soil, sun and especially water, to grow our crops.
Adopt Israeli state of mind
We are connected to our irrigation project, designed for our ancestors to colonize, utilize and maintain. The rural western homeland created by the irrigation project is under our care.
Our best alternative defending against any decision leading toward a heinous outcome for our communities is to adopt an Israeli state of mind. Therefore, we will strive to protect our Klamath Project "homeland" against those who deny our right to existence. The most strategically important element, allowing our families to thrive and co-exist is an adequate supply of irrigation water.
The Upper Klamath Basin farm community approached the tribal, environmental and bureaucratic communities in a cooperative manner by agreeing to convert 25,000 acres back into wetlands and out of agricultural production. (This to my knowledge is the largest wetland restoration effort to be undertaken west of the Mississippi River).
Instead of rewarding proactivity, tribes, environmentalists and bureaucrats took ultra-competitive political and biological approaches by demanding that pre-project Upper Klamath Lake levels had to be adhered to in 2001 biological opinions for Lost River and shortnose suckers and by demanding river flows out of the Upper Klamath River Basin in excess of today's natural stream flow.
In fact the biological opinions for salmon and suckers demanded 110 percent of all available Upper Klamath River surface water (April-September) resulting in dueling demands, which exceeded by 100,000 acre-feet available Upper Klamath Lake and River water supply during summer 2001. This ultra-competitive approach even resulted in out-of- basin diversions from the Lost River Basin to the Klamath River Basin to meet fishery flow targets.
When one pole takes a cooperative approach while the other pole competes, the result is, initially, a horrible result for the cooperators. Agricultural leaders cooperated, and Upper Klamath River Basin irrigated agriculture was downsized by more than 25,000 acres prior to 2001 and instead of reward, we were stripped of all surface water deliveries. This in our minds was morally reprehensible.
Unsurprisingly, we are in a political war with each other in the Klamath Basin. Strategic lawsuits, rampant political polarization, dueling scientific claims and "eye for an eye" responses rule the day. Under assault, much like the Israelis, Klamath Project farmers will take reciprocal steps to defend our homeland.
A friend, who has lived throughout the world, tells of a wildlife park that was recently established in Kenya. Inside the new park's boundaries lived ranchers, specifically Maasai cattle grazers. Predictably, environmentalists and bureaucrats who
supported the park saw the rural people as ecologically destructive and economically insignificant and refused to recognize the culture and customs of the Maasai people. Grazing within the park had to end. Homes within the park were taken down.
Settlement follows hostility
The Maasai took affront to "urban, white, ecosystems-based park regulations" harming their communities. The situation quickly degenerated into an intense struggle. One strategy used by the Maasai people included cutting off rhinoceroses' horns to spite the tourist trade. People and animals were harmed in the violence. Throughout the struggle the rural Maasai demonstrated they stood firm on their right to a good outcome.
Finally, after a decade of hostility, a mutual gains approach in negotiations was adopted which led toward settlement.
With settlement some of the money earned through park proceeds now goes toward cattle dips and local school funding. Cattle are allowed inside the park during drought cycles. Homes were rebuilt outside the park. New jobs were created with Maasai people being hired as wildlife conservation workers and tourist guides. Settlement provided a good outcome for multiple interests who now support coexistence of abundant wildlife intertwined with stable rural communities.
The best strategy for improving the Klamath River Basin is for the competitors to adopt a mutual gains approach.
Continuing the patterns of lawsuits, of computer modeling, and of scientific wrangling guarantees conflicts, which will harm the species we are entrusted to protect, which will, in turn, harm the rural communities intertwined. Switching tactics towards "mutual gains approaches" allows us to develop and fund a multi-year Klamath River restoration plan that allows healthy rural human communities to coexist with healthy and abundant fish and wildlife populations.
Amazingly, I believe farmers and ranchers love this Klamath River Basin enough to return to a "mutual gains" approach when tribal communities formally recognize our right to coexist and thrive. When they do, we will move positively forward into a brighter future together.
When environmental groups formally recognize our continued coexistence and our right to a good outcome, we will then garner support for ecosystem restoration together.
When bureaucrats and agency biologists formally recognize our right to coexist, we will demonstrate compassion for all living creatures together and we will restore the Klamath River Basin.
 |
 |
|
| Would a legal challenge trump conditions put on power plant? | Do a better job enforcing open meetings law |
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