Print Version
Email this story
Comment
Look at how much water the Basin has, then decide how much to export
 |
| Don Mausshardt, P. E., is a professional engineer, consulting in the nuclear industry and is serving on an advisory board at Oregon State University, College of Engineering. A resident of Klamath Falls, he has more than 30 years experience in the environmental field. |
Published June 8, 2003
By Don Mausshardt
Guest columnist
I have read with greatest interest the letter to the editor from Water Watch and California Resources Secretary Mary Nichols' letter to the secretary of the Department of the Interior. I am amused and concerned that each individual wrote supposedly representing their respective views, but carefully avoiding the facts of the case involving the uses of the Klamath Basin Waters.
It is interesting to note that in Nichols' letter, she has taken the position that the Upper Basin is responsible for the problems associated with fish kills. It is further noted that she has chosen to ignore the facts of the situation and chosen to selectively make her case that the Upper Basin is responsible for the problem.
Nichols represents a state agency in California that encompasses all water resources and management of those resources for the state of California. In her letter she deliberately chose to ignore her own state's withdrawals from the Klamath River Basin (the Trinity River in excess of 500,000 acre-feet of water annually) and chose to accept the premise that the fish kill was due primarily to low water flows from the upper basin. Can it be possible that the California withdrawals from the Basin might be part of the problem? I feel that we are witnessing the lowest form of politics in watershed management to only benefit one part that has nothing to gain but political chips for the folks in Sacramento.
Add to the above position taken by Nichols the letter that appeared in the Herald and News by Bob Hunter, an attorney for WaterWatch. Hunter alleges that this organization is the only advocate for needs of water measurement and other uses including fish, wildlife, public uses and Crater Lake. In his article, Hunter went on to note that the farmers have a very generous allocation of water and implies that it may be too much. I would respond with the following question: Since he is from Medford, would he be willing to give up the water appropriation by the Medford area that takes Klamath Basin water out to the Rouge River Basin? I believe it's in excess of 50,000 acre-feet a year. That might be a constructive way to assist the Basin's water shortfall rather than trying to re-allocate existing agricultural waters for other purposes.
It is disturbing to me as a taxpayer to see the partisan politics play a driving role in attempting to determine the solution to a recurring problem.
My premise is the following: The Klamath Basing exports more water out of the Basin than it uses for agricultural purposes. Isn't it time that we re-examine all the uses including exports and determine what is the best way to solve problems rather than try to advocate a political position that totally ignores both the cause and effect of past water management decisions that may no longer be valid?
Recently an article in the Herald and News noted that maybe one way to solve a local political problem addressing the city of Klamath Falls and suburbs might be best addressed by starting with a clean sheet of paper. The same would hold true for the Klamath River Basin. We need to begin at the starting point of how much water is in the Basin and then move to address how much water should be exported from this Basin.
There is a legal pathway to solve this problem such as using the Klamath River Compact Commission. It is strange to note that the commission has been strangely silent on this issue.
By Don Mausshardt
Guest columnist
I have read with greatest interest the letter to the editor from Water Watch and California Resources Secretary Mary Nichols' letter to the secretary of the Department of the Interior. I am amused and concerned that each individual wrote supposedly representing their respective views, but carefully avoiding the facts of the case involving the uses of the Klamath Basin Waters.
It is interesting to note that in Nichols' letter, she has taken the position that the Upper Basin is responsible for the problems associated with fish kills. It is further noted that she has chosen to ignore the facts of the situation and chosen to selectively make her case that the Upper Basin is responsible for the problem.
Nichols represents a state agency in California that encompasses all water resources and management of those resources for the state of California. In her letter she deliberately chose to ignore her own state's withdrawals from the Klamath River Basin (the Trinity River in excess of 500,000 acre-feet of water annually) and chose to accept the premise that the fish kill was due primarily to low water flows from the upper basin. Can it be possible that the California withdrawals from the Basin might be part of the problem? I feel that we are witnessing the lowest form of politics in watershed management to only benefit one part that has nothing to gain but political chips for the folks in Sacramento.
Add to the above position taken by Nichols the letter that appeared in the Herald and News by Bob Hunter, an attorney for WaterWatch. Hunter alleges that this organization is the only advocate for needs of water measurement and other uses including fish, wildlife, public uses and Crater Lake. In his article, Hunter went on to note that the farmers have a very generous allocation of water and implies that it may be too much. I would respond with the following question: Since he is from Medford, would he be willing to give up the water appropriation by the Medford area that takes Klamath Basin water out to the Rouge River Basin? I believe it's in excess of 50,000 acre-feet a year. That might be a constructive way to assist the Basin's water shortfall rather than trying to re-allocate existing agricultural waters for other purposes.
It is disturbing to me as a taxpayer to see the partisan politics play a driving role in attempting to determine the solution to a recurring problem.
My premise is the following: The Klamath Basing exports more water out of the Basin than it uses for agricultural purposes. Isn't it time that we re-examine all the uses including exports and determine what is the best way to solve problems rather than try to advocate a political position that totally ignores both the cause and effect of past water management decisions that may no longer be valid?
Recently an article in the Herald and News noted that maybe one way to solve a local political problem addressing the city of Klamath Falls and suburbs might be best addressed by starting with a clean sheet of paper. The same would hold true for the Klamath River Basin. We need to begin at the starting point of how much water is in the Basin and then move to address how much water should be exported from this Basin.
There is a legal pathway to solve this problem such as using the Klamath River Compact Commission. It is strange to note that the commission has been strangely silent on this issue.
 |
 |
|
| Blaine Brattain enlisted because his country needed him | Hanson suffered wounds at Iwo Jima; returned to lead Boy Scouts |
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