The Klamath Project: Water over-allocated or water over-claimed?

1
The Klamath ProjectWater over-allocated or
water over-claimed?

• Jeffrey J. Bransford

2
(No Transcript)
3
(No Transcript)
4
(No Transcript)
5
The Klamath Project

• What went wrong?
• What do environmentalists want?
• What will happen if they get it?
• What is a more reasonable solution?

6
Klamath Project history A century of agriculture

• 1902 federal government reclaims wetlands into
  agricultural land
• 1905 Klamath Project begins under auspices of US
  Bureau of Reclamation (USBR).
• USBR sells land to homesteaders
• 80 acre parcels to veterans of WWI WWII
• Since conception, 500 miles of canals, ditches
  and diversion channels.

7
Klamath Project history Environmental protection

• During Klamath Project development
• Lower Klamath NWR (1908)
• Clear Lake NWR (1911)
• Tule Lake NWR (1928)
• Upper Klamath NWR (1928)
• Klamath Forest NWR (1958)

Upper Klamath NWR
8
Klamath Project history Transition

• Kuchel Act of 1964
• Ends homesteading and development
• Remaining acres dedicated to the major purpose
  of waterfowl management, but with full
  consideration to optimum agricultural use
• 22,000 acres of refuge land to be leased to
  farmers
• Initially frustration evolved into satisfaction

9
Klamath Project history The growth of
environmentalism

• 1970 NEPA
• 1973 ESA
• 1974 Shortnose and Lost River suckers protected
  by CA ESA.
• 1975 Severe droughts cause Oregon to settle
  water disputes

10
Klamath Project history The growth of
environmentalism

• 1979 Ninth Circuit ruling
• Tribes may continue to collect species
• Access to former reservation land
• Water levels must be maintained to permit this

Shortnose sucker
Lost River sucker
11
Klamath Project history The growth of
environmentalism

• 1988 Two suckers become federally endangered
  species
• 1992 US FWS recommends USBR maintain a minimum
  lake level for suckers.
• For the first time, water withheld from farmers.

12
Klamath Project history Klamath Basin in despair

• 1994 Severe drought
• Upper Klamath Lake is at lowest point in recorded
  history.
• Less water released to irrigation, Klamath River
• Less water for coho salmon
• Less salmon for Native Americans and commercial
  fishers

13
Klamath Project history Klamath Basin in despair

• 1997 Coho salmon listed as threatened
• At the same time, the government requests more
  water for suckers, again
• By 2000, economic hardships abound

Coho salmon
14
Tragedy of 2001

• Another dry winter produces another drought
• USBR warning in February
• Farmers rally and protest
• Environmentalists threaten litigation

• If you were in charge,
• how would you proceed?

15
Tragedy of 2001

• US FWS requests new level for the lake
• Highest level yet
• Four days after the farmers rally
• A week later, new information on salmon
• More water is needed in the Klamath River
• Thus, more water needs to be released from Upper
  Klamath Lake
• Annual Operating Plan expires March 31
• What would you do?

16
Tragedy of 2001

• April 4 U.S. District Court rules that Klamath
  Project is in violation of ESA
• Water is shut off to farmers

17
Impact

• Farmers react
• 18,000 participate in Bucket Brigade
• Forced open gates of diversion canal
• Economic devastation
• Predicted loss 250 million
• Estimated actual loss 400 million

18
Impact

• Velma from Tule Lake
• Paul from Tule Lake
• John from Klamath Falls
• Did farmers pay an appropriate price for saving
  these fish?

19
Current Situation

• 2002 More water available, less problems arose
• Farmers were able to comeback to a certain
  extent.
• When will the next drought come?
• When will the next call for higher water levels
  come?
• Some water needs to be guaranteed to the Klamath
  Project each year.

20
Counterarguments

• Biological fish-kill in 2002 because of too much
  irrigation
• Response
• 200 miles downriver
• Below confluence of Klamath and Trinity River
• Large fish run
• Abnormal water temperatures

21
Counterarguments

• Ecological Upper Klamath Lake preserved as a
  sucker habitat.
• Response
• Are suckers really in danger?
• Not exclusive to Upper Klamath Lake
• Investigate other Basin habitats

22
Counterarguments

• Ecological Klamath Project uses too much water.
• Response
• Cyclical system
• 11 out of 263 miles
• 4 of rivers flow
• Other creatures benefit
• 275 species of birds
• 1,000 bald eagles

23
Counterarguments

• Biological / ecological bottom line
• Problems that occur in the Lower Klamath can be
  traced to water retention in Upper Klamath Lake,
  but not to the Klamath Project irrigation system.

24
Counterarguments

• Cultural Irrigation kills salmon and destroys
  Native American cultures.
• Response
• Farming is not to blame for fish-kills
• Native Americans suffer the same way farms do.

25
Counterarguments

• Economic Protecting the endangered suckers will
  contribute to biodiversity and boost the economy.
• Response
• Weak argument
• Organisms depend on water released from Upper
  Klamath Lake
• Agriculture a 400 million/year industry

26
CounterargumentsCrops of the Klamath

• Barley
• Corn
• Oats
• Rice
• Rye
• Sorghums
• Wheat
• Apples
• Apricots
• Berries
• Cherries
• Peas

• Dates
• Grapefruit
• Grapes
• Lemons
• Limes
• Olives
• Oranges
• Peaches
• Pears
• Plums
• Prunes
• Tangerines

• Asparagus
• Beans
• Broccoli
• Cabbage
• Carrots
• Cauliflower
• Celery
• Cucumbers
• Greens
• Lettuce
• Melons
• Onions

Peppers Potatoes Squash Sweet Corn Tomatoes
Beans Cotton Hops Peppermint Spearmint
Sugar Beets Soybeans
27
Counterarguments

• Economic Protecting the endangered suckers will
  contribute to biodiversity and boost the economy.
• Response
• Commercial fishing has been nearly wiped out due
  to sucker protection.
• From 1,000,000 fish to 97,500
• From 5,700 vessels to 650

28
Counterarguments

• Economic Protecting the endangered suckers will
  contribute to biodiversity and boost the economy.
• Response
• Loss of recreation opportunities
• Anglers
• Kayakers / canoeists
• No money for inns, suppliers, guides

29
Proposed Action

• So what do you think should be done?
• Should we allow water to be released from Upper
  Klamath Lake?
• Agriculture benefits
• Cultures benefit
• Recreation benefits
• Economy benefits
• Or should we do the opposite?
• Two suckers benefit?

30
Proposed Action

• Some Americans continue to want to protect the
  suckers.
• Understand the costs
• Agricultural
• Biological
• Fishing
• Cultural
• Recreational

31
Proposed Action

• Resolve
• to protect the interests of farmers, fishers,
  cultures, recreationists, and the environment,
  water from Upper Klamath Lake should be released
  into the Klamath River and the Klamath Project as
  necessary to support the ability of the Klamath
  Basin to meet its agricultural, biological,
  cultural, and economic potential.

32
Sources

• http//earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImage
  s/images.php3?img_id5150
• http//oregonstate.edu/dept/pol_sci/fac/steel/cl/p
  s507/history.htm
• http//www.redding.com/specials/klamath/stories/kl
  amathmap.shtml
• http//www.redding.com/specials/klamath/stories/20
  010820klamath049.shtml
• http//soilcrop.tamu.edu/photogallery/cornsorghum
  /images/drought20stress202.jpg
• http//www.klamathbasincrisis.org/
• http//outside.away.com/outside/features/200308/20
  0308_klamath_1.html