THE CONFLICT: OVERSOLD RIVER (6/2002)
The Klamath River originates in Klamath Lake, Klamath County, Oregon where melting snow from the Cascade Mountains feeds a chain of lakes and marshes. It travels southwest into California, passing through the Klamath Mountains and six hydropower dams, before reaching the Pacific Ocean just south of Crescent City. These dams not only produce electricity, they also contorl the flow of water to 210,000 acres of California farmland.
Under the 1902 Reclamation Act, both California and Oregon ceded parts of the Klamath Basin to the federal Bureau of Reclamation for agricultural homesteading. Many of the 359,000 acres of wetlands were drained and offered for homesteads to WWI and WWII veterans. In 2001, it provided water to over 240,000 acres of California farmland (PDF). Potatoes are the principal crop of this $300 million a year agricultural region, the northernmost extension of California’s mammoth irrigation system: the Central Valley Project.
Unfortunately, the Bureau of Reclamation’s Klamath Basin Area Office is also obliged by law to provide some of this same river water to the fishing industry and the Klamath, Modoc and Yahooskin Native American tribes because the Klamath River and its tributaries were once the third largest salmon producing river system in the west coast (PDF).
When the Cascade Mountains receive less snow during the winter, there is a resultant decrease in the amount of river water running through this system. At the end of this multi-stage “road”, are the fisheries, tourist destinations and Native Americans. Such was the chain of events that led to the latest round of lawsuits and disputes over the Klamath River in 2001.
Because salmon are anadromous fish, meaning that they spawn in freshwater, rear in the oceans and return to spawn in their natal freshwater streams, adverse conditions in the Klamath River and its tributaries ultimately impact fisheries along the coast. Along with commercial and recreational fishermen, Klamath tribal fisheries have been largely closed since 1986 because of declining fish populations. Although there is much debate as to the reasons for this decline, the shortnose and Lost River sucker fish are considered endangered as is the Coho salmon according to the Endangered Species Act, as enforced by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. As an example of the vicissitudes of this conflict, the Klamath River steelhead salmon was but is no longer considered to be endangered.
The resulting conflict between farmers, fishermen, tribes, environmentalists, and various government agencies is centered on the timing and volume of water discharges along the dams on the Klamath River and its tributaries. At the Iron Gate Dam in Siskiyou County, California, the water flow is also tied to rates set by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Thus, federal and local governmental agencies must negotiate between themselves as well as the parties listed above before arriving at the scope and origins of the problem, let alone how to resolve the attendant disputes.
Numerous lawsuits have been issued by a myriad of parties, though the most significant in recent months was brought by the Pacific Legal Foundation, on behalf of farmers in the Klamath basin region, against the Bureau of Reclamation for its April 5, 2001 decision to cut off water to the farmlands in order to protect the sucker fish. That decision was the result of another lawsuit, brought by the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, against the Bureau which relied heavily on environmental laws. By March 29, 2002, the farmers had effectively championed their cause as part and parcel of the Republican administration’s domestic policy: water flows to the farmland were restored.
Meanwhile, the Klamath tribes argue that they have senior water rights with a “time immemorial” priority date and fishing interests contend that the Klamath basin farms are antiquate and inefficient businesses, threatened by NAFTA more than they are by environmental laws or ongoing fishery restoration efforts.
The Klamath Water Users Association, a non-profit corporation representing Klamath Irrigation Project farmers and ranchers since 1953, has sponsored legislation, funded research, and even had its day before the Supreme Court (PDF) in a case against the Bureau of Reclamation. They want the Klamath River water for farming. They are joined by such groups as the California Farm Water Coalition, the Oregon Water Resources Congress, Inc. and the National Water Resources Association in their campaign for irrigation water. Locally, they work in conjunction with other farmers’ groups like the Klamath Water Foundation in assisting and mobilizing those hit hardest by drought and fish-friendly water policy.
The Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations represents two dozen port and fishermen’s marketing associations from San Diego to Alaska. Over the last decade, they have reluctantly relied on the Endangered Species Act to sue the Bureau of Reclamation for more water to replenish the spawning grounds of the coho and steelhead salmon. According to the PCFFA, water diversion to farmlands and fertilizer-rich runoff has led to “a 99 percent loss of salmon landings and causing massive economic dislocation in coastal fishing-dependant communities.” Their sister organization, the Institute for Fisheries Resources, spearheads a campaign to restore salmon runs throughout the Pacific seaboard.
The Klamath Tribes counted some 22 million acres as their homeland prior to the mid-19th century. Under pressure from homesteaders and the US Cavalry, they were left with 2 million acres by the Treaty of 1864, which also left them with the right to hunt, fish, and gather in perpetuity. In 1954, Congress passed the Klamath Termination Act, ending federal recognition of the tribe and offering tribal picts $43,000 in exchange for assimilating into mainstream culture. Today, the Klamath Tribes are suing for more water, claiming that their water rights, as implied by the fishing protections in the Treaty of 1864, are the most senior of all in the dispute.
The federal Bureau of Reclamation, created by the 1902 Newlands Reclamation Act, is the largest wholesaler of water in the U.S., managing dams, powerplants, and canals it constructed in the 17 western states. In many cases, these water projects were then used to promote homesteading and the creation of farmlands such as the Klamath Irrigation Project. The Bureau of Reclamation is managed by the Department of the Interior which also oversees the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. In 1998, the FWS listed two sucker fish under the Endangered Species Act and in the drought of 1992, it recommended that irrigation deliveries be curtailed to protect fish populations. More such listings and adjustments followed, culminating in a decision to cut off all irrigation water in 2001 to preserve the endangered sucker fish. The sucker fish is of particular importance to the Tribal Trust with whom the Bureau of Reclamation already has a minimum instream flow agreement.
The Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund represented the Institute of Fisheries Resources, Klamath Forest Alliance, Northcoast Environmental Center, Oregon Natural Resources Council, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, Sierra Club, The Wilderness Society, WaterWatch of Oregon and Golden Gate Audubon Society in a case against the Bureau of Reclamation. They want to make sure the downstream waterways receive water in addition to the upstream farms. On the other side of the juridical fence is the Pacific Legal Foundation which represented the farmers of the Klamath and Tulelake Irrigation Districts in an effort to have the sucker fish removed from the list of endangered species.
Those in favor might say:
Farms are an integral part of the American economy. If we do not protect our agricultural interests by ensuring that they receive requisite water deliveries we cripple the working class rural populations that strive each year to put food on everyone’s tables. Adjustments in water flows are to be expected but cutting off all the water to an entire farming district, as occurred to Klamath Project farms in 2001, leads to failed harvests, bankrupt businesses, increased unemployment and a multifold drain on government resources.
Those against might say:
The Bureau of Reclamation has promised the same water to different constituencies: both farmers and fishermen, including Native American with senior water rights. If the Bureau has given more than their fair share to the farmers for decades and now the downstream fish populations are in peril, that is not the fault of the fish or those communities who also make a living from their aquatic harvest. The farming industry should make an effort to do more with less water as the fishermen and Tribes have done for years.
Excerpts from Bureau of Reclamation, Klamath Basin Area Office, April 6, 2001 press release on canceling water deliveries to the Klamath Project: Federal officials have finalized the biological opinions for the operation of the Klamath Project for this critically dry water year. Based on those opinions and the requirements of Endangered Species Act, the Bureau of Reclamation announced today that no water will be available from Upper Klamath Lake to supply the farmers of the Klamath Project.