Klamath Basin Settlement Agreements Opponents of one or both of the agreements cite a number of reasons for their opposition. Some of those opposed to the agreements note that the federal government has no clear obligation to authorize and implement the agreements. Many of these entities have argued that the activities represented in both agreements, including dam removal and water quality improvements, could potentially occur without the federal involvement through pre-existing processes.25 Others, including some local interests, note that the agreements, like previous federal actions in the Klamath, amount to federal overreach and are likely to harm the local economy. Some also generally oppose the removal of operational dams and associated hydropower facilities, including those in the Klamath Basin. Finally, others argue against federal authorization of the settlement agreements because they believe that specific components of the agreements will undermine existing federal laws (e.g., the Endangered Species Act) and/or federal responsibilities (e.g., tribal trust responsibilities), or that they will fail to achieve their stated goals (e.g., fisheries restoration). Other groups have chosen to support the agreements not just for their potential to end conflicts in the basin, but also because they include specific provisions that are important to them.44 For instance, environmental groups have pledged to support the allocations for irrigation absent a similar allocation for fish in exchange for assurances of dam removal under the KHSA and other promised fisheries restoration actions under the KBRA. Among irrigators, those on the Klamath Project have pledged to support restoration provisions and less water in wet years in exchange for benefits from water supplies in dry years that would presumably be higher than under the status quo. Approximately half of the off-project irrigators in the upper basin support the agreements.
Posted on: Fri, 06 Jun 2014 21:37:41 +0000