Reprinted with permission from The Osprey Issue No. 42 May 2002
Klamath Basin Water Wars De-mystified
by Steve Pedery, WaterWatch of Oregon
Last year's drought conditions had dire effects on salmonids and other
fish across the Pacific Northwest. But nowhere was the battle between
human beings and fish over a diminished supply of water more fierce than
in the Klamath basin along the Oregon-California border. Virtually every
daily newspaper and evening newscast carried stories of the conflict,
involving farmers, Native Americans, commercial fishermen and conservationists
and loud, sometimes threatening, protests by "wise use" advocates
against providing water for the basin's fish populations.
Many of those news reports were confusing, even conflicting, making it
difficult for the public to understand the complexities of the issues
involved amid the rhetoric and vitriol. In this issue's cover story, Steve
Pedery, public outreach director for the Portland, Oregon-based organization
WaterWatch of Oregon explains the situation to us in lucid detail. To
find out more about WaterWatch and its role in the Klamath Basin water
wars, check out their web site at www.waterwatch.org
Mark Twain once wrote that in the West, "…whiskey is for drinking,
and water is for fighting over." He may not have had the arid Klamath
River Basin in mind when he penned those words, but the metaphor certainly
applies.
Last summer Klamath water woes grabbed news headlines across the nation.
At the center of the controversy was the Bureau of Reclamation's 200,000-acre
Klamath Irrigation Project and efforts by federal agencies to protect
endangered fish and wildlife, and a punishing drought.
With water reserves at critical levels, federal officials set aside much
of what was available for the survival of endangered species, igniting
a firestorm of opposition among irrigators, "wise use" advocates,
and anti-government protesters. Onlookers were left scratching their heads.
Already shaping up to be a below average water year, 2002 promises even
more controversy. But is the Klamath water crisis really the result of
the Endangered Species Act gone awry? Or is it simply a case of promising
too much water to too many interests, and ignoring the decline of fish
and wildlife?
A Western Everglades
The high desert along the Oregon-California border would seem an unlikely
place for a vast natural network of lakes, marshes, and rivers. Much of
the region is very dry, particularly on the east side of the Cascades.
The upper Klamath Basin receives as little as 12 inches of rain a year
(Portland, in contrast, receives 40), making the basin more suitable for
growing sagebrush and junipers than alfalfa and potatoes. Yet while rain
is scarce, snow is abundant in the mountains.
Spring snowmelt, combined with water from underground springs, gives life
to the rivers, streams, and lakes of the Klamath Basin. Historically,
as this water flowed down from the mountains it paused in a huge network
of rivers, streams, shallow lakes, and marshes, ultimately spilling out
of Upper Klamath Lake and forming the Klamath River before beginning a
long descent to the Pacific Ocean.
Conservationists have long dubbed the Klamath Basin the "Everglades
of the West." The name fits. The marshes and wetlands of the Klamath
are important waterfowl nesting areas as well as the largest stopover
for migrating waterfowl on the Pacific Flyway, sustaining millions of
birds each year. Canada, white-fronted, snow and Ross' geese, and tundra
swans, as well as dozens of species of ducks, white pelicans, grebes,
cranes, herons, egrets and other water and shore birds pause here to rest,
feed, or raise their young. The region also supports the largest population
of wintering bald eagles in the lower 48 states.
The importance of the basin to migrating birds was recognized as early
as 1908 when the federal government created the Lower Klamath Lake National
Wildlife Refuge in order to protect some of their vital habitat. Today
six refuges dot the region.
Many types of wildlife, from river otters to elk, also depend on the basin's
waters.
Klamath fisheries are equally diverse. Pristine tributaries in the upper
reaches of the basin provide bull trout with some of their last strongholds
in Oregon. In the upper basin, rivers like the Sprague, the Wood, the
Sycan, and the Williamson offer outstanding fishing opportunities for
rainbow, brown, and brook trout. These rivers also boast incredible scenery,
and are among Oregon's most beautiful, though least known, fly fishing
destinations. Sections of the Sprague and Sycan River have been designated
as Wild and Scenic Rivers.
Upper Klamath Lake, the center of much of the controversy over water in
the basin, still maintains an exceptional rainbow trout fishery. This
shallow lake bears the twin distinctions of being the largest body of
freshwater in Oregon, and suffering some of the worst water pollution
in the state. Despite the water quality problems, the fertile marshes
and abundant insect life combine to produce some of the largest rainbows
in North America. Fish over ten pounds are not uncommon, and the unique
conditions of the huge lake make them especially challenging to take on
fly tackle.
The lake is also the last stronghold of the Lost River and shortnose suckers
(known as Qapdo and C'wam to local Native American Tribes), both of which
are federally protected endangered species. These fish have been one of
the cornerstones of the culture of the Klamath Tribes for centuries, and
they retain treaty rights to fish for them in traditional ways. They were
also once part of an important sport fishery, with "mullet season"
bringing anglers from all over Oregon. A fish cannery on the shores of
the lake also took advantage of their former abundance.
After spilling out of Upper Klamath Lake, the Klamath River heads southwest,
cutting diagonally through Oregon and Northern California on its way to
the Pacific Ocean. The river, like the lake, suffers from water quality
problems. These woes are further complicated by chronic low flows during
the summer months (due in part to irrigation diversions), and a series
of hydroelectric dams that block the migration of salmon in the river,
and prevent them from reaching the upper basin in Oregon.
Despite these problems, the river still flows through one of the wildest
landscapes in the lower 48 states, and a section has been designated as
a federal Wild and Scenic River.
Along its route to the ocean the Klamath River dips down into deep canyons,
and flows through huge rapids (whitewater rafting on the Klamath's class
IV and V rapids is a major draw, but not for the faint hearted). It also
still boasts a strong trout fishery and well-known steelhead fishery,
though salmon populations, particularly those of coho, have plummeted
in recent decades. The Klamath was once home to the third largest salmon
run on the West Coast, but today coho are listed as federal endangered
species, and Klamath steelhead, chinook, and green sturgeon are all candidates
for future ESA listings.
A Balance Lost
The first European settlers to arrive in the Klamath Basin were no doubt
amazed by the tremendous diversity of fish and wildlife found within this
green pocket in the high desert. Many took advantage of the region's fisheries,
but old habits die hard. Almost as soon as they arrived in the basin,
settlers began looking for farmland. It was not long before they set about
draining lakes and marshes to make way for agriculture.
In 1868 the first irrigation ditch in the basin was dug, and small scale
farming started. A massive alteration in the basin's landscape began in
1905 when the Bureau of Reclamation began the construction of the Klamath
Irrigation Project.
Over the course of the next century, the Bureau would drain entire lakes,
dry up hundreds of thousands of acres of marsh, and alter the natural
flow patterns of rivers and streams throughout the basin. The Lost and
Klamath Rivers were connected through a series of dams, canals and a tunnel.
A hole was blasted in the natural reef that formed Upper Klamath Lake
so that it could be drained below natural levels. Eighty percent of the
basin's wetlands were destroyed.
The Bureau of Reclamation constructed a vast spider web of dams, canals,
and pumping stations to deliver water to thirsty crops like potatoes and
alfalfa. Today the basin is criss-crossed by 185 miles of canals, 516
miles of lateral ditches, 45 pumping stations, and 7 dams. The Klamath
Project has replaced the natural water cycles of the basin's rivers and
streams with a complex plumbing system to irrigate over 200,000 acres
in the high desert. At the same time the states of Oregon and California
continued to issue additional water rights that allow the diversion of
scarce water resources to irrigate another 200,000-plus acres.
Over the years the ecological toll of the Project has been enormous. Lost
habitat, radically altered water flows, polluted return flows, and unscreened
diversions have led to a steep decline in fish and wildlife, to the point
where several species are now considered threatened or endangered. Irrigation
development above Upper Klamath Lake, within the Klamath Project, and
in the Shasta and Scott rivers have exacerbated water quality problems.
Flood-irrigated fields and cow pastures wash animal wastes, fertilizers,
and pesticides into streams, which in turn feed the pollution into Upper
Klamath Lake and the river. While the Project achieved its goal of bringing
irrigated agriculture to the high desert, it has done so at a terrible
cost to fish and wildlife, Native Americans, and commercial fishermen.
"This [sucker] fish meant something to my grandparents. This valley
was one continuous cultural site," said Adrian Witcraft, a Klamath
Basin Native American stated in The Oregonian on May 8, 2001. "That's
all been obliterated. People don't want to look back and see what they
had to do to get what they have today."
Too Many Interests,
Too Little Water
The water woes of the Klamath Basin are sometimes compared
to promising a glass of water to each of four people. When you only have
one glass to give, and each interest has been promised all of it, a simple
solution is hard to find.
When irrigators faced cutbacks during the drought last summer, they reacted
with outrage. For a century they had top priority for water releases,
meaning they got their "glass" first. Though some water was
released for farms and many irrigators had wells to fall back on (about
half of the normal water deliveries were made to the project in 2001),
protests and rallies flared at the main canal headgates on Upper Klamath
Lake all summer long. They blamed the Endangered Species Act for the water
shortage, and the irrigators' efforts garnered national media attention.
It also won sympathy from anti-government groups, the "Wise Use"
movement, and the Bush Administration.
On the face of it, they seem to have a pretty good argument - put people
before fish. But the devil, as it often is, is in the details. Irrigators
have never had the most senior, or strongest, right to water in the Klamath
Basin, though this precious resource has long been managed as if they
did.
The drought of 2001 stuck most of the Pacific Northwest,
but it was in the Klamath Basin on the
Oregon-Californa border where its effects on bothfish and people were
most vivibel.
Photo by Jim Yuskavitvh
In their 1864 treaty with the United States, the Klamath Tribes were promised
the right to hunt and fish in a traditional manner. These rights are impossible
to exercise if pollution from farm and ranch runoff, compounded by low
water levels in Upper Klamath Lake, drive the Qapdo and C'wam to extinction.
The Klamath Tribes, like the Yurok, Karuk, and Hoopa Tribes in California,
also depended on the salmon fishery of the Klamath River. However, the
construction of Iron Gate Dam, which lacks any form of fish passage, eliminated
salmon from the upper basin. The lower river Tribes still depend on salmon,
though the runs have plummeted in recent years due to chronic low flows
and water pollution.
Recent court decisions have strengthened the Klamath Tribes' hand. A 2002
U.S. District Court ruling affirmed that the Klamath Tribes' water rights
"stretch back to time immemorial" and "supersede all other
claims for water, including those held by irrigators." However, winning
water in court and keeping water in the lake and river have proved to
be two very different things.
A share of the basin's water was also promised to the region's six National
Wildlife Refuges. These refuges are among the oldest, and most critical,
in the entire refuge system, but despite their importance for migratory
birds they have historically been the last in line to get it. Much of
what they do receive is irrigation run-off, which carries with it animal
wastes, pesticides, and fertilizers. Worse, over 20,000 acres of land
inside the refuges is leased for commercial agriculture.
Families that make their living from the salmon fishing industry also
have a huge stake in the Klamath water controversy. Fishing communities
from Fort Bragg, California to Coos Bay, Oregon have seen their economies
decline as the salmon fishery of the Klamath River has collapsed. According
to the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, some 6,870
fishing dependent jobs, amounting to more than $137 million in personal
income, have been lost. While the decline of the river isn't the only
cause of that collapse, it has been a huge factor in the economic woes
of coastal fishing communities.
Finally, endangered species have been promised a share of the water as
well. The Qapdo and C'wam of Upper Klamath Lake have been listed as endangered
since 1988, and coho salmon have been listed as threatened for several
years. Bald eagles, as well as other rare birds that use the refuges,
also have a claim to water. Under federal law, stopping the extinction
of endangered fish and wildlife should be the top priority of agencies
like the Bureau of Reclamation.
A Firestorm of Controversy
The 2001 water crisis began with a severe drought, which came at the
same time that federal fish and wildlife agencies were forced to take
decisive action to protect endangered species in the basin.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USF&W) sparked the controversy in March of 2001 with studies
showing that the Bureau of Reclamation's water management practices were
harming endangered fish.
NMFS found that the Klamath Project was hurting endangered coho salmon
by failing to send enough water down the river. By diverting water needed
by fish into irrigation canals instead, and allowing water polluted with
farm run-off to enter the river, the Project had been contributing to
the decline of Klamath River salmon for decades. The Bureau was forced
to act or be in violation of the federal Endangered Species Act.
At the same time the salmon controversy was brewing, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service found that the Klamath Project caused serious harm to
Lost River and shortnose suckers in Upper Klamath Lake. Pollution flowing
into the lake, compounded by unnaturally low water levels and high temperatures,
has often led to toxic algae blooms during the summer months. Fish populations
have been decimated. Reducing lake levels below natural levels not only
kills fish, but also drains over 14,000 acres of wildlife refuge wetlands,
leaving nesting waterfowl high and dry.
"The fact that we have endangered species shows that we have an environment
in crisis," explained Bob Hunter, a senior staff attorney with WaterWatch.
"The suckers are really the canaries in the coal mine, telling us
that the entire system is dying."
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's and NMFS's biological opinions required
that lake levels and river flows be kept closer to natural levels in an
effort to reduce the risk of fish kills. After meeting lake level needs
and releasing water to help salmon in the river, any extra was to be sent
to the national wildlife refuges first, to help bald eagles and other
birds survive the drought. For the first time in a century, the survival
of fish and wildlife was made a priority.
The controversy spawned several lawsuits. Irrigators went to court arguing
that these changes in water management were unjustified. Conservation
groups, several Native American tribes, and commercial fishing interests
argued against the irrigators, pointing out that there simply was not
enough water to go around. Conservationists also filed suit, when the
Bush Administration chose to ignore the requirement that any extra water
be sent to the refuges to support bald eagles. A federal court rejected
the irrigators' arguments and ultimately ordered them, along with commercial
fishermen, conservationists, and Native Americans, into mediation. The
talks, aimed at working out a compromise solution to the water crisis,
collapsed in late summer when the irrigators withdrew.
By the end of the summer most of the lawsuits had subsided. Conservationists
won in their effort to get more water sent to the national wildlife refuges
for bald eagles. Minimum lake and river levels were maintained, and about
half the farmland in the basin was irrigated normally. After the tragedy
of September 11th, the controversy cooled, but the underlying problems
remained.
Upper Klamath Lake, in Oregon, offers
some of the best trophy rainbow trout fishing in the country.
Yet the lake's waters are often marred by blooms of algae, caused by agricutrual
runoff.
Photos by Jim Yuskavitvh
"For us this fight has never been about putting farmers out of business,"
said Glen Spain with the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations.
"It has always been about making sure that water is shared fairly
so that in the process of providing water for farms, we don't bankrupt
the entire lower river commercial fishing and tribal economies."
New Year, Same Problems
Heavy snows over the winter of 2001-2002 raised hopes that another Klamath
crisis could be avoided this year. Unfortunately, a combination of mother
nature's will and actions by the Bush Administration are once again fanning
the flames.
Much of the debate thus far in 2002 has revolved around science - of both
the political and biological varieties.
Last summer, during the heat of the water conflict, the Bush Administration
called for a review of scientific knowledge on fish restoration efforts
in the Klamath Basin. The National Academy of Sciences was given the responsibility,
and formed a panel of scientists who began reviewing information provided
by the Bureau of Reclamation. Their full report is not due until 2003,
but a 28-page "interim review" was leaked to the news media
by the Administration in February. This review was based on a two-month
survey of over 10 years of data, and did not examine some of the latest
scientific information.
The Klamath River, below Upper Klamath Lake, suffers
from chronic poor water quality,
low flows and a series of hydroelectric dams
that block the migration of salmon populations
that historically spawmed in the upper basin. Photo
by Jim Yuskavitch
Though the interim review concludes that severe water quality problems
in the basin may undercut efforts to restore fisheries by providing them
with more water, the Bush Administration has put a very different spin
on it. Much of the media coverage has revolved around the incorrect notion
that the report states fish in the Klamath Basin do not need more water,
and that any cut back in irrigation is unjustified.
"The way the review was released, and the spin the Administration
put on it, was inappropriate," said Hunter. "They have managed
to turn a report that says the basin suffers from severe water quality
problems, and that giving fish more hot, polluted water may not help them,
into 'fish don't need water'."
At a public hearing in Medford, Oregon on March 7th, the NAS panelists
got an earful of criticism regarding the review. Don Markle, an Oregon
State University biologist, was one of the most outspoken, arguing that
that bad assumptions and incorrect data even rendered the panel's report
unusable. "There is no sound scientific basis for this statement
of yours," Markle said, referring to one of their findings.
Native Americans, conservationists, and commercial fishermen argued that
while the NAS had rightly singled out water quality as one of the most
urgent problems facing the basin, they had failed to consider a large
amount of scientific research on the benefits to fish of increased lake
levels and river flows. Contrary to the NAS' assumption, water flows coming
out of Upper Klamath Lake are actually cooler than river flows during
the most critical months for migrating salmon, and are helpful to fish
survival. Holding Upper Klamath Lake at near natural water levels is not
a sure-fire solution to toxic algae blooms, but it is one of the few factors
easily controlled. The NAS was also looking for simple connections between
lake levels and fish mortality and failed to factor in climatic variables
like wind and sun. It is hoped that the panel will consider these factors
more closely as it prepares its final report over the next year.
Despite the controversy surrounding the interim review, the Bush Administration
is using it as the basis for locking in a ten-year operating plan for
the Klamath Project that will perpetuate the degraded conditions under
which the listed species have declined. Tremendous pressure has been put
on federal biologists to sign off on the plan.
For the fragile environment of the Klamath Basin, the move to shift the
lion's share of water back to irrigators could have dire consequences.
The new Klamath operating plan would drop river flows even lower than
initially proposed in 2001 (before a federal court judge ordered the Bureau
to revise them). Lake levels, too, could be dropped far below natural
averages, increasing the risk of toxic algae blooms and drying up large
chunks of the Upper Klamath Lake National Wildlife Refuge. While irrigators
cheered the news that water deliveries for farms would once again be maximized,
Native Americans, conservationists, and fishing groups were left fuming.
"This business-as-usual approach is a recipe for extinction,"
said Hunter. "Extinction is forever, and when making decisions about
endangered species it is important to err on the side of caution."
Conservation groups, Tribes, and commercial fishermen were left with few
options. Changing the water management plan meant suing the Bush Administration
and halting irrigation flows once again. Not suing would mean that endangered
coho salmon juveniles migrating down the Klamath to the ocean could face
severe low flows and water quality problems. After weighing the options
carefully, commercial fishing interests and conservationists filed a lawsuit
to protect coho salmon in the Klamath River on April 24th.
"We held out for as long as we could, waiting for the agencies to
do the right thing," said Glen Spain. "The fish could not wait
any longer."
Solving the Klamath
Basin's Water Woes
Many Klamath observers have concluded that the only way to solve the
environmental woes of the basin is to reduce the demand for water.
"You can't continue to drain as much water from the system as we
currently do and have healthy lakes and rivers," said Hunter. "We
need to recognize this, and learn to share the water fairly."
One idea proposed by WaterWatch and other conservationists, along with
some farmers, is a program to buy land or water rights from willing sellers
and retire them.
Titled "A Voluntary Demand Reduction and Resource Enhancement Program
for the Klamath Project," this joint proposal would allow for federal
government buyouts of interests in water and/or farmlands from willing
sellers in the Klamath Basin. The water and lands involved in the buyouts
would then be used to support fish and wildlife in the Klamath National
Wildlife Refuges, the Klamath River, Upper Klamath Lake and other areas
in the watershed.
During the summer of 2001, approximately two dozen farm families representing
as much as 30,000 acres of land within the basin signed up in support
of the idea.
An amendment to the Farm Bill, introduced by Senators Ron Wyden, Gordon
Smith, Barbara Boxer, and Diane Fienstein, recognized that a demand reduction
program is a necessary part of any solution to the basin's water crisis.
Their $175 million provision would also fund a wide variety of other restoration
efforts, such as wetlands restoration, fish screening, and improved irrigation
efficiency.
But despite widespread support, the provision introduced by the four Senators
ran into trouble. Conservative members of Congress, including Greg Walden,
objected to considering demand reduction and offered their own provision,
giving legislative support to the Bush Administration's irrigators-first
operating plan.
Ultimately, the $73.5 billion Farm Bill passed by the U.S. House and Senate
included only $50 million of the original $175 million. These funds are
earmarked to help only farmers, as opposed to the initial provision which
would have included assistance to tribes in the basin as well as money
to buy back water contracts from farmers to reduce agricultural water
demand.
The debate over the legislation mirrored the conflict over water in the
Klamath Basin. "We are really at a crossroads," said Hunter.
"Will we be able to bring the use of the basin's scarce water resources
back into balance or will we continue to manage them for a single interest?
One of the nation's most incredible natural treasures is riding on the
outcome of that debate."
A colony of white pelicans ensconced on an island in
the Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge on the California side of the
Klamath Basin only hints at the abundance of fish and wildlife this formerly
water-rich region once supported.
Photo by Jim Yuskavitch
As this issue of The Osprey went to press, both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and National Marine Fisheries Service released draft biological
opinions expressing concern that the 10-year plan developed by the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation to deliver water to Klamath Basin farmers threatens
the survival of ESA-listed salmon and suckers.
The two primary areas of concern are habitat loss and poor water quality,
that threatens to become worse.
To protect the suckers, USFWS biologists wants the Bureau to keep the
suckers from being drawn through the turbines of PacifiCorps dam on the
Link River, determine what the population of suckers is in the basin,
establish refuges for the suckers that offer better water quality than
the basin at large and develop ways to forecast water conditions that
will be detrimental to the suckers.
To protect threatened coho salmon, NMFS wants the Bureau to set up a water
banking system to obtain water from willing sellers, but says that the
Bureau is only responsible for 57 percent of the water required by the
fish.