Klamath River Legislation Introduced

Yurok Tribal Chairman, Tommy O’Rourke signs the KBRA and KHSA during a heavily attended ceremony in Salem, Ore. in February of 2010. Legislation was introduced last week that could ratify the Klamath Settlements that may bring down four Klamath Dams and secure water deliveries to agricultural interests in the Upper Klamath Basin. / Photo by Allie Hostler, Two Rivers Tribune.

Hoopa Valley Tribe Reeling Over Tribal Rights Waiver

The alarm sounded for the Hoopa Tribe early in the process—the negotiation process that lasted from 2007 through 2010 to remove

By Allie Hostler, Two Rivers Tribune

A bill introduced in both the Senate and the House that would ratify two settlements reached on the Klamath River has the Hoopa Tribe riled up about the termination of tribal rights.

four decrepit dams on the Klamath River. The Hoopa Tribe doesn’t hesitate to voice its support for dam removal, but they also don’t hesitate to say they don’t approve of the settlements also called the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA) and the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA).

Hoopa Tribal Chairman, Leonard Masten, pointed to a section of the bill, under which “The United States, as trustee” for the Indian tribes of the Klamath Basin who rejected the agreements, agrees not to protect tribal water or fishing rights that would interfere with water demands of the Klamath Irrigation District in Oregon.

Over 18 members of Congress have signed on showing their support of first district representative Mike Thompson’s bill that was concurrently introduced on the Senate side by Oregon Senator, Jeff Merkley. The bill’s title is H.R. 3398 the Klamath Basin Economic Restoration Act. It bears a $536 million price tag, with additional federal funding authorized in the KBRA and $549.6 million in other funds from California and PacifiCorp ratepayers.

“It’s tragic that these congressmen feel Indian water rights must be surrendered in order to remove the dams…,” Masten said. “If it costs $800 million to create 4,600 jobs, that equates to over $170,000 per job, a poor deal in the best of times.”

Supporters argue that tribal rights will only be impacted if certain conditions are met. The conditions agreed to by the Karuk Tribe include dam removal, full appropriations of funds outlined in Appendix C of the KBRA, the implementation of a fisheries restoration plan, and a positive determination by the Secretary of the Interior that dam removal is in the best interest of the public.

But tribal rights aren’t that cut and dry according to the Hoopa Tribe. There are individual tribal waivers; one in particular that representatives of the Department of Interior drafted that waives the U.S.’s duty, as trustee to the tribes, to protect tribal resources.

“This means that the U.S., instead of protecting tribal resources as our trustee, will protect the irrigators’ rights to 378,000 acre-feet of water each year,” Hoopa Tribal Councilmember, Hayley Hutt, said. “When the U.S. gets comfortable with the sort of Indian rights termination language that’s in this bill, it’s terrifying and sets a dangerous precedent for tribes throughout the nation.”

Proponents point to the benefits of doing something on the Klamath, rather than nothing.

Glen Spain, Director of the Pacific Federation of Fisheries Associations (PCFFA) said, “Our rural communities simply can’t afford to do nothing. That’s a recipe for another round of catastrophes like the fish kill and irrigation shut-off. We desperately need Congress to act now.”

Some farmers also believe the settlements are the surest cure to the basin’s water crisis.

“When disaster hit and litigation got drawn out, we were challenged by elected officials to develop our own solutions to the water crises that have devastated our communities,” Steve Kandra, a Klamath Basin farmer, said. “Together we did it and we’re part of a strong and growing constituency that expects our elected officials to seize this opportunity to end the Klamath crisis.”

Congressman Tom McClintock, Republican and Chairman of the Water Power Subcommittee of the House Natural Resource Committee has loudly opposed the bill and the settlements. He issued a statement last week.

“Fortunately, congressional approval is necessary to move forward. The full house voted earlier this year against proceeding with Klamath Dam Removal. That precedent and a $13 trillion national debt speak volumes on the chances of this legislation passing in the House over the next year,” he said.

The bill is working against a March 2012 deadline. Provisions in the KBRA call for the termination of the settlement if legislation is not passed by the end of 2011. The passage of legislation will also authorize the Secretary of Interior to make a decision whether or not dam removal is in the public interest by a March 2012 deadline.

To view the KHSA and the KBRA, and the legislation, visit www.klamathrestoration.gov.