DOCSLIB.ORG

Divided Waters

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Divided Waters Divided Waters By Stephen Most The Klamath River system is unique in having Indian reservations at its headwaters, along its estuary, and astride its major tributary, the Trinity. Ever since the 1908 U.S. Supreme Court Winters decision, the federal government has acknowledged that Indian treaties, which guarantee hunting, fishing, and gathering rights, give tribes unique and senior rights to water within their territories. The Klamath Project drained lakes and built a series of dams and canals in the Upper Basin nonetheless, disregarding Indian water rights throughout the twentieth century. The last of the project’s dams made no provision for wild salmon. Built in 1964, Iron Gate blocked spring chinook, the mainstay of the downriver tribes, from reaching their spawning habitat in the Upper Basin. The termination of the Klamath Reservation in 1954 impacted the upriver tribes’ mullet or sucker fishery. Wetlands decreased as ranchlands expanded. Effluents increased with each new herd. In spite of termination, a 1984 federal court case determined that Klamath Indians are entitled “to as much water on Reservation lands as they need to protect their hunting and fishing rights.” Yet when the reservation was restored in 1986, one of the first actions of the tribal government was to halt their own mullet fishery; for the survival of the species was in jeopardy. What made the Klamath Project take notice of the fishery’s decline was not Indian water rights but the Endangered Species Act. Fishery biologists employed by the Yurok and Hupa tribes downriver and by the Klamath Tribes at the headwaters contributed to scientific studies of wild coho salmon and the two species of sucker, both of which were listed under the ESA. In 2001, biological opinions concerning the condition of these species and their water needs pressured the Bureau of Reclamation to cut off water deliveries to the Klamath Project. The waters of the Klamath River, its headwaters and tributaries, irrigate fields from California’s San Joaquin Valley to the Oregon highlands north of Upper Klamath Lake. Farmers cultivate the valleys of the Trinity, the Scott, and the Shasta—rivers that flow into the main stem downstream of the dams. But most of the farming within the Klamath drainage occurs near the headwaters, in the highlands known as the Upper Basin. Also within the Upper Basin are farms in the Lost River drainage, which includes Tule Lake. These waters are considered part of the Klamath River system in spite of their origin. Not only do they irrigate Klamath Project fields but the Project, which built the dams, sumps, canals, and other facilities that move and store Upper Basin water, pumps them up a ridge and through a tunnel into the Klamath River. The crops of this region include wheat, barley, alfalfa, potatoes, onions, horseradish, and sugar beets. The 200,000 acres that draw water from the Klamath Project to grow these crops comprise roughly half of the agricultural land within the Upper Basin. The other half, mainly private land in Oregon, uses water that the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), which manages the Klamath Project, does not control. As a result, politics rather than nature has made some farmers lose their water supply while neighboring farms grow crops. In 2001, the BOR withheld much of the water the 1,400 family farms on Klamath Project lands depended on. On May 7 of that year, no less than 10,000 people, most of them members of the farm and ranch communities of the Upper Basin, came to downtown Klamath Falls to protest. Passing fifty-one buckets of water drawn from Lake Ewauna at the headwaters of the Klamath River hand to hand along Main Street, then emptying them into an irrigation canal, they defied the federal ban on water for their farms. The Bush Administration responded to this demonstration of rural outrage. In August, Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton announced that Project fields would receive 75,000 acre-feet of irrigation water from Upper Klamath Lake. This was a political but not a practical victory, coming too late for many farmers to plant crops that would use the water. However, in 2002, the BOR restored the flow through the canals of the Klamath Project. To commemorate their successful act of civil disobedience, supporters of the Bucket Brigade sited a ten-foot-tall metal bucket on Main Street in front of the county government building. Within Oregon, the Klamath Basin region includes most of Klamath County and parts of Jackson and Lake counties. In 2013, the population of the three counties was 282,275, 7 percent of the state’s total population. The Klamath Basin includes a growing Hispanic community, with approximately 11 percent of the population in both Klamath and Jackson counties and 7 percent in Lake County. 4.5 percent of Klamath County is American Indian, more than double the statewide percentage of 1.8. Native Americans constitute and 2.2 percent and 1.5 percent of Lake and Jackson County populations, respectively. Asian Americans comprise1 percent of the population in each county, while African Americans measure less than 1 percent, 0.8 percent in Jackson and Klamath and 0.5 percent in Lake. © Stephen Most, 2003. Updated by OHP staff, 2014. Oregon History Project https://www.oregonhistoryproject.org/articles/divided-waters/.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Frequently Asked Questions
    Frequently Asked Questions Why are we doing this project? The City of Klamath Falls is working to upgrade the Spring Street Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) due to its aging infrastructure and the need to meet new, stricter treatment standards. The project is an important, long-term investment for the community. The City has operated the Spring Street STP since 1958, serving Klamath Falls for over 60 years. Many of the plant’s parts are original since their installation in the 1950s. As repairs are becoming necessary due to age, it is more cost-efficient to replace them entirely them than to repair them. A comprehensive upgrade is a smart investment in the plant, avoiding short-term, quick-fix solutions that add up in the long run. What benefits will this project provide to the City of Klamath Falls? The City’s Wastewater Division provides services to approximately 21,000 city residents and Klamath Basin area customers, cleaning an average 2.2 million gallons of wastewater per day from over 7,400 service connections. These upgrades will provide the following benefits to this process and to the community: • Improved health, safety, and welfare of the public. • Reliable, robust treatment with sufficient process and equipment redundancy (allowing the plant to stay operational while routine maintenance and repairs occur), and operator-friendly facilities. • Energy efficiency, which will result in additional funding from the Energy Trust of Oregon and reduced power bills. • Reduction in operation and maintenance costs due to the elimination of two existing processes: primary clarification and digestion. Along with being a smart long-term investment, the upgrades will help keep the City in compliance with Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) regulations and protect the area’s natural resources such as Lake Ewauna, the headwaters of the Klamath River where the treated wastewater is discharged.
    [Show full text]
  • The Case for Dam Removal on the Klamath S
    Building The Case for Dam Removal on the Klamath S. Craig Tucker, Ph.D. Klamath Campaign Coordinator Karuk Tribe 12/12/03 Pacificorp, a subsidiary of the large multinational power corporation Scottish Power, is in the process of relicensing its Klamath River dams. Since hydropower dams are relicensed only once every 30-50 years, relicensing represents a once in a lifetime opportunity to change flow regimes or decommission dams. The Karuk Tribe believes that the removal of dams on the Klamath should be fully evaluated as dam removal appears to be key in the restoration of native fishes to the upper basin. Our position is supported by sound science and policy research. These dams contribute little to the energy supply1 The California Energy Commission (CEC) reviewed the energy affects of full or partial decommissioning. Their conclusions were that: “Because of the small capacity of the Klamath hydro units…removal of these units will not have a significant reliability impact on a larger regional scale.” The report went on to state: “…decommissioning is a feasible alternative from the perspective of impacts to statewide electricity resource adequacy and that replacement energy is available in the near term.” The National Academy of Science recommends a full evaluation of dam removal2 A recent report by the most prestigious scientific minds in America, the National Academy of Science, recommends that: “serious evaluation should be made of the benefits to coho salmon from the elimination of Dwinell Dam [on the Shasta River] and Iron Gate Dam on the grounds that these dams block substantial amounts of coho habitat…” The California State Water Resources Control Board calls for dam removal studies3 The California State Water Resources Control Board is one party involved in the relicensing of the Klamath Project.
    [Show full text]
  • Characterizing Tribal Cultural Landscapes, Volume II: Tribal Case
    OCS Study BOEM 2017-001 Characterizing Tribal Cultural Landscapes Volume II: Tribal Case Studies US Department of the Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Pacific OCS Region This page intentionally left blank. OCS Study BOEM 2017-001 Characterizing Tribal Cultural Landscapes Volume II: Tribal Case Studies David Ball Rosie Clayburn Roberta Cordero Briece Edwards Valerie Grussing Janine Ledford Robert McConnell Rebekah Monette Robert Steelquist Eirik Thorsgard Jon Townsend Prepared under BOEM-NOAA Interagency Agreement M12PG00035 by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of National Marine Sanctuaries 1305 East-West Highway, SSMC4 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Makah Tribe Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Community of Oregon Yurok Tribe National Marine Sanctuary Foundation US Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of National Marine Sanctuaries US Department of the Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Pacific OCS Region December 31, 2017 This page intentionally left blank. DISCLAIMER This study was funded, in part, by the US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Pacific Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Region, Camarillo, CA, through Interagency Agreement Number M12PG00035 with the US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). This report has been technically reviewed by BOEM and it has been approved for publication. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the opinions or policies of the US Government, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. REPORT AVAILABILITY This report can be downloaded from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s Recently Completed Environmental Studies – Pacific webpage at https://www.boem.gov/Pacific-Completed-Studies/.
    [Show full text]
  • Klamath River Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement Interim Measure 15
    Klamath River Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement Interim Measure 15: Final 2019 Water Quality Monitoring Study Plan Prepared: January 16, 2019 KHSA IM15 2019 STUDY PLAN Table of Contents 1. Introduction and Overview ............................................................................................. 1 2. Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 3 3. Monitoring Components ................................................................................................. 4 3.1 Public Health Monitoring of Cyanobacteria and Toxins .......................................... 4 3.2 Baseline Water Quality Monitoring of the Klamath River ....................................... 4 4. Quality Assurance, Data Management, and Dissemination ............................................ 5 4.1 KHSA Program Quality Assurance Strategy for 2019 ............................................. 5 5. Sampling Constituents and Frequency............................................................................ 7 5.1 Public Health Monitoring of Cyanobacteria and Toxins .......................................... 7 5.2 Comprehensive Baseline Water Quality Monitoring of the Klamath River ............. 9 6.0 References ................................................................................................................... 13 List of Figures Figure 1. 2019 KHSA IM 15 monitoring stations .............................................................. 2 List of Tables
    [Show full text]
  • Water Allocation in the Klamath Reclamation Project (Oregon State
    Oregon State University Extension Service Special Report 1037 December 2002 Water Allocation in the Klamath Reclamation Project, 2001: An Assessment of Natural Resource, Economic, Social, and Institutional Issues with a Focus on the Upper Klamath Basin William S. Braunworth, Jr. Assistant Extension Agriculture Program Leader Oregon State University Teresa Welch Publications Editor Oregon State University Ron Hathaway Extension agriculture faculty, Klamath County Oregon State University Authors William Boggess, department head, Department of William K. Jaeger, associate professor of agricul- Agricultural and Resource Economics, Oregon tural and resource economics and Extension State University agricultural and resource policy specialist, Oregon State University William S. Braunworth, Jr., assistant Extension agricultural program leader, Oregon State Robert L. Jarvis, professor of fisheries and University wildlife, Oregon State University Susan Burke, researcher, Department of Agricul- Denise Lach, codirector, Center for Water and tural and Resource Economics, Oregon State Environmental Sustainability, Oregon State University University Harry L. Carlson, superintendent/farm advisor, Kerry Locke, Extension agriculture faculty, University of California Intermountain Research Klamath County, Oregon State University and Extension Center Jeff Manning, graduate student, Department of Patty Case, Extension family and community Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University development faculty, Klamath County, Oregon Reed Marbut, Oregon Water Resources
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Klamath Basin, Tule Lake Subbasin • Groundwater Basin Number: 1-2.01 • County: Modoc, Siskiyou • Surface Area: 85,930 Acres (135 Square Miles)
    North Coast Hydrologic Region California’s Groundwater Upper Klamath Groundwater Basin Bulletin 118 Upper Klamath Basin, Tule Lake Subbasin • Groundwater Basin Number: 1-2.01 • County: Modoc, Siskiyou • Surface Area: 85,930 acres (135 square miles) An important note on the status of the groundwater resources in the Tule Lake Subbasin, is that, historically, groundwater use in the basin has been relatively minor. Since about 1905, when the Bureau of Reclamation began building the Klamath Project to provide surface water to agriculture on reclaimed land in the Klamath Basin, abundant surface water supplies have been available. In the 2001 Klamath Project Operation, water requirements for two sucker fish species in the upper basin and the coho salmon in the lower basin led the USBR to reduce surface water deliveries to the farmers to 26 percent of normal. The already existing drought conditions were further exacerbated by the operational drought. In 2001, drought emergencies were declared for the Klamath Basin by the governors of both California and Oregon. Governor Davis called upon California’s legislature to fund an Emergency Well Drilling Program in the Tulelake Irrigation District (TID). The governor also requested funding for a Hydrogeologic Investigation to evaluate new and future groundwater development. The emergency measures were taken because the TID had no alternate water supply for the nearly 75,000 acres in the district and farmers were faced with economic disaster. Ten large-capacity irrigation wells were constructed within the irrigation district for the emergency program. Four of the ten wells produce 10,000 gpm and greater. The lowest yielding well produces 6,000 gpm.
    [Show full text]
  • Water-Quality Data from Upper Klamath and Agency Lakes, Oregon, 2009–10
    Prepared in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation Water-Quality Data from Upper Klamath and Agency Lakes, Oregon, 2009–10 Open-File Report 2012–1142 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover: Meteorological and water quality monitoring site MDN on Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon, with Mt. McLoughlin in the background. (Photograph by D. Blake Eldridge, U.S. Geological Survey, July 12, 2011.) Water-Quality Data from Upper Klamath and Agency Lakes, Oregon, 2009–10 By D. Blake Eldridge, Sara L. Caldwell Eldridge, Liam N. Schenk, Dwight Q. Tanner, and Tamara M. Wood Prepared in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation Open-File Report 2012–1142 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior KEN SALAZAR, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Marcia K. McNutt, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2012 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1-888-ASK-USGS. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov Suggested citation: Eldridge. D.B., Caldwell Eldridge, S.L., Schenk, L.N., Tanner, D.Q., and Wood, T.M., 2012, Water-quality data from Upper Klamath and Agency Lakes, Oregon, 2009–10: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2012–1142, 32 p. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Here Were Also Three Unauthorized Releases of Water from Upper Klamath Lake
    In the United States Court of Federal Claims Nos. 1-591L; 7-194C; 7-19401C; 7-19402C; 7-19403C; 7-19404C; 7-19405C; 7-19406C; 7-19407C; 7-19408C; 7-19409C; 7-19410C; 7-19411C; 7-19412C; 7-19413C; 7-19414C; 7-19415C; 7-19416C; 7-19417C; 7-19418C; 7-19419C; 7-19420C Filed: December 21, 2016 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * KLAMATH IRRIGATION, et al., and * JOHN ANDERSON FARMS, INC., * et al., * * Plaintiffs, * * v. * Water Rights; Physical vs. Regulatory UNITED STATES, * * Takings; Endangered Species Act; v. * Motions in Limine. * Defendant, * PACIFIC COAST FEDERATION OF * FISHERMEN’S ASSOCIATIONS, * * Defendant-Intervenor. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Nancie G. Marzulla, Marzulla Law, LLC, Washington, DC for plaintiffs. With her was Roger G. Marzulla, Marzulla Law, LLC. Of counsel was William M. Ganong, Special Counsel, Klamath Irrigation District, Klamath Falls, OR. Kristine S. Tardiff, Trial Attorney, Natural Resources Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division, United States Department of Justice, Concord, NH, for defendant. With her was John C. Cruden, Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and Stephen M. MacFarlane and Edward C. Thomas, Natural Resources Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division, United States Department of Justice. Todd D. True, Earthjustice, Seattle, WA for defendant-intervenor. O P I N I O N HORN, J. FINDINGS OF FACT Before the court are the parties’ cross-motions in limine regarding the proper legal framework for analyzing plaintiffs’ takings claims in the above-captioned cases. Plaintiffs in the above-captioned cases are individual landowners, irrigation districts and similar government agencies, and private corporations in Oregon and California who allege that the defendant, acting through the United States Bureau of Reclamation, effected a taking of their alleged water rights in 2001.
    [Show full text]
  • KLAMATH HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT [FERC No
    KLAMATH HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT [FERC No. 2082] REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY Copco No. 1, c1915 PacifiCorp Archives Photo for PacifiCorp, Portland, OR Prepared by George Kramer, M.S., HP Preservation Specialist Under contract to CH2M-Hill Corvallis, OR October 2003 App E-6E DOE 1_Cover.doc DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER Property Name: KLAMATH HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Date of Construction: 1903-1958 Address: N/A County: Klamath, Oregon Siskiyou, California Original Use: Hydroelectric Generation Current Use: Hydroelectric Generation Style: Utilitarian/Industrial Theme: Commerce/Industrial _____________________________________________________________________________________ PRIMARY SIGNIFICANCE: The resources of the Klamath Hydroelectric Project were built between 1903 and 1958 by the California Oregon Power Company and its various pioneer predecessors and are now owned and operated by PacifiCorp under Federal Energy Regulatory License No. 2082. The resources of the project are strongly associated with the early development of electricity in the southern Oregon and northern California region and played a significant role in the area’s economy both directly, as a part of a regionally-significant, locally-owned and operated, private utility, and indirectly, through the role that increased electrical capacity played in the expansion of the timber, agriculture, and recreation industries during the first six decades of the 20th century. The Klamath Hydroelectric Project is considered regionally significant and eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion “A” for its association with the industrial and economic development of southern Oregon and northern California. [See Statement of Significance, Page 19] Copco No. 1, Dam and Gatehouse, 2002 In my opinion, the property ___ meets ___ does not meet the criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.
    [Show full text]
  • Yurok Final Brief
    Case 3:16-cv-06863-WHO Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 1 of 22 JEFFREY H. WOOD, Acting Assistant Attorney General 1 Environment & Natural Resources Division 2 SETH M. BARSKY, Chief S. JAY GOVINDAN, Assistant Chief 3 ROBERT P. WILLIAMS, Sr. Trial Attorney KAITLYN POIRIER, Trial Attorney 4 U.S. Department of Justice 5 Environment & Natural Resources Division Wildlife & Marine Resources Section 6 Ben Franklin Station, P.O. Box 7611 7 Washington, D.C. 20044-7611 Tel: 202-307-6623; Fax: 202-305-0275 8 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] 9 10 Attorneys for Federal Defendants 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 14 YUROK TRIBE, et al., ) 15 Case No. 3:16-cv-06863-WHO ) 16 Plaintiff, ) ) 17 FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE v. ) TO DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’ 18 ) MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, et al., ) JUDGMENT AND/OR STAY OF 19 ) ENFORCEMENT (ECF No. 101) Defendants, ) 20 ) 21 and ) ) 22 KLAMATH WATER USERS ) ASSOCIATION, et al., ) 23 ) 24 Defendant-Intervenors. ) 25 26 27 28 1 Federal Defendants’ Response to Intervenors’ Motion for Relief 3:16-cv-6863-WHO Case 3:16-cv-06863-WHO Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 2 of 22 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 I. INTRODUCTION 3 3 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 5 4 A. Hydrologic Conditions In Water Year 2018 5 5 B. 2013 Biological Opinion Requirements for Suckers 5 6 III. DISCUSSION 7 7 A. Given Hydrologic Conditions, Guidance Measures 1 8 and 4 Cannot Both Be Implemented As They Were Designed Without Impermissibly Interfering With 9 Conditions Necessary to Protect Endangered Suckers 7 10 1.
    [Show full text]
  • FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT Klamath Hydroelectric Project
    FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT Klamath Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 2082) Water Resources PacifiCorp Portland, Oregon Version: February 2004 Copyright © 2004 by PacifiCorp Reproduction in whole or in part without the written consent of PacifiCorp is prohibited. Water Resources FTR.DOC CONTENTS PREFACE...............................................................................................................................v LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ...........................................................vii GLOSSARY...........................................................................................................................ix 1.0 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................1-1 1.1 SCOPE OF WORK.............................................................................................1-1 1.2 OVERVIEW OF WATER RESOURCES STUDIES ........................................1-1 2.0 COMPILATION AND ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING WATER QUALITY DATA .......................................................................................................................2-1 2.1 DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE ......................................................................2-1 2.2 OBJECTIVES.....................................................................................................2-1 2.3 RELICENSING RELEVANCE AND USE IN DECISIONMAKING..............2-1 2.4 METHODS AND GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE .......................................................2-1 2.4.1
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution of Anadromomous Fishes in the Upper Klamath River
    Distribution of Anadromomous Fishes in the Upper Klamath River Watershed Prior to Hydropower Dams— A Synthesis of the Historical Evidence fisheries history Knowledge of the historical distribution of anadromous fish is important to guide man- agement decisions in the Klamath River including ongoing restoration and regional recovery of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Using various sources, we determined the historical distribution of anadromous fish above Iron Gate Dam. Evidence for the feature largest, most utilized species, Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), was avail- ABSTRACT able from multiple sources and clearly showed that this species historically migrated upstream into tributaries of Upper Klamath Lake. Available information indicates that the distribution of steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) extended to the Klamath Upper Basin as well. Coho salmon and anadromous lamprey (Lampetra tridentata) likely were distributed upstream at least to the vicinity of Spencer Creek. A population of anadro- mous sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) may have occurred historically above Iron Gate Dam. Green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris), chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta), pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha), coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki), and eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) were restricted to the Klamath River well below Iron Gate Dam. This synthesis of available sources regarding the historical extent of these species’ upstream distribution provides key information necessary to guide management and habitat restoration efforts. Introduction John B. Hamilton Gary L. Curtis Gatschet’s statement is that salmon ascend the Klamath river twice a year, in June and again in autumn. This is in agreement with my information, that the run comes in the middlefinger Scott M. Snedaker month [sic], May–June, and that the large fish run in the fall...They ascend all the rivers David K.
    [Show full text]