Environmental Case Study Water Wars on the Klamath

Home , Klamath Basin, Tule Lake, Upper Klamath Lake

Until a century ago, the Klamath River was the third most productive salmon fishery south of the Canadian border. The 35 km (22 mi) long Upper Klamath Lake, the largest lake in the Pacific Northwest, once contained great schools of C’wam and Qapdo (Lost River and shortnose suckers). Millions of hectares of marshes, lakes, and dry steppe in the Klamath Basin teemed with waterfowl and wildlife. At least 80 percent of the birds following the Pacific Flyway stopped to feed in the area. Native American tribes, including the Klamath and Paiute in the upper basin, and the Yurok and Hupa downstream, depended on the abundant fish and wildlife for their survival. The United States’ first waterfowl refuge, the Lower Klamath Wildlife Refuge, was established in 1908 to protect the area’s critical habitat.

In 1905 the newly formed United States Bureau of Reclamation was directed to “reclaim the sunbaked prairies and worthless swamps” in the upper Klamath Basin. Spending $50 million, the bureau built 7 dams, 45 pumping stations, and more than 1,600 km (1,000 mi) of canals and ditches. The project drained three-quarters of the wetlands in the upper basin, and provided irrigation water to 90,000 ha (220,000 acres) of cropland. Promises of cheap land and subsidized water lured some 1,400 farmers to the valley to grow potatoes, alfalfa, sugar beets, mint, onions, and cattle. In the 1990s, irrigators in the Klamath Basin used almost 1 million acre-feet (325 billion gallons or 1.2 trillion liters) of surface water per year.

These water diversions left salmon stranded in dried-up streams, while oxygen- depleted lake water was contaminated with agricultural runoff and clogged with algae. Downstream, Native American tribes and commercial fishermen, who once had brought in about 500,000 kg (roughly a million pounds) of salmon per year, saw their catches decline by as much as 90 percent. More than 7,000 jobs were lost when the fisheries collapsed. In 1997, the C’wam and Qapdo were declared endangered, and Coho salmon were listed as threatened. A coalition of commercial and sports fishermen, environmentalists, and native people sued the government for damaging fish and wildlife resources. A federal judge agreed, and ordered the Bureau of Reclamation to reduce irrigation flow and to maintain minimum water levels in rivers and lakes.

A severe drought in 2001 precipitated a crisis. For the first time in its history, the bureau closed the gates on its irrigation canals and cut off water to the farmers. Outraged farmers broke open the headgate locks and released water into drying fields. News media flocked to the site to film the confrontation. Wildlife enthusiasts and hunters clamored for the return of the water to the river and the area’s wetlands. Farmers fumed over lost profits. The irrigation headgates were closed again.

Environmental Case Study Water Wars on the Klamath

Then Republican National Committee strategist Karl Rove stepped in to this small, remote conflict. Rove and other conservative politicians publicized the debate around the property rights of farmers—a concern shared by farmers and conservatives across the nation. Following Rove’s advice, Interior Secretary Gale Norton flew to the site and, with great publicity, reopened the irrigation headgates.

Norton suggested that the Klamath water dispute could be best resolved by the free market. She proposed a “water bank,” with which farmers could voluntarily sell surplus water to Indian tribes or the Fish and Wildlife Service. The tribes and wildlife groups objected that this approach would only work when water was abundant. In critical drought years, wildlife and fish would perish.

Conservationists argue that irrigation practices should change. Two-thirds of the basin uses flood irrigation, which loses about 50 percent of water to evaporation. Farmers could install sprinkler systems or switch to less water-intensive crops.

Farmers counter that their survival depends on Klamath water. Denial of water rights constitutes unlawful “takings” that threaten their livelihoods. Property rights activists argue that water is a property right accorded to landowners, not to wildlife and fish.

Meanwhile, because of several poor spawning years, California’s 2006 salmon fishing quotas were cut, costing thousands of fishery workers an estimated $100 million in fishing revenues.

Wildlife refuges and wilderness areas Watershed Crater Lake N.P. CHILOQUIN Oregon Upper Klamath Lake

KLAMATH FALLS

er Riv ath TULELAKE m la K

Lower Klamath Wildlife Refuge Tule Lake

California

0 1020304050 MILES

Environmental Case Study Water Wars on the Klamath

Conflicting demands for dwindling resources often lead to complex disputes. What would you do if you were Secretary of the Interior? What arguments would you use to resolve this dispute? What goals are achieved and lost when the national spotlight turns on a local debate? How would you weigh the rights of farmers and fish, and of fisheries and landowners?