[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Editorial See other Editorial Articles Title: Editorial: Klamath pact could be a start toward peace Published: Sunday, Oct. 4, 2009 - 12:00 am | Page 6E This week's draft settlement on Klamath River water doesn't mark the end of an epic battle, but it does mark a milestone. Just a few years ago, farmers, Indian tribes, environmentalists and power users were at one another's throats. It was hard to imagine they would ever sit down and negotiate a pact that would simultaneously help fish and farmers while also protecting ratepayers who depend on Klamath River hydropower. Yet it happened. After years of painstaking talks, a settlement to the Klamath wars is within sight. The trick now will be to unite diverse groups to secure needed funding from Congress and other sources. The core of this deal is the removal of four dams on the Klamath. Removing those four could restore many miles of spawning habitat on a river that once was a mighty salmon factory. PacifiCorp, the utility that owns the dams, balked at first. But eventually, its executives confronted reality: Getting a new license for their hydropower plants could likely cost more than letting the dams go. Dam removal, however, is just one aspect of the deal. If the dams come down, farmers could lose electricity needed to move water around the Klamath Project, a federal irrigation project that staddles the California and Oregon borders. Irrigators needed a source of substitute power, as well more secure water supplies and assurances they wouldn't become the target of endangered species regulations in the future. The Klamath settlement has all those provisions, and not everyone is happy about it. Some environmentalists think the Bush administration, followed by the Obama administration, is giving up too much to farmers, with only vague assurances that the dams will come down. There are uncertainties in the pact. Funding is one of them. The disposition of potentially toxic sediment behind the dams is another. Yet the critics are missing the big picture. The Klamath negotiations have created a broad-based consitutency for getting the settlement implemented and resolving unsettled issues over time. And it's so much better than the alternative. Five years ago, the Klamath combatants were heading down the road to endless litigation, confrontation, name-calling and bitterness. No one wins in these kinds of protracted water fights. Need evidence? Just look at the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
[Register]
|
||