Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T13:02:40.441Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Integrated Water Resources Management and Collaboration: The Failure of the Klamath River Agreements

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 December 2017

Daniel McCool
Daniel McCool*
Affiliation:
University of Utah
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) is one of the most utilized models in water policy and administration. One of the crucial components in IWRM is collaboration, where multiple stakeholders negotiate solutions. This article explores the role of collaboration in one of the most contentious water conflicts in the nation—the Klamath River. The range of stakeholders is enormous and complex, including Indian tribes, farmers, fishermen, recreationists, environmentalists, advocates of endangered species, two states, and multiple federal agencies. The parties in the Klamath Basin negotiated three settlements to resolve many of the major issues. However, the U.S. Congress failed to approve the settlements in late 2015, effectively ending this long-term effort to resolve these vexing issues through collaborative negotiations. This conflict is analyzed using a multimethod approach, and discusses how the failure of the settlement process can provide insights into the role of collaboration in IWRM, and suggests refinements to the model.

Keywords

Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM)Klamath River BasinKlamath Bureau of ReclamationKlamath Irrigation ProjectKlamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA)
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Policy History , Volume 30 , Issue 1 , January 2018 , pp. 83 - 104
Copyright
Copyright © Donald Critchlow and Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NOTES

1. Lenton, Roberto and Muller, Mike, eds., Integrated Water Resources Management (New York, 2009).Google Scholar

2. Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army, “Building Strong Collaborative Relationships for a Sustainable Water Resources Future,” January 2014.

3. Cech, Thomas, Principles of Water Resources (New York, 2003), 436Google Scholar. See also Cosgrove, William, Water Security and Peace (Paris, 2003).Google Scholar

4. Doremus, Holly and Tarlock, A. Dan, Water War in the Klamath Basin: Macho Law, Combat Biology, and Dirty Politics (Washington, D.C., 2008).Google Scholar

5. “Scientific Assessment of Two Dam Removal Alternatives on Resident Fish,” Draft Report, Klamath River Expert Panel, prepared by David Buchanna et al., 13 January 2011.

6. The Klamath Project, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Project.jsp?proj_Name=Klamath+Project.

7. See “The Klamath Project: Enriched by Resources,” Bureau of Reclamation, Klamath Basin Area Office (2006); “Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act Klamath River Coho Salmon Recovery Plan,” National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Region, 10 July 2007; “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,” Oregon State University and the University of California, Special Report 1037 (December 2002).

8. “September 2002 Klamath River Fish-Kill: Final Analysis of Contributing Factors and Impacts,” California Department of Fish and Game, Northern California–North Coast Region, Resources Agency, State of California, July 2004; “Klamath River Fish Die-Off, September 2002: Causative Factors of Morality” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Report Number AFWO-F-03-03 (November 2003); Glen Martin, “Salmon Kill Linked to Level of Klamath/River’s Flow—Reduced for Irrigation—Played a Role in Huge Die-off, U.S. Study Finds,” San Francisco Chronicle, 19 November 2003. Some sources place the total kill numbers at 70,000. See “Klamath Salmon,” Upwelling (April 2006).

9. Leonard Masten, “Ten Years After Klamath Fish Kill, New Water Proposals and Weakening of Indian Water Rights Threaten Salmon Gains,” Indian Country Today, 29 October 2012.

10. In-person interview, 14 August 2006, Klamath Falls.

11. “The Klamath Project: Enriched by Resources,” Bureau of Reclamation, Klamath Basin Area Office (2006).

12. Ibid.

13. “Klamath Project: Historic Operation,” United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region, Klamath Basin Area Office (November 2000).

14. Klamath Irrigation District, et. al. v. United States. 2007-5115 (decided 17 February 2011), 6.

15. Ibid.

16. Correspondence from the Regional Solicitor, Pacific Southwest Region, to the Regional Director, Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region (25 July 1995), Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of the Interior.

17. Before completion of the Trinity River Project, the Trinity flowed at about 1.2 million acre-feet, but enormous diversions into the Central Valley of California reduced that to 340,000 acre-feet. See McCool, Daniel, River Republic: The Fall and Rise of America’s Rivers (New York, 2012), 97–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18. “Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act, Klamath Coho Salmon Recovery Plan,” NOAA Fisheries, 10 July 2007, http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/salmon/MSRA_RecoveryPlan_FINAL.pdf.

19. The Klamath Tribes, “C’waam and Qapdo: Mullet, Lost River Suckers, and Shortnose Suckers,” www.klamathtribes.org/information/background/cwaam.html.

20. See 53 Fed. Reg. 27, 130 (18 July 1988); Bureau of Reclamation, Technical Service Center, “Link River Dam Fishway Replacement Feasibility Study” (May 2001); Moden v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008 WL 4763025 (D. OR).

21. Kandra v. U.S., U.S. Dist. Ct OR, http://ecf.ord.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DocketSheet.pl?3824. See also National Research Council, “Hydrology, Ecology, and Fishes of the Klamath River Basin,” Committee on Hydrology, Ecology, and Fishes of the Klamath River, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Water Science and Technology Board, Division of Earth and Life Studies (Washington, D.C., 2008).

22. Interview with Bill Ransom and Barbara Hall, officers in the Bucket Brigade Association, Klamath Falls, 12 August 2006.

23. See Union of Concerned Scientists, “Salmon Experts Pressured to Change Findings,” Scientific Integrity, www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/abuses_of_science/klamath-river-salmon.html; Chris Mooney, The Republican War on Science (New York, 2005), 151–52.

24. The National Academies, National Research Council, “Scientific Evaluation of Biological Opinions on Endangered and Threatened Fishes in the Klamath River Basin: Interim Report,” Washington, D.C. (2002).

25. The Council issued a final report two years later. In the 2007 report the council backed away from the claims made in the interim report. See “Fishes, Hydrology, and Ecology of the Klamath River Basin” (December 2007).

26. Environmental groups produced a rebuttal to the NRC report. See www.onrc.org/programs/klamath/factsheet.html. See also Cooperman, Michael and Markle, Douglas, “The Endangered Species Act and the National Research Council’s Interim Judgment in the Klamath Basin,” Fisheries 28, 3 (March 2003).Google Scholar

27. In-person interview, 14 August 2006, Klamath Falls. Greg Addington stepped down in late 2015 after the settlement bill failed.

28. “No Silver Bullet,” handout produced by the Klamath Water Users Association (provided by Greg Addington).

29. In-person interview, 16 August 2006, Yreka, Calif. Ms. Armstrong served on the board until 2014.

30. Glen Spain and Zeke Grader, “Can’t Fish Salmon? Federal Klamath Water Policies Are to Blame,” Fishermen’s News (April 2005), www.pcffs.org/fn-aprl05.htm.

31. Ibid. See also Associated Press, “Federal Report Says Removing 4 Dams on Klamath River Will Boost Salmon,” Oregon Live, 4 February 2013.

32. Telephone interview, 14 September 2006.

33. John Koopman, “Salmon Fishing Closure for California, Oregon,” San Francisco Chronicle (11 April 2008); Dan Bachar, “Salmon Fishing Ban to Continue Off California, Oregon,” The North Coast (27 March 2009).

34. Dan Bacher, “Over 300,000 Salmon Returned to Klamath River in 2012,” The Daily Kos, 21 February 2013; Associated Press, “Major Fish Kill Likely in Klamath River as Salmon Parasite Thrives in Drought,” Oregon Live, 20 May 2015; Associated Press, “Biologists Fear Repeat of 2002 Salmon Kill in Klamath River, Times-Standard (6 August 2015).

35. FERC No. 2082, Klamath Hydroelectric Project, February 2004; PacifiCorp, “Final Technical Report, Klamath Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 2082), Socioeconomic Resources Version, February 2004.

36. FERC No. 2082, Klamath Hydroelectric Project, February 2004.

37. Quoted in S. Craig Tucker, “Building the Case for Dam Removal on the Klamath River,” Headwaters (Winter 2004): 4.

38. Mary Jane Williamson, “National Conservation Groups Call for Dam Removal in the Northwest,” American Sportfishing Association, Press Release, 22 August 2006, www.asafishing.org/asa/newsroom/newspr_082206.html.

39. Some of these federal subsidies are summarized in “Klamath Basin Settlement Agreements,” Congressional Research Service, 7-5700, R42158, 16 May 2014.

40. In-person interview, 14 August 2006, Klamath Falls. See also Sarah Tory, “A New Film Tells the Story of the Klamath River Agreements,” High Country News, 4 February 2015.

41. This story was told to me by a tribal member in 2006. I was not at the meeting.

42. Elwood Miller Jr., “Lost Resources of the Klamath Tribes,” Wilderness Magazine (n.d.), 41.

43. Troy Fletcher, Executive Director, Yurok Tribe, Witness Statement, “On Water Management and Endangered Species Act Issues in the Klamath Basin, House Committee on Resources, U.S. House of Representatives, 16 June 2001. Mr. Fletcher died suddenly in 2015.

44. Correspondence from John Echohawk, Executive Director of the Native American Rights Fund, to Dr. Bruce Alberts, President, National Academy of Sciences, Chairman, National Research Council, Re: Committee on Endangered and Threatened Fishes in the Klamath River Basin, 8 April 2003.

45. Jeremiah Atkinson, in-person interview, 14 August 2006, Klamath Falls. This opinion was expressed by many of the non-Indian people I interviewed.

46. Anonymous interview, Klamath Falls.

47. Termination was an Indian policy adopted by the Eisenhower administration, which aimed to eliminate trust status and treaty rights for Indian tribes. The Klamath Tribes, under heavy pressure, agreed to termination in 1954. They regained federal recognition in 1986 but did not regain their reservation lands.

48. Interview with Bill Ransom and Barbara Hall, officers in the Bucket Brigade Association, Klamath Falls, 12 August 2006.

49. Telephone interview, 11 September 2006. Mr. Foreman retired as chairman in 2007.

50. Ibid.

51. Telephone interview, 28 August 2006.

52. Lisa Kaufman, “A Rough Patch for Western Waterfowl,” New York Times, 19 April 2012.

53. American Rivers, “Fact and Fiction: The Klamath River Fish Kill,” 2002, www.amrivers.org.

54. “Proposed Klamath River Basin Restoration Agreement for the Sustainability of Public and Trust Resources and Affected Communities,” 15 January 2008 (draft). For an excellent overview, see Matt Jenkins, “Peace on the Klamath,” High Country News, 25 June 2008, 12.

55. Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement for the Sustainability of Public and Trust Resources and Affected Communities, 18 February 2010.

56. See Klamath Basin Agreements, prepared by the Klamath Basin Coordinating Council, October 2013; “Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement,” Implementation Report, FERC Project No. 2082, PacifiCorp Energy, June 2013. The original settlement agreements and supporting documentation can be found at www.KlamathRestoration.gov.

57. Before the Public Utility Commission of Oregon, Oder No. 10-364. In the Matter of PacifiCorp, dba Pacific Power, Application to Implement the Provisions of Senate Bill 76, entered 16 September 2010.

58. Scott Learn, “Oregon Gives Tribes Top Claims to Water in Much of Klamath Basin,” The Oregonian, 7 March 2013; Learn, “Klamath Tribes and Federal Government Put out Historic Call for Water Rights in Drought-Stricken Klamath Basin,” The Oregonian, 11 June 2013.

59. “Klamath Facilities Removal” Final EIS; “Klamath Dam Removal Overview Report for the Secretary of the Interior, February 2013.

60. http://www.oregon.gov/gov/GNRO/Pages/index.aspx. See also “Klamath Basin Settlement Agreements,” Congressional Research Service, 7-57—, R42158, 16 May 2014, 8.

61. Oregon Governor’s Office, “Historic Agreement Reached on Upper Klamath Basin Water,” News Release, 5 March 2014.

62. S. 133. “Klamath Basin Water Recovery and Economic Restoration Act of 2016,” 114th Cong. 1st sess., 8 January 2015.

63. Walden’s bill was never officially introduced, so it did not have a bill number. See Kevin Drum, “Tea Party Republican Decides to Wreck Klamath River Agreement Just for the Hell of It,” Mother Jones, 18 December 2015; Jacques Leslie, “How a Stunning Klamath Basin Water Agreement Has Been Doomed by Lawmakers,” Los Angeles Times, 18 December 2015.

64. The Oregonian Editorial Board, “Finding a Way Forward in Klamath Basin’s 11th Hour,” The Oregonian, 8 December 2015; Lacy Jarrell, “Tribes Urge Action from Congress, Herald and News, 9 December 2015.

65. Oregonian Editorial Board, “Walden and Others Must Make Klamath Water Deal Happen Quickly,” The Oregonian, 28 November 2015.

66. Jeff Mapes, “Klamath Basin: Water Pact Crumbles in Congress After Years of Work,” The Oregonian, 19 December 2015; Amy Joi O’Donoghue, “Dam Problems on Klamath River Could Mean Higher Power Bills for Utah, Deseret News, 19 December 2015; Bettina Boxall, “Demise of Klamath River Deal Could Rekindle Old Water-use Battles.” Los Angeles Times, 11 January 2016.

67. Press release, “Agreement in Principle,” signed 2 February 2016. See also Thadeus Greenson, “Feds Announce New Klamath Accord to Remove Dams by 2020,” North Coast Journal, 2 February 2016; Sarah Gilman, “This Will Be the Biggest Dam-Removal Project in History,” National Geographic, 11 April 2016.

68. See McCool, Daniel, Native Waters: Contemporary Indian Water Settlements and the Second Treaty Era (Tucson, 2002)Google Scholar; d’Estree, Tamra Pearson and Colby, Bonnie, Braving the Currents (Dordrecht, 2004)Google Scholar; Susskind, Lawrence and Cruickshank, Jeffrey, Breaking the Impasse: Consensual Approaches to Resolving Pubic Disputes (New York, 1987).Google Scholar

69. Letter from Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors and the Klamath County Board of Commissioners, to Senators Wyden, Merkley, Feinstein, and Boxer, 21 November 2014, http://www.co.siskiyou.ca.us/sites/default/files/docs/KBRA-20141124-SiskiyouBOS-KlamathCommissionerOppositionLetterSenatorsS2379-KlamathRiverDamRemoval.pdf.

70. Jim McCarthy, “Opinion: It’s Time to Acknowledge KBRA Isn’t a Solution,” Two Rivers Tribune, 28 July 2015.

71. Doremus and Tarlock, Water War in the Klamath Basin, 196.