[env-trinity] LA Times- Fields of conflict in the Klamath

[Tom Stokely]

Fields of conflict in the Klamath
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-klamath7may07,1,400173.story?coll=la-headlines-california

Activists say farmers are poised to solidify their presence in the basin's federal wildlife refuges.
By Eric Bailey, Times Staff Writer
May 7, 2007 


 
 Photo Gallery
Farmland - and a wildlife haven
TULE LAKE, CALIF. — Under the rolling cloud-scape of the Klamath Basin, a curious rite of spring is underway.

Migratory birds are flocking to the basin's necklace of federal wildlife refuges straddling Oregon and California — one of the most important stops on the Pacific Flyway. As usual, the geese, mallards and terns are sharing the sanctuaries with tractors.

Agriculture fields have elbowed onto what once were marshes and shallow inland seas, shrinking the basin's wetlands by nearly 80%. Environmentalists have long fought to stop that farming, saying the refuges belong to the birds.

But now, activists say, farmers in the Klamath Basin appear poised to cement their presence on the refuges, the basin's most productive farmland.

Farmers are gaining an edge in closed-door settlement talks over the fate of four dams on the Klamath River, which meanders across two states before pouring into the Pacific Ocean north of Eureka, Calif.

Environmentalists universally support dam removal, which would let endangered salmon reach upriver spawning grounds blocked for nearly a century. 

Activists with a pair of Oregon-based groups, however, fear that a looming compromise backed by the Bush administration will come at an unacceptable cost: an agreement to forever allow farming in the refuges.

The 23-page settlement proposes up to $250 million to ease soaring electricity costs for irrigation pumps and possibly finance a renewable energy plant.

Farmers and other big landowners could also be shielded from endangered-species restrictions invoked to revive imperiled fish species: the salmon, two types of suckerfish in Upper Klamath Lake and the bull trout, which is found in upstream tributaries.

"The Bush administration has hijacked these talks about dam removal to advance unrelated policy goals bad for the environment and bad in the long term for the Klamath Basin," said Steve Pedery of Oregon Wild, a Portland nonprofit.

At this point, that resolute stand is a lonely one.

Other participants in the talks, including several national environmental groups, say it's too early to go to the mat over a deal that's anything but done. 

"If folks are talking about one thing or another being sold out, we think that's very premature," said Amy Kober of American Rivers. "There's still plenty to be worked out."

The administration's top negotiator declined to discuss details but rejected any notion of pressure from Washington.

"I've had a free rein to do whatever I felt was right," said Steve Thompson, California-Nevada manager for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. "I haven't felt any pressures, other than that Klamath is controversial from all sides."

Forging a consensus on the Klamath has proved extraordinarily complicated. Compromises, experts say, will be inevitable for the proposal to get federal and state support.

"It's a huge stretch to imagine that commercial agriculture is benefiting wildlife populations in the long run," said Nancy Langston, a University of Wisconsin environmental studies professor who has studied the Klamath crisis. "But getting buy-in from as many people in the basin as possible is critical in the long run."

After more than two years of discussions, 26 of the 28 groups — U.S. water and wildlife agencies, the states of California and Oregon, fishermen, four tribes and an array of environmental groups — have agreed to push forward to settle details in the agreement.

Meanwhile, Oregon Wild and WaterWatch of Oregon, the two groups vocally objecting to what they describe as concessions to farmers, have "essentially been voted off the island," said John DeVoe, WaterWatch's executive director. 

In addition to pushing for reduced water demand in the basin and higher river flows, the two groups ran aground in their quest to protect the refuges — and lighten the footprint of agriculture.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20070507/2f2f084b/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 29599673.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3060 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20070507/2f2f084b/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: photoicon.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 374 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20070507/2f2f084b/attachment.gif>