LETTERS

Another Klamath View

EDITOR:

Ms. Izakson’s article “What’s at Stake in the Klamath Basin,” Coast & Ocean, Autumn 2004, offers empathetic treatment of several sensitive Klamath River issues. However, the economic study she cited is dangerously flawed. Also, her references to “power subsidies” enjoyed by Upper Basin farmers and ranchers requires further explanation.

The U.S. Geological Survey report containing alleged “amazing calculations” is a highly theoretical exercise, based in part on “cold calls” and mailings sent to random respondents in four western states. Participants were polled on visits to the Klamath River, then were asked if they would increase visits based on improvements to the river such as enhanced water quality and angling harvests. Not surprisingly, respondents answered positively, and the report suggests that recreational visits would increase under these circumstances. The study then balanced the theoretical economic gains associated with increased visits versus the costs for actions that were assumed to improve water quality and fishery conditions.

Although the study states “we have no quantitative information about the impact of the individual restoration activities on habitat or water quality,” the “restoration” activities included: acquiring all farmland within the Klamath Project at an assumed price; acquiring forest land along the Klamath River and tributaries; increasing Trinity River flows by 500,000 acre-feet per year; removal of some Klamath River hydroelectric dams.

The report concludes that the benefits achieved by increased recreational use would far outweigh the costs of buying farms and forests, removing water supplies from California’s Central Valley, and removing dams. It provides no explanation for how these “restoration” measures will improve fishing and habitat conditions. It also fails to address the impacts of these measures. Even ignoring the callous attitude that would close down entire towns, what would be the cost of acquiring residences, businesses, schoolhouses, and communities throughout the Klamath Project? What would happen to recreation benefits—as well as benefits associated with private farmland—when the farmers disappear? What happens to the national wildlife refuges? How will they receive water when irrigation districts that serve them are wiped off the map?

Izakson and other advocates also appear to have overlooked the study’s proposal to impose a long-term moratorium on fish harvesting in the Klamath-Trinity system. This would include an end to all harvesting by commercial fishermen, marine harvesting by tribal fishermen, and “sharp declines” in freshwater harvesting by tribal and recreational fishermen. The report, and Izakson’s article, fail to identify the number of jobs that would be lost, or the ripple effect on downstream communities, where merchants who rent boats and sell gasoline and groceries to sport fishermen would be impacted.

The Klamath Project was developed with an understanding that affordable power and water would support the local, rural community. Scottish Power is only generating power in the Klamath River because the federal government and Klamath Basin water users gave up their ability to develop their own facilities in exchange for affordable power.

We object to the terms “preferential rate” and “subsidized rate.” The current contract is the product of negotiation among sophisticated parties that resulted in an acceptable agreement for all concerned.

Dan Keppen, Executive Director
Klamath Water Users Association
Klamath Falls, Oregon

ORNA IZAKSON REPLIES:

There is no question that Aaron Douglas’ Klamath Basin study is controversial. The basic tests of academic credibility are peer review and journal publication. The Klamath study has been peer reviewed by top researchers, according to USGS, and is now being considered for publication.

Douglas’ methodology already has undergone both peer review and publication as applied to the Trinity River system alone. Its findings appeared in International Journal of Environmental Studies, Environmental Modelling and Software, Water Resources Development, International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, and Society & Natural Resources.

Keppen also takes issue with the use of the word “subsidy” since Klamath Project farmers “negotiated” their rate with PacifiCorp. Jim McCarthy, author of the ONRC study, “Ratepayer Ripoff,” points out that even if the rate is negotiated, ratepayers from Northern California up through Washington are paying more so that Klamath Project farmers can pay less.