Online FavoritesSpecial IssuesPhoto Galleries |
The Water Issue: Feuds River Impossible Everybody loves the Klamath. Everybody wants a piece of it. And they're willing to go to war to get it. Editor's Note/Correction By Patrick Symmes
YOU'LL BE GLAD TO HEAR that all the problems of the Klamath River are easily comprehensible, that everyone involved knows the solution, and that the end of this crisis is preordained. Don't worry. On a geological time scale, this will only take a minute. Dropping out of the southern-Oregon cloud veldt at 10,000 feet, you can see the whole rippling mass of the Cascades spread out below: the hulking menace of California's Mount Shasta to the south, the tectonic chaos of the Siskiyou Range and the Trinity Alps to the west. Nestled among the volcanic foothills is a string of small, table-flat swaths of prairie overlaid with precise squares of farmland, ruled by fences and combed by tractors. Hills are shorn into mathematical equations with road graders, lanes of blacktop meet at merciless right angles, and center-pivot irrigation systems carve unnaturally green, pi-perfect circles of grain from the arid sage. Starting in the late 1800s, the land of the Upper Klamath Basinsoft, high valleys sprawling on both sides of the Oregon-California state linewas gridded into 80-acre lots.
There isn't enough water. This is the simple problem at the heart of a complex struggle. The upper part of the Klamaththe top third of the river, flowing 4,000 feet above sea levelgets only 12 to 18 inches of precipitation a year, and that water has been promised too many times for too many uses. It's needed to sustain the 210,000 acres of crops and pasture kept going by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamationthe federal government's main dam and canal builderas part of its massive Klamath Project irrigation system. It also must support the 100,000 salmon that swim up the river and its tributaries every fall; the Hoopa, Yurok, and Karuk Indian tribes who depend on the salmon; two endangered Upper Klamath Lake sucker species; and a fourth, upriver tribal group, the Klamath, who once lived off the sucker and want their sacred fish restored. Finally, it has to replenish the wetlands that host one of the world's great waterfowl migrationsmillions of geese and grebes and pelicans, 80 percent of the birds on the Pacific Flyway. The Klamath dispute encompasses all the mind-numbing elements that define western water fights in the modern era: economic pressures, endangered species, tribal obligations, and competing political constituencies that make compromise seem impossible. "This is your prototypical water war," says Glen Spain, a 53-year-old Eugene, Oregon-based environmentalist who has fought the Bureau of Reclamation for years over Klamath fish issues. "It's a disaster in the making." Actually, disaster has already happenedtwice. In 2001, with Clinton administration policies
In the long, dry spring and summer of 2002, the politics were reversed with almost perfect symbolism. In that second year of the Bush presidency, Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton assured farmers that they would always have their water, and personally opened the headgates, restarting the traditional diversion of some 450,000 acre-feet per year into the canals. (That's roughly 146 billion gallons.) Just like in 96 of the previous 97 years, the farmers got first dibs. Six months later and 220 miles downriver, where the Klamath meets the Pacific, 35,000 salmon went belly-up in the low water, one of the largest salmon kills ever recorded in the United States. Their carcasses rotted on the riverbanks for weeks, and when the Yurok and Hoopa tribes convinced FedEx to deliver 500 pounds of stinking fish to the Interior Department in October, the Klamath got Washington's full attention. The Bureau of Reclamation suddenly discovered that it had spare water to flush out the river, and an estimated 65,000 salmon surged upstream. Bush then convened the Klamath Basin Federal Working Group, giving Gale Norton 18 months to resolve one of the oldest water disputes in the country. But is a resolution even possible? That's hard to say. Ask around on the Klamath and you'll find that farmers, Indians, environmentalists, fishermen, and paddlers all agree on two things. The first is that the solution is within easy reach and simply involves a careful, rational, and objective application of the facts. The second, unfortunately, is this: The only relevant facts are ones that support each side's competing view of reality.
Contributing editor Patrick Symmes wrote about the Amazon mahogany trade in October 2002. Subscribe to Outside and get a FREE Gift! Give the gift of Outside Magazine! Subscribe to Outside Online's free weekly e-mail newsletter featuring gear reviews, fitness advice, galleries, podcasts, and more. |
TODAY'S NEWS UPDATE!
Obama Names Richardson Commerce ... President-elect Barack Obama named New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson as his choice for secretary... ![]()
Is Organic Worth It?
Dr. Alan Greene decided to run an experiment on himself. Eat organic, completely organic, for three years. He ... ![]() advertisement
advertisement
Vacation PackagesMore Travel Deals |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||