Klamath water report irks Westerners
Mike Yared
THE WASHINGTON TIMES http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/
A report that racism against Indians and a lack of leadership are
preventing a resolution to a Western water war has outraged many
California and Oregon residents.
The report was authored by Oregon State University and the
University of California after the federal government cut off
irrigation water to hundreds of farmers in the Klamath valley to
protect the endangered sucker fish and coho salmon.
The report said there is a lack of "visionary leadership" to
craft a solution.
Angry farmers reacted to the water shutoff last summer by forcing
open the canal system on several occasions and federal marshals were
called in to guard the head gates. Crops and livestock were lost and
many farms went bankrupt.
The Klamath tribes view the fish as sacred gifts, and have banded
with environmental groups to keep the spigots to area farms dry.
The draft report under review said there is an atmosphere of
"farmers vs. Indians" and that a strain of racism is running "quietly
beneath the surface."
Tribal members have reported being shunned or "treated badly" and
say fund raising for Indian events has dropped dramatically.
Critics of the report, however, say racism is not a factor.
"In the West, it doesn't matter what color your skin is if you
are fighting over water," said one Westerner.
Dan Keppen, executive director of the Klamath Water Users
Association, said the racism charges have "generated a lot of
controversy and local folks don't share that view."
Mr. Keppen said the racism hype is seeded in one event that
occurred Dec. 1, when three men drove through Chiloquin, Ore., home of
the Klamath tribes offices, firing shotguns at street signs and
yelling "sucker lovers."
Mr. Keppen cited the timing of that incident just before the
report was released Dec. 19 as a factor in playing the race card.
"A lot of farmers are upset that is how this is being
characterized, but it's not race — it's a simple matter of
having no water and seeing the family farms slip away from them," Mr.
Keppen said.
The water shutoff cost more than 2,000 jobs, about 3.5 percent of
the area's total employment.
The Oregonian reported that farms lost about $71 million in
revenue without the water, and the loss to the regional economy
totaled about $134 million, about 3.2 percent of the total.
Opponents to farming say the land should be purchased by the
state or federal government and retired from agriculture. Farmers say
the solution has to be more flexible and revisions in the Endangered
Species Act considered.
"It seems there should be a way of taking care of the fish
without taking farm land out of production. At some point, if you take
enough land out of production, the water project is not feasible," Mr.
Keppen said.
The water project was established by Congress to reclaim desert
land by constructing federal irrigation projects and reservoirs so the
land could be converted to agricultural use and made available to
homesteaders. The government gave preferential treatment to veterans,
and the area was settled primarily by World War I and World War II
veterans.
Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton allowed a limited water release
earlier this summer, but the farmers quickly exhausted the short
supply in replenishing scorched fields and pastures.
Environmentalists filed a lawsuit to block the limited supply
from going to farmers at all, and said the water should instead travel
downstream to a wildlife refuge containing endangered birds.
Historically, farmers have not taken all of the water and have
allowed a sizable amount to pass on to the refuge. Despite one of the
worst droughts on record, the farmers continued to share their limited
release with the reserve.