Kirstie Hagmann
Professor Holper
English 1A
28 Sept. 2012
Water: The New Gold Rush Humboldt County, CA, is one of the last great frontiers on the West Coast. Framed by ancient redwoods, Humboldt boasts a wealth of rivers, forests, beaches and mountains. On the surface, it sounds like nature’s paradise. Dig a little deeper though, and you can still see the same elements of cruelty and greed that have characterized this area since the first settlers arrived, hoping to find gold, harvest lumber, or trap fish and game. In the present day, ruthless opportunists still lurk in the shadows of this rich and fertile land. Some are locals, seeking to line their pockets. Some are politicians, looking for support and voting advantages. All of the ruthless and lawless behavior that characterized the Gold Rush has now been dressed up in legal jargon, and underhanded maneuvers behind closed doors. Only this time, the greed for gold has become the greed for water, a natural resource of ever increasing value. The players may have changed, but the greed is just as ruthless as a gunfight in the Wild West. Take, for example, the Klamath River, one of six rivers in Humboldt County. The Environmental Protection Agency reports that “The Klamath River basin which covers 10.5 million acres in Southern Oregon and Northern California is home to six federally recognized tribes and several National Wildlife Refuges, Parks and Forests. The Klamath River has been the third largest producer of salmon on the West Coast, following closely behind the Sacramento and Columbia Rivers. Major tributaries to the Klamath include the Shasta, Scott, Salmon and Trinity Rivers.” (US Environmental Protection Agency 1)
In 2001, controversy erupted when drought conditions forced farming irrigation to shut down to preserve the salmon. The farmers lost their crops. The next year, “the government erred in the other direction, giving farmers too much water at the expense of the fish, resulting in a devastating fish kill.” (Minard 3) Was it really a case of overcompensation in order to appease the farmers who were angry about the year before? Apparently, it was worth killing 68,000 salmon in one season in order to appease the Upper Klamath farmers. These farmers draw from the 2 irrigation dams on the Upper Klamath. Why did the Bush administration, namely Dick Cheney, have such an interest in the Klamath River? Siskiyouland claims that the administration did not care about the fish or the farmers. “They cared about the 2002 re-election campaign of their Republican ally Senator Gordon Smith. Farmers were a key component of Smith’s constituency. In 2002, the farmers got their water and Smith was re-elected by a narrow margin.” (106) By 2011, two agreements have been presented for congressional and Federal approval: the Klamath Basin Restoration agreement, and the Klamath Hydro agreement. The restoration agreement calls for removal of the lower four dams that generate hydro-electric power and the hydro agreement, which regulates water rights to the river. “Under this settlement, farmers are guaranteed water but the fish are not. There is no flow guarantee for fish in the KBR agreement.” (Siskiyouland 108) Siskiyouland further claims that Paul Simmons, a Sacramento attorney for the Klamath Water Users Association, made sure that “his clients would get their water before anyone in the room got anything.” (108). Simmons also works for the law firm Somach, Simmons and Dunn whose clients include dozens of municipalities and water districts that rely on water from the North. What gives this man authority to lead the negotiations that affect the future of this majestic river ecosystem? Although most parties agree that the hydroelectric dams should be removed, there seems to be no negotiating fair water flow limits for the endangered species of salmon that still swim the Klamath. Furthermore, the Klamath River flow studies, that were conducted to determine how much water the salmon need to survive, have focused solely on the Klamath mainstream and have ignored the Shasta and Scott tributaries.”The decision to limit flow studies to the mainstream was political. It was made by federal and state agencies in collaboration with the local tribes, but the public was not informed of the decision.” (Felice Pace 100) These flow studies were used to construct the KBR agreement. As far as public perception goes, removing the dams and the toxic algae blooms that result from those facilities would be a minor victory. But would this victory come at an even higher price, a price paid in valuable water? As Felice Pace aptly states: “Western journalists appear unable to express skepticism in the face of any agreement which claims to have resolved conflict between water users and the environment.” (101) The participating players in the KBR agreement all agreed to a guaranteed water delivery to farmers of up to 385,000 acre feet, without the benefit of public review or input. Furthermore, the “out of basin” transfer provision only states that it will make all reasonable efforts to oppose addition transfers from the Klamath River basin.” (Siskiyouland 110) None of these parties appear to object of receiving a large amount of water with loose strictures regarding transferring the water elsewhere for profit. As Siskiyouland points out: “If a Central Valley farmer can earn 77 million for 14,000 acre feet of water, their $1 million in legal fees might seem like a worthy gambit to farmers who stand to control the rights to hundreds of thousands of acre feet of water.” (111) Upper Klamath farmers have hit the Gold Rush, but instead, it’s the water rush. Will the water even be used for local farming? It does not appear that anyone will be stopping all out of basin transfers anytime soon. If this agreement is approved, it will not solve the water flow problems that caused this crisis to begin with. The fish need proper water flow to access to the watersheds in order for their habitat to be secure. None of these factors have been addressed by the KBR agreement. The owner of the four hydroelectric dams, Pacific Corp is willing to close the dams because otherwise, they will be legally required to pay $240 million to build fish ladders over the dam. Therefore, closing the dams at the expense of local taxpayers and the Federal government would be ideal. (Donald McCovey 103). I believe that removing the hydroelectric dams is a distraction from the main thing that the fish need in order to survive: water. Water is being converted into cash in mass proportions. Lloyd Carter, a reporter with the California Water Impact Network, stated “Because of a law that was passed in 1992, agri-businessmen are free to take their federal irrigation water and resell it on the open market. Water has become the new cash crop.” (Siskiyou land 108) Everyone knows that the fish population may never recover if the river flows as low as it did in 2002. Instead of taking conservation methods while irrigating and watering, farmers are reselling water while the fish and their habitats remain unprotected. With the snowcaps in the Sierra melting, seasonal droughts and the demand for water in Sacramento and Southern California, water is at its highest market value ever. As Bruce Cockburn, an activist in Montreal commented: “There is hardly any pure water left in the world and nobody is doing much to remedy that. If we are not careful there will be wars fought over water. Fighting for oil is nothing compared to what will happen when the world starts fighting over water.” (Siskiyou land 111) It is a regrettable situation that, once again, greed appears to be the primary motive in the KBR agreement. This plan could leave us not just without fish, but potentially without a river either. A solution must be supported by all parties involved to protect this great waterway. Anything less is not enough.

Works Sited Felice Pace. “A new chapter in Klamath River Water Wars” Ed. David Holper. Eureka: College of the Redwoods 2012. 99-101

McCovey, Donald. “Time for a different direction on Klamath Dam Removal” Ed. David Holper. Eureka:

College of the Redwoods, 2012. 102-103

Minard, Anne. “Will Dam Removal in the West Restore Salmon?” National Geographic 25 July 2011: 1-5. Print.

Shevory, Kristina. “Agreement Reached on Klamath River” Ed. David Holper. Eureka: College of the

Redwoods, 2012. 97-98

Siskiyouland. “The Value of Water and the Great Klamath Giveaway” Ed. David Holper. College of the

Redwoods, 2012. 104-112

“Watershed Priorities: Klamath River Basin, California and Oregon” US Environmental Protection

Agency, Pacific Southwest Region 9. Web. 17 September 2012: 1-2

c