On March 15th, Oregon Humanities streamed a virtual discussion about the Klamath Basin called “Consider This on the Klamath Basin“. If you’re not familiar with Oregon Humanities, it’s an organization that “has invited Oregonians to talk, listen, connect, and reflect together.” Considering we’re in the midst of a drought, salmon and sucker fish populations are failing to recover, and Klamath Basin farmers and ranchers are looking at drastically reduced water availability, this seems exactly what our communities need. Add in the fact the dams on the Klamath River are going to be breached, there’s definitely a lot to talk about.
To foster communication from various points of view, Oregon Humanities brought in stakeholders representing various interests up and down the river:
- Russell Attebery , Chairman of the Karuk Tribes
- Mark Bransom, Chief Executive Officer of the Klamath River Renewal Corporation
- Don Gentry, Chairman of the Klamath Tribes
- Becky Hyde, prominent Upper Klamath rancher and Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife commissioner
- Joe James, Chairman of the Yurok Tribe
Notice any stakeholders missing?
Maybe someone to represent Klamath Project irrigators?
The fact that “Consider This on the Klamath Basin” was billed as a “discussion on the history and future of settlement and water use in the Klamath Basin” but neglected to invite a party whose livelihood is directly affected is troubling. Ms. Hyde let the moderator, Jim Proctor, know that she only spoke on behalf of her ranch, but we appreciate that she tried to mention some of the issues KWUA and on-Project irrigators have been working on. And even if she were a representative of all things Klamath Basin ag, that would be akin to Chairman Gentry representing the Klamath, Yurok and Karuk Tribes as well as 11 other tribes and their needs and history.
More frustrating is the fact that no irrigators participated in a conversation about a situation that will directly affect them. If you look at who’s farming today, there’s a huge gap in age. There are very few between 40 – 50 years old since many of those who grew up in Klamath ag saw the fallout of the 2001 allocation (TL;DR – ag water was cut-off and many people lost farms, children moved to find jobs outside of farming and we’ve been on a destructive path of one-species management dictated by the ESA since then). And after 2020, a second year of drought is not only going to cost us another generation of young farmers and ranchers. We will lose contracts that growers have made with companies that help feed our nation. Opportunities to help our Basin will dry-up. Jobs directly and indirectly related to Klamath ag will go away. Young families trying to establish themselves will move to other communities. Tax revenues that keep our schools open and roads safe will diminish. These impacts will directly affect our rural communities, and in the long run affect our communities who thought they might have a buffer between them and the fallout of dying Klamath Basin agriculture.
Since Klamath Basin family farmers and ranchers have so much to lose, why the hell would they not be included in a conversation about the future of our Basin and settlement? If Klamath Basin irrigated agriculture is going to bear the brunt of whatever is decided, shouldn’t we have a voice at the table?
Issues related to the Klamath Basin are complicated and not easily digested in an hour-long chat where the moderator does most of the talking. However if this was going to be an honest conversation about the future of the Klamath Basin, irrigated agriculture should have been included. Chairman Gentry points at Klamath agriculture for issues in Upper Klamath Lake and calls for a reduction in irrigated acres, and there’s no one to point out what farmers and ranchers have been doing to help. Nor is there a counterpoint for over 20 years we’ve only been throwing water at the problem while salmon and sucker fish continue to decline or that in the original listing of the fish on the endangered species list Klamath Basin farming and ranching was indicated as a problem. This is just another reason why irrigated agriculture in the Klamath Basin needs to be included in all of these conversations.
But, Klamath Basin family farmers and ranchers still carry the blame and have the water turned off as the laziest easiest solution. Without including a representative for Klamath Project irrigators on the stakeholders panel and the only topic is removing dams to help salmon runs, it ignores the importance of Klamath ag to the region and glosses over the complications of the ENTIRE Klamath Basin.
As commented on YouTube, we appreciate that Oregon Humanities is putting a spotlight on the crises down here. But to put the focus solely on dam removal and considering it a discussion about “settlement and water use in the Klamath Basin” doesn’t feel honest. Hopefully in the future when discussions are had about the future of the Klamath Basin, water use and settlement, off and on-Project Klamath agriculture will have a voice. To quote what many in academia say on Twitter, “they need to do better”.