Tulelake Irrigation District had
public meeting on groundwater management plan
with corrections in red
8/29/11 at Tulelake firehall 9 a.m.
Notes by a KBC News
editor Jacqui Krizo
Today was the first TID groundwater management plan
meeting where the TID board presented to the public its
intension to create a groundwater management plan for
the entire district. Notice was in the legal pages of
the Herald and News.
Attending were board members John Crawford president,
Gary Wright and Jim Havlina. TID bookkeeper Grace
Phillips, manager Earl Donosky, and assistant managers
Jerry Pyle and Brad Kirby also attended. Others were
Modoc supervisor Geri Byrne, Modoc County employee Sean
Curtis, and Modoc Environmental Health Dept. Warren
Farnum, rancher and farmer Joe Hemphill, and farmer
Siskiyou County Supervisor Jim Cook recently met with
TID board several times and told TID that if they do not
create a groundwater management plan, then Siskiyou
County or the state of California will make a plan for
them. Cook encouraged TID to create this plan.
The board said this management plan was not because
of the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement / KBRA. Krizo
said that the KBRA, which the board voted to support,
mandates we have a groundwater management plan; it is
part of the KBRA On Project Plan. She brought up that
the (accidently omitted 'KWAPA')
board has already hired MBK engineering and Dan Keppen
for their groundwater plan, and the KBRA states
that the wells can have no adverse impact. An argument
followed with Crawford and Wright both yelling at Krizo.
Keppen was employed by the Bureau of Reclamation
before coming to Klamath Falls in 2001
(not 2002) to work as
executive director of Klamath Water Users Association.
He presently is director of Family Farm Alliance, and
engineer and media chairman for KWAPA, Klamath Water and
Power Agency, a group included in the KBRA.
Farnum felt that Siskiyou was using the "fear factor"
threatening that the county would make a plan for us. He
advised that DWR/Dept. of Water Resources would dump
Water Quality onto the entities (TID) creating the
management plan. He said, "It will be a cold day in hell
before they meter my well."
Joe Hemphill expressed concern about all the mandates
that could go with a management plan, and board member
Wright, who is also president of KWUA / Klamath Water
Users Association, began yelling at him and pointing his
Farnum said that some entities could later sue by
looking at the water data and management plan and
accusing TID of overdrafting.
Farnum advised that TID look at the caveats in the
plan, what they want, and what are the mandates, and
suggested there would be pumping fees. Kirby said there
would not be fees.
Curtis said TID would have to pay for our monitoring
chessboard, plus water quality mandates. He said with
this plan, according to water code, TID can regulate ag
Hemphill said if the state is broke and California is
not responsible, if we go down this road we'd have to
Wright again yelled at Hemphill for his input, and at
times he and Crawford shouted at Farnum.
Farnum said if TID becomes the groundwater management
entity, they'd be at the will of what DWR wants them to
do. They would hold water grants and loans over our
Kirby said TID is just doing this to manage the
TID is mandated to have another public meeting to
share their management plan. Then each TID water users
may vote on whether or not to support their plan. They
need 50% vote to pass it.
TID would not allow the water users to vote on the
KBRA because they didn't have to. When Tulelake voted in
last fall's election, 77% opposed the KBRA Klamath
Hydroelectric dam removal "agreement," yet TID continues
to support it and pay for it.
KBC Corrections in response to criticisms
of my 8/29 notes from TID and Dan
Keppen, and also some notes from
9/20 public meeting
by Jacqui Krizo, KBC
On September 13 was the monthly TID
public meeting. First, manager Earl
Danosky said he was disappointed in
my article and he didn't recall the
2 board members yelling at 3 of us
at the groundwater management plan
9/29 public meeting.
Members Crawford and Wright said
they didn't yell but may have raised
their voices, and Wright said I'd
know it if he yelled.
I forgot to mention in the Aug. 29
write up that, toward the end of the
8/29 meeting, Wright and Crawford
apologized to the Modoc officials
and the public for blowing up at
Staunton was present Sept.13, however was
not at the Aug. 29 meeting. He said
the article was "weak" and "bad
reporting," and he questioned where
the vote came from that said Tulelake opposed the KBRA 77%. I
explained that last fall there was
an election and in that election
77% of Tulelake alone opposed
the dam removal.
They said the KBRA was not dam
removal; John Crawford said,
"I don't support dam removal."
I assured them that I know that dam
removal is a mandatory part of the
KBRA. They said it was not. I said
if they show me a
copy of the KBRA
I'll show them where it says that.
They didn't produce a copy:
KBRA document Part
II 8.1. Support for Hydroelectric
The Parties shall support
the Hydroelectric Settlement. The
Parties acknowledge that the
Hydroelectric Settlement is based on
facts and circumstances unique to
the Klamath Basin..."
said my article made it sound like
TID voted to support the KBRA while
their constituents opposed it, and
he said his constituents who farm
Wright said to me, "you lie," "you are an
obstructionist" and "It is a waste
of time talking to you; you are like
talking to a brick wall."
My apologies to
Sid Staunton; I did not mean to
infer that he did not ask some of
his farming constituents their
My comment was based on my
written request in 2010 that TID
hold a vote of all it's constituents
whether to support the KBRA, and
that request was denied. No one asked me, my
family or my friends if they
supported it, however, Staunton
represents a different area of TID
than I live in.
September 13 meeting
they did not discuss or mention the
concerns brought to the public
meeting by 2 farmers and the 2
county officials who attended. The
concerns were not mentioned in
minutes of that special Aug. 29
meeting. The board voted to make a
resolution supporting a groundwater
management plan. Kirby said they
would advertise the next groundwater
management plan meeting like the
last, a notice in the legal pages of
the Herald and News. They said
Siskiyou Supervisor Cook told them
them must make a groundwater
management plan or the county or
state would make it for them.
discussed upcoming meetings on a
federal power rate, but said irrigators
must support the KBRA to receive it.
Crawford said it could be 3-5 cent
power. Audio and quotes of the power
meeting are at the bottom of this
session they approved Stipulation
for Judgement Case No SC CV DV
10-0463, but would not tell me what
is was about besides the validation,
and said I could go find it
Also at the
meeting they brought up that USFWS
owes TID $227,000.
This is an email sent to Barb Hall, Klamath Bucket
Brigade, by Dan Keppen, Family Farm Alliance Executive
Director, and past director of Klamath Water Users
Association. She extensively distributed the KBC article
and Keppen's response to KBB email
list. It was in regards to my above 8/29/11 notes of the
groundwater meeting; Keppen did not send his criticism
directly to KBC.
– this is not entirely accurate.
First, I am not the
“engineer” and “media chairman” for KWAPA.
Second, the TID
board has not hired me to a groundwater management plan.
I am part of a consulting team that is preparing a plan
of action for efficient and effective use of groundwater
resources of the Klamath Project, but so far, my role
has been very limited. MBK Engineers, Houston
Engineering, and CH2M Hill are doing more of the heavy
lifting on that. KWAPA is the client, not TID.
The KWAPA document is a very different type of plan than
what is being considered by TID, which I believe is
preparing an AB3030 groundwater management plan,
according to California law. Interestingly, I actually
prepared a similar plan for Tehama County, California
about 15 years ago, working in coordination with county
supervisors and local irrigation districts.
Third, I came to
KWUA in 2001, not 2002.
Finally, I worked
for the Bureau of Reclamation for one year under an
inter-organizational arrangement between Reclamation and
the Northern California Water Association (NCWA). Prior
to that, I worked for NCWA for 3 years and as a water
resources engineer in Oregon and California for 8 years.
I just note that because I have been approached by some
people who hold the belief that I was some kind of
Reclamation career guy before I came to Klamath. That’s
not the case.
Hope you’re having
a great Labor Day weekend.
My, Jacqui's, response to
Dan Keppens criticism of my notes:
1. Looking back at my notes from the
KWAPA On Project Plan advisory board
meeting, perhaps Dan was titled
"Outreach Director" and not "media
chairman." I didn't realize there
was a difference. He gave a report
on how he was going to reach the
communities via many media sources
supporting the On Project Plan, OPP.
2: the following is the link to
Keppen working with MBK engineers,
and even before the TID public
groundwater meeting, it was said at
the regular TID meeting that MBK was
hired by KWAPA to do the Klamath
plan, and TID is part of the Klamath
project. The OPP mandates a groundwater
plan for California's TID, through
My apologies for accidently omitting
the word KWAPA (in red) in my
original 8/29 notes.
3. I mistook the
date Keppen began working for KWUA.
4. By saying, "Keppen
was employed by the Bureau of
Reclamation before coming to Klamath
Falls...", I was in no way
inferring he was a career employee.
I actually didn't know his entire
resume, but I didn't feel a bio was
necessary or appropriate in my TID meeting notes.