December 18, 2001

The Honorable Ron Wyden
United States Senate
516 Hart Senate Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Wyden:

Thank you for your stated support for a long-term solution to the crisis in the Klamath Basin, where hundreds of working farm and ranch families are still suffering from the devastating losses this year. We are greatly encouraged by the initiative shown in the Senate yesterday when both you and Senator Smith introduced Congressman Walden’s Klamath Canal Operations and Maintenance Bill and you introduced Congressman Walden’s Chiloquin Dam fish passage improvement feasibility study bill. This former measure provides fair and proper partial compensation to farmers for the financial damages they incurred in 2001, while the latter proposal sets the foundation for improved habitat conditions for endangered sucker fish. However, our primary priority is to ensure that these families receive a reliable water supply next year and in the years ahead.

We have concluded that your amendment to the Farm Bill, unfortunately, will not alleviate the problems that led to the crisis this year - and in fact may worsen our situation. For this reason, our organization opposes your amendment. Our opposition is based on the premise that the amendment was not revised to fully reflect concerns raised in our December 4^{th correspondence, an alternative amendment developed by our association on December 7th and forwarded to your office, and ongoing discussions with your staff. We appreciate the willingness of your staff to meet with us in Klamath Falls on December 11th where we directly expressed our needs regarding the proposed amendment. While some of the concerns raised at this meeting are addressed in your current proposal, our most pressing needs are not.}

Our greatest concern is that, despite an authorization of $175 million, the amendment does not provide any water supply certainty for the farm and ranch families who have relied upon the Klamath Project for nearly a century. Further, it does not create a clear path to avoid the catastrophe that we endured in 2001. Proposed Klamath Basin legislation must contain strong provisions to sustain and strengthen a healthy agricultural economy in the Klamath Basin. The primary means of accomplishing this objective - as proposed in our December 7th language - is to directly link any spending proposed under the proposed Klamath Basin program to full water deliveries to irrigated lands in the Klamath Project, with the following considerations:

· Restoration and water quality improvements developed via this amendment will also contribute to direct recovery of threatened and endangered fish species ;

· This would not preclude the States of Oregon and California from determining or regulating water rights pursuant to state law; and

· The Klamath Project contribution to meet demand reduction would not exceed 30,000 acres, provided the landowners agree to limit or forego the use of water.

· Program implementation and decision-making must be developed in a partnership setting that includes, at a minimum, representatives from federal, state and local government, local environmental and business interests, Project districts, and the agricultural community.

We cannot support any legislation unless it alleviates the uncertainty that has been thrust upon the Project and incorporates strong provisions to sustain and strengthen a healthy economy in the Klamath Basin.

One alternative to our original proposal is to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture, in conjunction with the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce, to provide $175 million over a five-year period to meet the objectives of the Administration’s long-term plan for the Klamath Project - scheduled to be released soon. Such an amendment would advance implementation of specific restoration projects identified as promoting both listed species and continued operation of the Klamath Project. It would also enable the Administration to incorporate elements of Congressman Walden’s water supply augmentation legislation introduced by you and Senator Smith and developed in cooperation with Congressman Walden last year (P.L. 106-498). By deleting the proposed task force and other sections of the initial amendment, this new amendment would focus on the 2002 operations plan, and beyond, which will by necessity include specific environmental restoration projects - proposed by the three agencies and approved annually by Congress.

Tens of millions of dollars have already been spent for restoration projects in this basin that have in the end failed to provide clear and acknowledged benefits to fish and wildlife species, and to our community. Federal agencies or non-profit conservation groups have acquired over 25,000 acres of farmland in the Upper Klamath Basin for habitat purposes. But what are the benefits from these acquisitions? Can the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service demonstrate improved water quality in Upper Klamath Lake? Have endangered sucker populations increased? This year, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) provided compensation to the owners of 16,000 acres of land to reduce irrigation. There were no benefits to other farmers and ranchers in the Project due to either the previous farmland conversions or to Reclamation’s 2001 program.

The proposed amendment opens the door for additional such spending in the Upper Klamath Basin, and exposes other farmers in downstream areas - such as the Shasta and Scott River valleys (see Sub-section 262 (e)(A)) - to more of the same, with little or no opportunity to engage in the process. Our organization supports restoration of habitat for fish and wildlife. In fact, the Klamath Water Users Association in 1992 proposed the first comprehensive ecosystem restoration plan for the Klamath Basin. We have learned to only support projects that provide real, measurable benefits in the basin.

We have no doubt that $175 million will make a difference in the Klamath Basin. However, we believe the best stewards of the local environment are the farmers and ranchers who manage their lands to provide food for waterfowl and shorebirds (and in turn, bald eagles) and water for wildlife refuges. These environmental benefits will be lost if the local agricultural economy is crippled because local farmers and ranchers are unable to secure reliable water supplies.

We respectfully urge you to revise your proposed amendment so that it will truly benefit the families who have lost so much this year. Please call me personally if we can offer additional thoughts or suggestions on the development of this amendment or on other actions related to the Klamath Project.

Sincerely,
Dan Keppen

Executive Director