Oregronian Editorial on the Klamath Basin

Brion,
Not trying to be confrontational here but seeing as how you can post a Global Warming Editorial from the Oregronian as proof of Global Warming I can post this.

It's greatly over simplified and overlooks some things but it's interesting.
The Problems of the Greater Klamath Basin

A national panel of scientists argues persuasively that it's wrong to keep fighting over warm, polluted water in Klamath Lake, which probably would not restore coho salmon or native suckers in any case . The real solution, they say, is a basin-wide effort that includes removing three dams, restoring large areas of wetlands and returning more clean, cool water to lakes and streams.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">

They also propose reflooding lakes and wetlands throughout the Klamath Basin in Oregon and Northern California

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">

[STGRule]

Wouldn't it be cool if they really could do that? It will be hard but it has to be tried. Along with the other suggestions.

[BrionLutz]

Keta,

All good recommendations which I pointed out the first time you cited the study.

I would be for them implmenting all those reforms to restore the salmon.

The NGS economic study said it would create a huge economic boom for the area.

Brion

Lutz,
Don't you ever quit This was not what you were saying. Go back and look for yourself. Lutz and the Dog have some explaining to do



STG,
This is something that most in the Basin should be able to support.

The Lower Lake with water in it
The delta marshes at the mouth of the Wood and Williamson restored
Salmon and steelhead back in the upper basin
Fish access to the Sprague River restored
Trinity and Scott and Shasta river water back into the lower Klamath River

[ 10-31-2003, 10:37 PM: Message edited by: Keta ]

[freespool]

Keta,when they say restore farm land back to wet lands,are they talking about your land? If so will they pay you what it's worth? I know when I read it I was thinking of you.


Free

Freespool,
A tiny corner of the Midland property is marsh now and could probably be expanded. Everything else was above the pre project marsh/lake level.

I think most of this will be in Lower Klamath Lake area and the upper ends of both Klamath and Agency Lake.

The family of my wife's boss owns a LARGE farm in the Lower Lake.

[freespool]

Keta,I know that nobody wants to get kicked off their land,but fair compasation would be in order. What about a land trade? The feds have done this with timber companys,why not farmers?

Not much to trade for in the Upper Klamath Basin. They could start by flooding the wildlife refuges that were Lower Klamath Lake and Tule Lake. Big sections of the Lower Lake, on the Oregon side, are currently being leased to farmers. Some is used to grow hay and grain that birds can eat. Most is used for crops that do not benefit the birds. Sections of Tule Lake need to be drained to kill off the botulism bacteria that thrive in a few of the sumps. Then it should be filled to close to pre project levels.
Doing this will help the suckers by giving them a better, as well as larger, environment to live in. It will help the coho by removing the warm lake water from the system. There should be no increase in water allocated for irrigation.


Small places like mine would fall through the cracks. Like always the “golden rule” will apply.

[BrionLutz]

Freespool,

I know that nobody wants to get kicked off their land,but fair compasation would be in order.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">What Nature Conservancy and others did was buy the water rights and the land outright at fair market values.

Ending the subsidies for most of the crops would end most of the farming but I wouldn't want to see folks get hurt and I'd go for the Nature Conservancy approach.

Be interesting to see if the National Research Council proposals are implemented. We have this on top of the National Geologic Survey economic study that showed way more business and jobs in the salmon.



Brion

[ 11-01-2003, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: BrionLutz ]

One of the first things that the Nature Conservancy does is post their land. On the lower Williamson they even fenced off some oxbow lakes (ponds) that had channels to the river. The corporate farm owners had always allowed access to these ponds for waterfowl hunters.

Low salmon prices have something to do with the reduction in commercial fishing effort.

Link to the site where you got the Fort Bragg pictures please.

Just in case you ignore the request, again.

This is a questionable source for information.

Top photo:

The Klamath Basin was once the third most productive salmon river system in the U.S. The photo above was taken of the commerical fishing boat landing at Fort Bragg, CA just before the start of salmon fishing season in April 1980. Once a booming salmon port, Fort Bragg is now one of many coastal salmon ports along 200 miles of coastline now all but closed to protect weakened Klamath Basin chinook and coho salmon.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Bottom photo, during an opening?

The meter is pegged again.

[ 11-01-2003, 11:15 AM: Message edited by: Keta ]

[Straydog]

The photos Brion shares may or may not be a completly accurate example of the norm.

On the other hand, it isn't far off. I serviced the North Cal. coast at that time and lived the end of commercial as well as greatly reduced sport fishing.

Brion, thanks for finding a picture that indeed speaks a thousand words. I've been in the industry in the region long enough to have lived it.

It is real and those jobs are just as valuable as the farmers jobs in the basin.

[BrionLutz]

Keta,

One of the first things that the Nature Conservancy does is post their land.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Sounds a bit imaginary since they mostly purchased the water rights &lt;grin&gt;. However, the Klamath used to be a big time flyover stop area so it would be good to post it but that's another issue.

Low salmon prices have something to do with the reduction in commercial fishing effort.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">No salmon was/is the cause of the decline of the huge fishing industry that used to exist. As the NGS economic study noted, 30 times more economic benefit from salmon than from agriculture in the Klamath Basin.

Brion

Sounds a bit imaginary since they mostly purchased the water rights

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">................... .....

How are you going to twist these facts, about the Upper Klamath Basin? These links are to The Nature Conservancy's Web Page. Who's right here?
Lutz or The Nature Conservancy's own information?

Acquisition: The Nature Conservancy purchased about 4,800 acres (formerly Tulana Farms) north and west of the Williamson River in 1996. The Conservancy purchased about 2,700 acres (formerly Goose Bay Farms) east and south of the river in 1999.

30,539 acres on the Sycan

4,418-acre addition to


Why do you make it so easy to rub your nose in your "FACTS"

FYI:
The Sycan is a tributary of the Sprague.
The Sprague is a tributary of the Williamson. The Williamson is the largest tributary of Upper Klamath Lake.

PS:

NGS=No Good Studies?

[ 11-01-2003, 08:24 PM: Message edited by: Keta ]

Straydog,

This has never been denied. They are mostly small operations at the bottom end of the economic ladder

It is real and those jobs are just as valuable as the farmers jobs in the basin.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">

[BrionLutz]

Keta,

BL: Sounds a bit imaginary since they mostly purchased the water rights

Keta: The Nature Conservancy purchased about 4,800 acres (formerly Tulana Farms) north and west of the Williamson River in 1996. The Conservancy purchased about 2,700 acres (formerly Goose Bay Farms) east and south of the river in 1999.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Thanks. Proves my point. You didn't think that was a lot of land did you? It's a very small area in the upper lake as folks can see when they click on the links.

For example, as you also saw from the link but somehow didn't mention &lt;nudge, nudge, wink, wink&gt; the ZX Ranch, that's the 1.38 million-acre ZX Ranch.

Why do you make it so easy to rub your nose in your "FACTS"

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">That's what I was wondering but I always appreciate the opportunities to post the facts and figures &lt;grin&gt;.

Brion

[ 11-01-2003, 09:28 PM: Message edited by: BrionLutz ]

Don't you get dizzy with all of the spinning you do? You have also damaged my BS meter.

Now lets go back a few posts and recreate what you are doing here.

I post:
"One of the first things that the Nature Conservancy does is post their land"
Note: I do not give any amount of land.

Then you respond by calling me a liar:
"Sounds a bit imaginary since they mostly purchased the water rights &lt;Stupid Grin&gt;"

Again Note: you do not give any amount of land.

I respond with links that indicate you are not telling the truth. Links to the Nature Conservancy's Web Site.

Again Note: No acreage was mentioned.

You respond with something so far from what we were posting (as well as reality) that it isn't funny:
"Thanks. Proves my point. You didn't think that was a lot of land did you? It's a very small area in the upper lake as folks can see when they click on the links. For example, as you also saw from the link but somehow didn't mention &lt;nudge, nudge, wink, wink&gt; the ZX Ranch, that's the 1.38 million-acre ZX Ranch."


Now I'll address your last post.

#1. "Thanks. Proves my point"
Was your point the fact that you have no idea of what the truth is? If so then your point was proven.

#2. " You didn't think that was a lot of land did you?"

The area that I was referring to as being posted is only about 100 acres. I never mentioned it in my earlier post.

#3. "For example, as you also saw from the link but somehow didn't mention &lt;nudge, nudge, wink, wink&gt; the ZX Ranch, that's the 1.38 million-acre ZX Ranch."
The ZX Ranch is nowere near Klamath Lake. Why would I even mention it? Were you calling someone a liar here? I think my links show who has the credibility problems.

#4." That's what I was wondering but I always appreciate the opportunities to post the facts and figures &lt;stupid grin&gt;"
Yes you post "Facts" and figures with out links to support them and not having even the most remote connection to reality.

One more little thing that doesn't have much to do with the fencing and posting of a small navigable body of water:

4,000 + 30,539 + 4,418 = 38,957 acres, is not a small chunk of land in the Klamath Basin. Further east where the ZX Ranch is this is still a medium size ranch. The ZX was huge.

[ 11-01-2003, 10:56 PM: Message edited by: Keta ]

[Straydog]

Originally posted by Keta:
Straydog,

This has never been denied. They are mostly small operations at the bottom end of the economic ladder

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Yea, small business owners. You know, the backbone of our success as a nation. Much like many of the farmers in the basin except without the advantage Federal subsisdies to keep them afloat.

[ 11-02-2003, 08:58 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[lingslayer]

If I were to read only this thread on the matter I would get the idea that the Klamath farmers started getting their water in the 70's or 80's.

Since by now, the irrigation system and associated dams have been in place for over 60 years, and in 1980 they had been getting water for over 40 years, why do you get the idea its all the farmer's fault brion? Do you really think that photo is damaging to the Klamath farmer's cause without enviro babble?


If you are sincerely interested in restoring the salmon to the Klamath, why don't you look at the other, more recent, water uses for the Klamath River and it's tribs. Again brion, lets look at ALL of the water sources and their current uses. Not just the ones that are on the environmentalists agenda(s).

If the problem was the sole resposibility of the Klamath farmers the salmon would have been gone long ago. There certainly wouldn't have been enough to support a fishing fleet the size of the one shown in the "circa mid 1980's" photo.

Jamie

[BrionLutz]

lingslayer,

Since by now, the irrigation system and associated dams have been in place for over 60 years, and in 1980 they had been getting water for over 40 years, why do you get the idea its all the farmer's fault brion?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Because the science tells us that all the irrigation canals and tunnels and dams that have been created over the years to support marginal farming in the high desert have destroyed a huge native fishery and the huge industry and jobs base that fishery supported.

In addition, it's wiped out a huge wildfowl wetland for hunters.

The farms require yearly subsidies to maintain the water system and in subsidies to crops that have no market value. I believe the water and ag. costs to the taxpayer for Klamath Basin are something like $50M a year.

The National Academy of Sciences study dovetails nicely with National Geologic Survery economic study. Both tell us that the science and economics are on the side of restoring the Klamath Basin watershed.

If we do that, we will get 30 times more economic return than the current subsidized agriculture can provide. That 30 times more businesses and jobs. Not to mention the huge increase in sport hunting and fishing.

With high unemployment, growing populations, need for new jobs and industry, a need to rebuild our fish and game populations, it's just crazy not to follow the scientific and economic recommendations and build a better future that can give us all of that.

Brion

Yea, small business owners. You know, the backbone of our success as a nation. Much like many of the farmers in the basin except without the advantage Federal subsisdies to keep them afloat

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Federal subsisdies? Not much of this for the Klamath Basin

#1

marginal farming in the high desert

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">...

#2

The farms require yearly subsidies to maintain the water system and in subsidies to crops that have no market value

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">...


#1. We have high quality farm land in the Basin. I have 6' of BLACK top soil with 8' of sandy loam below that. The water table is at 15'. Every year we get 3 cuttings of alfalfa and potatoes grow like you wouldn't believe.
Every year we get a bumper crop of peas, cabbage, and broccoli, artichokes, carrots, onions, strawberries and squash with no special effort. We also get lots of corn and tomatoes if we protect them from frost in the spring and early fall.

#2. You continue to chant this but haven't come up with Klamath Basin specific data to support your statements. This is BS and you know it.

The Klamath Project was paid in full many years ago and the user fees pay for the maintenance.
I don't know who will end up paying for the new fish screens yet but most likely it will come out of the money we pay for the water delivery.


Your credibility is getting lower and lower.

I have been fighting to protect the Klamath River (I was a member of Save our Klamath River from the first day it was established)for over 20 years and know The Klamath system far better than you ever will.

[ 11-02-2003, 10:53 AM: Message edited by: Keta ]

[Straydog]

Originally posted by Keta:
Federal subsisdies? Not much of this for the Klamath Basin

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I recently toured the new fish screens at the A canal. Something like $16 million of our tax dollars and still growing.........(ps. lot's of dead and trapped fish the managers couldn't explain too...... 'kaching, kaching.......)

That one alone, is a pretty healthy hand out.

[Straydog]

Originally posted by Keta:
I don't know who will end up paying for the new fish screens yet but most likely it will come out of the money we pay for the water delivery.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">If you are refering to the A canal screens, the Fed. boys that gave us the tour said the Feds. (that would be "us") are paying for it with "non-refundable Federal dollars." In other words, no pay backs from those most benefiting, those receiving the subsidy that this is.....

[lingslayer]

Originally posted by BrionLutz:
lingslayer,

Because the science tells us that all the irrigation canals and tunnels and dams that have been created over the years to support marginal farming in the high desert have destroyed a huge native fishery and the huge industry and jobs base that fishery supported.

In addition, it's wiped out a huge wildfowl wetland for hunters.

Brion

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Like I said brion, if this were indeed true, the salmon and waterfowl would have been gone long ago. They didn't just recently build this system. TR got it started in 1906 and it was 99% completed before 1950.

Look it up.

This website is simply another case of a few noisy people in Eugene that think they know what's best for all Oregonians.

They don't.

Jamie

Streydog,
D'oh!
:depressed: It looks like I did it to you again (see edit above) :depressed:

Here is what I put in with the edit.

"I don't know who will end up paying for the new fish screens yet but most likely it will come out of the money we pay for the water delivery"

no pay backs from those most benefiting, those receiving the subsidy that this is.....

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Your information on the funding is better than mine and you most likely are right. Who will benifit from a healthy sucker population? I feel it will be everyone in our country (like in tax payers). I like to smoke and eat 'em too. Nice firm white meat!

The fish screen needed to be put in just after the suckers were listed. Because it was Federally mandated it should be paid for with Federal Dollars. I still don't know how this is going to work out. As for the maintenance and the infrastructure of the Klamath Project, we do pay for it ourselves.

There is very little crop subsidy money that comes into the Klamath Basin. Crop subsidies are mostly for the corporate farms (as in "The Golden Rule").

[ 11-02-2003, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: Keta ]

[Straydog]

Originally posted by Keta:
Streydog,
Who will benifit from a healthy sucker population? I feel it will be everyone in our country (like in tax payers). I like to smoke and eat 'em too. Nice firm white meat!

The fish screen needed to be put in just after the suckers were listed.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Let us not forget that without the basin water project for irrigation, there would likly be no need for the screens.

I am not going to get into another fight with you over this as we both have different views based on different prorities, both of which are real life. Also, I am by no means advocating that the Klamath farmers need to take the whole brunt of restoration in the Klamath system.
My argument remains that in the short term and in the case of the fish kill, taking more Klamath Project water was the way we should have gone......

I am just trying to help keep the conversation as factual as possible.

Besides, I don't want to come between you and Brion! [img]graemlins/hearton.gif[/img] :grin:

PS. I have to admit to missing a good mullet snagging party as much as the next guy. As a little kid, that was one of the few good reasons to go to Klamath County......... that, my aunt and uncle, Lefty and his trading post, deer hunting around Sand Creek and Duck hunting. Otherwise, I never could figure why anyone would care about that forsaken place!!! :grin:

[ 11-02-2003, 11:31 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

The main reason for the sucker decline is the Sprague River Dam though. If 90% of their spawning habitat wasn't blocked off they would still be thriving in Klamath Lake. Poor water quality in Lake Euwana kills many fish too. It's almost as bad of a sewer as Lost River. I hope that they clean up Lost River as part of the Basin rehabilitation project.

I still haven't figured out what goes with Lake of the Woods? As far as I can find it was a barren lake before trout were planted.

[ 11-02-2003, 03:25 PM: Message edited by: Keta ]

[Straydog]

Yes, I know too much about the effects of blocking the majority of a Fish's spawning habitat. We tried to tell the Feds. that in the late '60's when they decided to stop all Springers just above Big Butte Creek on the Rogue..........

I like you am stumped on the Lake of Woods thing still. Glad to see you have spent some time looking for info.

Might we be witnessing yet another "smoke and mirror" show regarding this aspect of the issue? :whazzup:

[BrionLutz]

lingslayer,

Like I said brion, if this were indeed true, the salmon and waterfowl would have been gone long ago.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">They are...reminants don't support the huge commerical fishery or the previous wildfowl populations.

They didn't just recently build this system. TR got it started in 1906 and it was 99% completed before 1950.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Eyup built and maintained with large amount of Federal and State dollars including the ag. and water subsidies of today, about $50M per year.

It's a mess but a mess that can be fixed as the scientists from National Academy of Sciences and economists hired by National Geologic Survey have told us.

We not only would generate jobs but we stop paying $50M+ per year in tax dollars and start generating some tax revenue.

Brion

the ag. and water subsidies of today, about $50M per year.

We not only would generate jobs but we stop paying $50M+ per year in tax dollars and start generating some tax revenue.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Totally fabricated information. Where do your numbers come from? I’ve asked several times for the source of your misinformation. You refuse because it is an outright lie .

Once again I chalenge you to prove me wrong. Post some links to Upper Basin Specific Farm Subsidies.

The farmers of the upper basin are working hard to feed the people of our country and we are paying taxes. They provide hundreds of year round jobs. Your imaginary jobs are doing neither.

[ 11-02-2003, 06:39 PM: Message edited by: Pete ]

Lutz,

Here's some interesting data I thought you might want to ignore.

Klamath County Farm Subsidies 1995-2002
Barley $7,065,369
Wheat $2,744,039
Livestock $1,530,249
Wool $147,544
Dairy $668,794
Oat $626,663
Conservation Reserve Program $556,119
Environmental Quality Incentives $201,677
TOTAL $12,913,660
Source

The farm subsidy program helps to provide food for America at affordable prices.

[ 11-02-2003, 07:15 PM: Message edited by: Keta ]

[Straydog]

Here is a link to some differing data.

Lot's of info. found on a simple google searchs , this was but one of many......

[BrionLutz]

Keta,

From the source Straydog provided:

Over the course of the summer and fall of 2001, $48,625,000 in government assistance flowed into the Klamath Project. Some funding plans targeted those facing true hardship, but much assistance was not need-based.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">This does not count the $16M just for the fish screens or the base agricultural subsidies mentioned previously.

I believe the total during the "crisis" year was over $100M vs. the recurring water and ag. subsidides.

The yearly ag. subisides alone for Klamath Basin total $36M. It looks like you were cheating a bit and counting only Klamath County vs. the entire Klamath Basin...tsk, tsk &lt;grin&gt;.

Brion

[ 11-02-2003, 07:11 PM: Message edited by: BrionLutz ]

Dog,
My computer does not like .pdf format. I can't read your link. I refuse to go by Lutz's interpretation of it due to his lack of credibility. Could you find something similar not in .pdf format? If you will note the link I posted was to an anti farm subsidy site. I did this to try and be fair. Did your information include the payments for the water theft? I think this was the case and this money doesn't qualify as a subsidy.


Lutz,
2001 probably included payment for the theft of MY water, not a subsidy.
The fish screens were Federally mandated, not a subsidy. They still were needed.

I didn't claim to have the entire upper basin numbers. I also posted links to support the facts. You come up with numbers that you can’t prove and pulled them out of your...
Then you inflate your numbers by 100%:

Lie X 2 = lie, no mater how you do the math.

I used an anti farm subsidy site for my data to be fair. I could have come up with much "Better" data but I refuse to lower myself to your level.

Again I challenge you to come up with some links to prove you are not lying.

Please post more links and less &lt;stupid grins&gt;



[ 11-02-2003, 07:44 PM: Message edited by: Keta ]

[BrionLutz]

Keta,

My computer does not like .pdf format. I can't read your link. I refuse to go by Lutz's interpretation of it due to his lack of credibility.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Tsk, tsk...and here I provided the quote from the link you provided.

Keta: Source The farm subsidy program helps to provide food for America at affordable prices.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">As I pointed out, your source says the total ag. subsidies for Klamath Basin are $36M per year vs. the $9M per year you mistakenly claimed. For some reason you only counted Klamath County vs. all the Klamath Basin counties...oh what a tangled web we weave.

And that's just the ag. subsidies. Straydog noted the $16M in cost for the irrigation screens. Those two alone put us over the $50M a year in tax dollars to support Klamath agriculture industries.

Brion