<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A
title=dkeppen@cvcwireless.net href="mailto:dkeppen@cvcwireless.net">Dan
Keppen</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=dkeppen@cvcwireless.net
href="mailto:dkeppen@cvcwireless.net">Dan Keppen</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Cc:</B> <A title=kwua@cvcwireless.net
href="mailto:kwua@cvcwireless.net">KWUA</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, July 29, 2004 9:51 AM</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> July Klamath Congressional Field Hearing - What was
Learned?</DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><EM>This
interview was publicly released by the National Water Resources Association
earlier this week.</EM></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3><STRONG></STRONG></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><STRONG>July
Klamath Congressional Field Hearing – What Was Learned?<BR></STRONG><BR>Dan
Keppen, Executive Director of the Klamath Water Users Association, talked with
the National Water Resources Association about the Congressional field hearing
that occurred on July 17. Below is the transcript of the July 26
interview:<BR><BR>NWRA: Can you tell us how the House Resources Field Hearing on
the Klamath Water Users situation went?<BR><BR>KEPPEN: A Congressional
Field Hearing was held to specifically discuss the Endangered Species Act and
the application of the ESA in Klamath project operations. Prior to the two
hour hearing, we also had a rally out in front of the theater where the hearing
took place that drew about 1,000 people. The hearing itself, I thought,
was very constructive and positive despite how it’s been portrayed by some of
our critics in statements made in the press. </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>The things that
stand out to me: First, everybody on the witness stand, which I believe included
nine different interests representing tribes, conservation groups, irrigators
and government agencies, all agreed that peer review is something that could
help in how ESA is administered. Second, it was interesting to note that
all the panelists also agreed that new storage facilities would also be
beneficial toward helping solve problems we face in the Klamath Basin. I
think those two messages came out loud and clear. </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>Also in
general, the Committee’s rehash of what happened in 2001 provided a very large
media contingent with a clear understanding that the Project was drastically
impaired in 2001 and that we have to make sure that that doesn’t happen
again. Peer review via Congressman Walden’s bill is one way to help that
from occurring again.<BR><BR>NWRA: Yes I do know in 2001, the decision to shut
off the water from the Klamath Water Users farmers was later found by the
National Academy of Sciences to be a bad decision. Congressman Walden’s
legislation would try to fix that situation because his legislation requires
peer review in situations where jeopardy is determined. Was there any new
information that came forward during the hearing that was helpful to the
process?<BR><BR>KEPPEN: A couple of things were brought out both in the
testimony that was provided by the witnesses and also through the questioning of
the witnesses by the Congressmen on the committee. First of all I think
Dave Vogel, who is a scientist with nearly 30 years of experience, and much of
that in the Klamath Basin, had very interesting testimony that talked about the
kind of double standard that exists in the Endangered Species Act relative to
criteria used to list and delist the species. As an example, he pointed
out to the listing of the suckers, which have taken away from our flexibility to
manage stored water for irrigation supplies. It was interesting to note
that prior to the listing of the suckers, the Klamath Project was not even
identified as a major stressor to those species, yet after listing occurred, the
agencies and environmental groups just focused on the federal Klamath Project
operations and now exclusively lake level management is what drives efforts to
purportedly avoid jeopardizing the sucker fish. Dave also mentioned in his
testimony that prior to the Coho being listed on the river that the Klamath
Project operations weren’t listed as a significant stressor to the fish and yet
after listing occurred, flow management out of the Klamath project became the
primary mechanism to avoid jeopardizing the fish. I thought that was very
riveting testimony, and it caught the attention of a lot of folks in the
audience. <BR><BR>For the 33 media outlets there, which was an incredible
turnout from the press, they hopefully become aware of the fact that the
so-called division that existed between fisherman, farmers and conservationists
is not all that it is made out to be. Ralph Brown, a commercial fisherman
who is also a County Commissioner for Curry County, Oregon testified that
there’s great opportunity for farmers and fishermen to work together and in fact
we have a lot in common, probably more in common than a lot of people
realize. Bill Gaines of California Waterfowl Association testified to show
the beneficial relationship that occurs between irrigated agriculture and the
wildlife refuges served by the project. We are constantly battling myths
in the Klamath Basin, myths driven by extreme environmental activists. One
of those myths is that the farmers are destroying the refuges, and Mr. Gaines’
testimony refuted that. The other myth is farmers and fisherman are
at odds with one another. I believe Mr. Brown’s testimony showed that the
two groups actually can have a very constructive working
relationship.<BR><BR>NWRA: Wasn’t it true that the farmers actually created the
wetlands?<BR><BR>KEPPEN: Well, the wetlands are primarily provided by the
refuges themselves, which include large open bodies of water. The
refuges serve as resting areas for the birds. 75% of the food that the
waterfowl use comes from the adjacent farmland or the leaselands that are a part
of the Klamath refuges. So it’s just another myth out there that the
farmers are somehow ruining the refuges. The fact is that food that is
provided by the farmlands is a huge benefit and is one reason why we get so many
birds coming to this area.<BR><BR>NWRA: You mentioned the need for additional
storage. How much storage would you estimate to be sufficient in
increasing the flexibility of the system?<BR><BR>KEPPEN: We haven’t really
developed hard conclusions about specific projects. What we’ve offered up
as an association is a list of half a dozen projects that have been
studied in the past, that we believe if they are studied relative to one another
using the same screening criteria, will lead to one or two that will make the
cut. These are the projects that we will need to push forward and
develop. One of those projects that looks more promising is Long Lake,
which would be an off-stream storage reservoir, similar to the proposed Sites
Reservoir in the Sacramento Valley. Preliminary modeling shows that
constructing that project, which stores about 350,000 acre-feet of water,
would essentially take care of the regulatory demands that have been placed on
the project in the last 10 years. That storage could exclusively be used
to take care of the environmental needs driven by the ESA and to help refuge
needs. Then the Upper Klamath Lake water supply, which was originally
constructed for irrigation purposes 100 years ago, can be returned to the
farmers, and that essentially will take care of many of your problems in most
years. We don’t have the exact number as far as storage volume required
because it’s such a complicated system, but it looks like somewhere in the
ballpark of 500,000 acre-feet, which would solve most of our
problems.<BR><BR>NWRA: What is the next step for the Klamath Water
users?<BR><BR>KEPPEN: One thing we want to do is to continue to use the momentum
from this hearing to shine light on some of these bills that have been proposed
to help the Endangered Species Act, such as Congressmen Walden’s peer review
bill, which passed the House Resources Committee last week. We want to
continue to use momentum from the hearing to get attention focused on that
issue. We continue to advocate and plead to our State and Federal leaders
to come together in a forum of some sort and provide the leadership that we need
to get the various stakeholders together and truly manage the Klamath River on a
larger watershed-wide basis instead of continually focusing on our small sliver
of the river basin. We will continue to advocate for an open process where
the stakeholders who are effected the most will have a say in these decisions
that can have such a huge impact on
communities. <BR>
</FONT><BR><BR></DIV></FONT>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Dan Keppen<BR>Executive Director<BR>Klamath Water
Users Association<BR>2455 Patterson Street, Suite #3<BR>Klamath Falls, OR
97603<BR>(541) 883-6100 - Fax (541) 883-8893</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>