LegiStorm

Summary:

The Klamath River Basin on the California-Oregon border is a focal point for local and nationaldiscussions on water allocation and species protection. Previously, water and species managementissues have exacerbated competition and generated conflict among several interests-farmers,Indian tribes, commercial and sport fishermen, federal wildlife refuge managers, environmentalgroups, and state, local, and tribal governments. As is true in many regions in the West, thefederal government plays a prominent role in the Klamath Basin's waters. This role stemsprimarily from (1) operation and management of the Bureau of Reclamation's Klamath WaterProject; (2) management of federal lands, including six national wildlife refuges; and(3) implementation of federal laws such as the Endangered Species Act.Allocation of the Klamath Basin's water has been contentious in the past. Controversy peaked in2001 when the federal government halted irrigation water deliveries to protect species listed asthreatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. Efforts to permanently settle many of thebasin's water and species issues stepped up between 2002 and 2010, and were led by the federalgovernment.In 2010, the Secretary of the Interior and the governors of Oregon and California, along withmultiple interest groups, announced the result of these negotiations: two interrelated settlementagreements, supported by the federal government and signed by numerous other parties. Theseagreements are meant to address many of the previous conflicts in the basin. The first agreement,known as the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA), provides for restoration, waterdeliveries, and related actions, including a defined range of water supplies for Reclamationproject users as well as projects to restore and protect threatened and endangered fish species. Thesecond agreement, known as the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA), lays outa process for studies and a decision by the Secretary of the Interior regarding whether the removalof four dams in the Lower Klamath Basin (funded by power customers in Oregon and California,as well as the State of California) would be in the public interest. Together, removal of these damswould constitute the largest dam removal project ever undertaken.Forty groups are signatories (or "parties") to the Klamath agreements. Supporters of theagreements include the states of Oregon and California, three area tribes, Reclamation projectirrigators, environmental interests, and other groups. Opponents of the agreement include somenon-Reclamation project ("off-project") irrigators, as well as a subset of environmental groups,tribes, and area residents who disagree with some or all of the agreements. While the ObamaAdministration endorsed the Klamath agreements, Congress has to formally authorize mostprovisions for the federal government to become a "party" and move forward with most actions.In order to be fully implemented, both of these agreements require explicit authorization byCongress. Legislation currently before Congress (H.R. 3398 and S. 1851) would authorize theagreements, including approximately $800 million for federal actions (mostly in the KBRA).Considerations related to the Klamath agreements may include whether the federal government isobligated to act beyond current activities in the Klamath Basin (and, if so, to what extent), andwhat specific strategies should be authorized.This report is divided into two parts: the first part provides a brief overview of issues in theKlamath Basin, with a focus on the federal government's role in region. The second part focuseson the Klamath agreements and related issues for Congress in considering this legislation.Bills: H.R. 3398, S. 1851