Bill Overview
Title: Klamath Power and Facilities Agreement Support Act
Description: This bill addresses projects in the Klamath River Basin in Oregon and California. The Bureau of Reclamation must support lowering the Klamath Irrigation District's net delivered power cost through certain agreements (e.g., an agreement with the Bonneville Power Administration). Further, Reclamation may enter into contracts and agreements with state and local governments, tribes, and private parties to plan, construct, operate, and maintain projects in the basin watershed to include facilities to reduce fish entrainment (i.e., the transport of fish along the flow of water, out of their normal habitat and into unnatural or harmful environments); projects that reduce or avoid impacts on aquatic resources caused by diversion of water for irrigation; and projects that restore basin watershed habitats, including tribal fishery resources held in trust. The bill also authorizes Reclamation to pay for a portion of the operation and maintenance costs of an irrigation pumping plant in Tulelake, California. It also provides for contracts to cover certain costs involved with the replacement of the C-Canal flume within the Klamath Project. Further, the bill provides statutory authorization for Reclamation to implement a 2016 agreement to take ownership and operation of the Keno Dam and operation of the Link River Dam.
Sponsors: Rep. LaMalfa, Doug [R-CA-1]
Target Audience
Population: People in the Klamath River Basin in Oregon and California potentially impacted by the bill
Estimated Size: 500000
- The Klamath River Basin is located in Southern Oregon and Northern California.
- Key stakeholders in the area include state and local governments, tribal nations, and private parties.
- The bill addresses power and irrigation cost issues faced primarily by the Klamath Irrigation District.
- Hydrological changes would impact aquatic habitats, affecting fish and other wildlife.
- Tribal communities that depend on fishery resources held in trust will be impacted.
- Farmers and agricultural businesses dependent on irrigation in the basin are directly impacted.
- Infrastructure projects will involve local contractors and employees in the areas around the basin.
Reasoning
- The Klamath River Basin population is primarily composed of farmers, local business owners, and tribal communities who are directly or indirectly impacted by this policy.
- Interviews should include individuals from Oregon and California as well as a representation of different occupations such as farmers, conservationists, and tribal members.
- The policy intends to improve irrigation efficiency and reduce power costs, which can impact agricultural productivity and livelihood in the region.
- Well-being improvements are most expected among those experiencing reductions in irrigation costs and enhanced ecological conditions beneficial to tribal fisheries.
- Interviewees also include people expected not to benefit directly to provide a full spectrum of the impact.
Simulated Interviews
farmer (Klamath Falls, OR)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will help reduce my power costs, which are a big burden on my farm operations.
- I'm hopeful about projects to reduce fish entrainment as they'll ensure sustainable water use.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
tribal member and fishery worker (Yreka, CA)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Protecting fishery resources is crucial for our community and cultural practices.
- I hope the policy adequately supports the restoration of watershed habitats.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
irrigation district manager (Tulelake, CA)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy's support for the irrigation pumping plant operations will streamline our work.
- Overall, it's a positive step towards sustaining agriculture in our region.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
environmental activist (Medford, OR)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The focus on reducing aquatic resource impacts in this policy is a significant environmental win.
- The implementation success will depend on how thoroughly these proposed projects are carried out.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
local business owner (Sacramento, CA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could boost local farming activities, indirectly benefiting my business.
- Stability is crucial for long-term planning, so I'm cautiously optimistic.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
municipal government official (Klamath, CA)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having Reclamation funding could facilitate much-needed infrastructure improvements.
- The focus on collaborative agreements could ensure better alignment with community needs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
scientific researcher (Eugene, OR)
Age: 46 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Restoring fish habitats is a necessary measure for ecological health.
- My concern is ensuring research informs practical policy applications effectively.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
rancher (Chiloquin, OR)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Reducing power costs could directly alleviate some financial strains I'm facing.
- I'm optimistic but cautious about long-term viability of these projects.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
conservation officer (Alturas, CA)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is a step in the right direction for conserving our natural resources.
- I am hopeful this can become a model for integrated environmental policy and local support.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
retired (Weed, CA)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's reassuring to see policies focusing on environmental sustainability.
- The inclusion of tribal agreements points to a more inclusive approach.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 2: $26000000 (Low: $21000000, High: $31000000)
Year 3: $27000000 (Low: $22000000, High: $32000000)
Year 5: $29000000 (Low: $24000000, High: $34000000)
Year 10: $32000000 (Low: $27000000, High: $37000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The regional economic and environmental impacts are both significant due to the reliance on water resources in the basin.
- Implementation success relies heavily on intergovernmental and cross-disciplinary collaboration.
- Long-term commitments may face financial and adaptive challenges due to environmental and climate changes.