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: Sen. Wyden, Ron [D-OR]
Target Audience
Population: People in the Klamath River Basin area of Oregon and California affected by the Klamath Power and Facilities Agreement Support Act
Estimated Size: 500000
- The bill primarily impacts those in the Klamath River Basin area, comprising parts of Oregon and California.
- It aims to lower the power costs for the Klamath Irrigation District, impacting local farmers and agricultural operations.
- The bill supports projects to reduce harm to fish populations, impacting local fisheries and communities dependent on fishing.
- Tribal communities in the area are impacted due to the focus on restoring tribal fishery resources held in trust.
- Projects to ameliorate impacts on aquatic resources will affect environmental conservation efforts and those dependent on a healthy ecosystem.
- Local jobs may be affected through construction and maintenance of projects and facilities within the basin.
- The bill will influence state and local governments, as well as private parties involved in various agreements.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily affects those in the Klamath River Basin, located in parts of Oregon and California.
- The target groups include local farmers, tribal communities, environmental conservationists, and those involved in irrigation management.
- The policy offers potential benefits such as reduced power costs for irrigation, improved fish habitats, and job creation through construction and maintenance projects.
- However, it is constrained by budget limitations, which could affect the extent and quality of project implementations.
- Given the bill's provisions, the potential for improvement in wellbeing is linked to economic relief for farmers, enhanced natural resources for tribal and fishing communities, and environmental restoration efforts.
- Not all individuals in the region will perceive or experience changes, depending on their direct involvement or dependency on the affected resources.
- Several stakeholders, including federal, state, and local governments, as well as private organizations, are critical to implementing and sustaining the policy's objectives.
Simulated Interviews
Farmer (Klamath Falls, Oregon)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could provide much-needed relief by lowering power costs for irrigation, allowing us to better manage our resources.
- Water restrictions have been tough; improved infrastructure might help ensure a more reliable water supply.
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 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 2 |
Environmental Scientist (Yreka, California)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The emphasis on reducing fish entrainment and habitat restoration aligns with our goals to protect the ecosystem.
- Successful implementation would greatly benefit local biodiversity and water quality, which are critical for long-term environmental health.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Tribal Leader (Chiloquin, Oregon)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our tribal communities have fought for the restoration of fishery resources. This policy is a step in the right direction.
- If these projects are implemented properly, they could help restore our sacred resources and cultural heritage.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 2 |
Fishery Technician (Klamath Falls, Oregon)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improving fishery resources is crucial for both my job and the local ecosystem's health.
- I'm cautious but hopeful that these measures will lead to tangible improvements.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Retired (Tulelake, California)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've seen the ups and downs of this region; anything that supports local farmers and keeps water flowing is positive.
- It's essential these projects don't further complicate things for us locals.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Electrician (Medford, Oregon)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Reducing energy costs can offset some of the financial strains on my contracts.
- It's a win if these efforts also contribute to fish habitat sustainability, helping my family's fishing business.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Local Government Official (Redding, California)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Collaboration with federal and state agencies is key for successful project implementation.
- My concern is ensuring these funds are used efficiently without political interference.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Teacher (Klamath Falls, Oregon)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Education plays a critical role in fostering understanding of environmental impacts.
- I hope to see positive changes that can serve as educational examples for my students.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Environmental Policy Analyst (Sacramento, California)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Analyzing long-term effects and sustainability of these projects will be crucial.
- The potential restoration effects of the policy could set a positive precedent for similar basins.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Freelance Journalist (Eugene, Oregon)
Age: 34 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies like this are crucial yet should always include perspectives from all affected groups, especially marginalized communities.
- It will be interesting to see if these funds are equitably distributed and projects effectively executed.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Year 2: $15000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $18000000)
Year 3: $15000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $18000000)
Year 5: $20000000 (Low: $16000000, High: $24000000)
Year 10: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 100: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Key Considerations
- Long-term sustainability and effectiveness of environmental projects.
- Collaboration with state, local, and tribal governments for efficient project implementation.
- Monitoring of financial commitments and project timelines to manage federal spending.