When it comes to championing “locally-driven” conservation efforts, the rhetoric doesn’t always match the reality in Congress.
Take, for example, Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR), who has frequently touted policies that prioritize local decision-making. On efforts to protect sage-grouse populations in his state, Rep. Walden said, “communities in Oregon [need] time to implement locally driven conservation efforts without the federal government’s heavy hand getting in the way.” And on plans to protect public lands within his district, the Congressman wrote:
My philosophy has always been that federal land decisions are best made from the local level on up, instead of the other way around where bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. dictate to local communities how land should be used.
But now, when Rep. Walden had a chance to advance a truly locally-driven solution to an intractable natural resource challenge in Oregon and California’s Klamath River Watershed, he failed to show leadership, turning his back on farmers, fishermen, tribes, and communities.
Here’s the backstory:
In the 1990s and 2000s, conflict raged in the Klamath Watershed—much of which falls in Congressman Walden’s district—because there was simply not enough water to go around. Farmers needed water to irrigate crops, cities and towns needed a reliable supply of water for residents, and the area’s tribes needed water to save salmon and other fish decimated by low flows. “Oregon’s Water War” came to a head in 2001 when a group of farmers and supporters rebuffed U.S. water managers and forcefully redirected water intended for other uses to their fields.
Of course, over-allocation of water is not a novel problem. On the contrary, it is quite common and expected to become more so in the future.
What is novel about the water fight in the Klamath Watershed was the outcome: a locally-crafted agreement for diffusing conflict and sharing the limited water called the “Klamath River Basin Agreements.” Litigation yielded to negotiation and, ultimately, a compromise among state governments, tribes, counties, irrigators, fishermen, conservation groups, and hydropower facility owners and users.
But here’s the rub: the Klamath agreements formalized over the last decade—the technical details of which you can read about here and here—require congressional authorization by the end of this year, or they will expire. Years of hard work will go down the drain. And the situation will almost assuredly revert back to infighting and lawsuits.
With less than 40 days before the landmark Klamath agreements are set to expire without approval from Congress, Rep. Walden has yet to introduce legislation. He’s known for years that this needed his leadership, but so far has dithered.
Congress’ failings would not be so surprising in this hyper-partisan time but for the fact the Klamath agreements are precisely the kind of locally-driven and locally-supported efforts our elected officials purport to champion.
Lawmakers like Rep. Walden frequently claim to abide by a simple rule before supporting any new policy that impacts America’s lands and waters: Is it locally-driven and locally-supported? If the answer is yes, then the policy will receive the politician’s support and if not then it won’t. As the thinking goes, a policy that impacts how lands or rivers are managed should receive buy-in from locals most affected, be it the designation of a new national monument, a plan to balance development and wildlife protections, or, as in the Klamath Watershed, an agreement to distribute limited water among diverse interests.
What’s clear here is that some politicians who espouse the “locally-driven and locally-supported” threshold have a tendency to apply it only when it suits their narrow political interests. In Rep. Walden’s case, he doesn’t like a small part of the Klamath agreements that could ultimately lead to the removal of dams, so he’s chosen to slow-walk legislation.
Last month, Rep. Walden finally announced he was getting close to introducing legislation, acknowledging that including dam removal is critical “unless you want to blow the whole agreement apart,” but his constituents have yet to see anything. The bill would be companion legislation to a bill introduced by Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR).
There’s still time for the Congressman to show that when a community spends time and energy developing local solutions, our elected leaders will stand-up, support compromise, and carry the agreement across the finish line. Failure to authorize the Klamath agreements will only serve to discourage communities across the country engaging in negotiation and consensus building to solve tough problems.
The clock’s ticking.
Photo: Klamath River Estuary / Linda Tanner / Flickr