KLAMATH FALLS, Ore. - With one week to go before Congress is scheduled to wrap up its session for the year, it's looking unlikely that the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement will be approved.

The last-minute draft bill from Congressman Greg Walden, R-Ore., doesn't align with the Senate bill to make the water-rights agreement official.

Walden's bill doesn't include removal of four Klamath River dams, which was key to the original agreement, and it adds transfers of federal land to counties that weren't part of the agreement.

Craig Tucker, natural resources policy advocate with the Karuk Tribe, predicts those changes will doom it.

"The draft bill that's been presented, I don't think it's possible for that to pass through Congress," says Tucker. "So I think, come January, the possibility for settlement will be over. And we'll be back to the same old litigating, going through the FERC process and finding different ways to address our needs."

The two Oregon senators' reaction to the House bill is also that it falls short of the original agreement, which took 10 years to negotiate. And Tucker points out that Congress has left it sitting for five years, leaving tribes, farmers and ranchers and local communities frustrated by the standstill.

Upper Klamath Basin rancher Larry Nicholson isn't the first person to call the original agreement "unprecedented," and he believes adding the land giveaways - 100,000 acres each to Klamath and Siskiyou counties, for logging - will trip up the deal.

Nicholson says all parties to the agreement already are living by it, and he thinks Congress should, too.

"This does work. And that's the travesty of this, is that we've shown that we can come up with a solution to this very complex problem," says Nicholson. "And the last two years, we've been operating under these agreements, everyone has gotten some water. It's not perfect, but it certainly is better than the alternative."

Nicholson says he'll remain hopeful at least through Dec. 18, when Congress is set to break for the holidays.


get more stories like this via email

Months after the nation's highest court declined to hear a Utah case about ownership of public lands, a Montana House committee will debate whether to support it.

The Committee on Energy, Technology and Federal Relations is scheduled to hear a resolution today about "supporting Utah" in its 2024 lawsuit against the United States.

Utah claimed it's been deprived of "sovereign powers" because of the federal government's "indefinite retention of unappropriated public lands" there.

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case in January, but the suit could be refiled.

Kearstyn Cook - program director with of Montana Conservation Voters - said that could set what she calls a "dangerous precedent."

"The State of Montana showing support for such a motion," said Cook, "is just a blatant slap in the face to public land owners and lovers."

The federal government owns nearly 70% of the land within Utah's borders, and 30% in Montana's.

Still, 68% of Montana voters have said they oppose giving states control over national public lands, according to the latest poll.

Montana Conservation Voters collected over 1,000 signatures asking state lawmakers to denounce Utah's efforts. Cook said people want to make their voices heard.

"People who use our public lands," said Cook, "for recreation, hunting, fishing, hiking, for agriculture, for ranching - this in some way, shape or form would impact a majority of Montanans."

The same committee on Tuesday will hear Senate Joint Resolution 14, which would release federal Wilderness Study Areas from their protected status - across more than 1 million acres of Montana public lands - opening them to "multiple uses" including agriculture, timber and mining.

For decades to come, South Dakotans can make use of an expanded wilderness in the southeastern part of the state, as a new land deal will keep hundreds of acres off limits to developers at a time when resource protections are challenged.

The forest land in question sits next to Newton Hills State Park, south of Sioux Falls. The Conservation Fund helped facilitate a deal involving state and federal agencies, where the organization first purchased and secured more than 200 acres of a former Boy Scout campground site. Through the collaboration, those acres were eventually put under the state's control.

Clint Miller, vice president of the central Midwest region for The Conservation Fund, said it means the section of wilderness is no longer at risk of turning into something which does not align with enjoying nature.

"What this prevented is conversion to some other use," Miller explained. "The most likely use that this property may have been converted to would be rural residential homes, multimillion-dollar rural residential homes."

Instead, Newton Hills will take on another 36 acres for things like hiking, and another 176 is set aside for wildlife protection and hunting. For federal public lands, there is new concern about spending cuts under the Trump administration affecting national parks. There is also political pressure to sell off public lands for fossil fuel-related production, with Republicans arguing America needs to reassert its energy independence.

Miller noted a donation and a federal grant from last year helped push the deal across the finish line, key steps since the state lacked funds to cover all the costs. Beyond recreation, he added there is an ecological benefit, describing the unique piece of land as a "forested island" along the Big Sioux River.

"When you look at it from above, you can see this ribbon of green, usually inside of a big land of cropland of corn and beans," Miller observed. "The migratory pathways for the birds, for other animals to move along there is absolutely essential."

Polling has indicated most Americans, no matter their political beliefs, prefer to conserve public lands, not develop them. In a new poll from Colorado College, which reached out to voters in eight Western states, 72% of those surveyed preferred conservation.

Two new national monuments in California are in jeopardy after the White House announced a plan to revoke them and then appeared to retreat.

On Saturday, the White House told the Washington Post President Donald Trump planned to rescind President Joe Biden's order creating the Chuckwalla National Monument near Palm Springs and the Sáttítla Highlands National Monument in Northern California. Then language about the moves disappeared from a White House fact sheet with no explanation.

Janessa Goldbeck, CEO of the Vet Voice Foundation, which advocated for the creation of the two new monuments, said the move was not unexpected.

"This administration has been pretty clear that they want to utilize federal public lands as a giveaway to corporate polluters and private developers," Goldbeck noted. "We are anticipating, whether it's these two monuments or others, that there will be some attempts to reverse federally protected public lands."

Trump claimed the monuments "lock up vast amounts of land from economic development and energy production." But Goldbeck pointed out Chuckwalla has not been targeted for oil and gas drilling or mining but rather is most valuable for outdoor recreation and wildlife habitat. The White House has yet to take concrete steps to rescind the monument designations.

Brandy McDaniels, national monument lead for the Pit River Nation, said the tribe has been fighting off geothermal development and other industrial uses for decades.

"This is not a Biden vs. Trump situation. It is a tribally led initiative that's been going on for a very long time," McDaniels explained. "This is a sacred landscape for our people. It is the actual place of the creation narrative of our people."

Sáttítla, also known as the Medicine Lake Highlands, is also home to the headwaters providing much of California's drinking water.


get more stories like this via email