Document text
Water officials hear old arguments By BETH QUINN GRANTS PASS -- A subdued but standing-room-only crowd of more than 125 people Thursday night heard a rehash of the arguments for and against Savage Rapids Dam, a threat to fish whose continued existence could cost irrigators a water right today. The Oregon Water Resources Commission meets at 8:30 this morning in the Riverside Conference Center to consider revocation of one-third of Grants Pass Irrigation District's water for failing to proceed with the dam removal first proposed in 1994. "We had concerns about fish passage. We had concerns about efficiency. We had concerns about scenic waterway flow," said Martha Pagel, director of the state Water Resources Department. "The district recommendation to the commission in 1994 was that they would take the dam out, and they would become more efficient over time." Instead, the issue of dam removal became a lightning rod for local opponents of changes in federal and state natural resource laws to protect and preserve endangered species and ecosystems. "The environmental community has a vendetta for some reason to remove a dam wherever they find it," said Tom Hart Sr., a farmer and GPID patron. Federal fishery officials say the 77-year-old dam wreaks havoc on endangered salmon runs, and the Bureau of Reclamation recommends replacing the concrete dam with electric pumps to supply water to the district's 9,000 patrons. Although neither state nor federal officials have advocated elimination of GPID or its miles of irrigation canals, dam proponents again raised the specter of an arid, desert-like Grants Pass following dam removal. "There's a lot of potentially big trouble coming both environmentally and economically," warned Stephen Skaggs. Studies have shown that up to 45 percent of the water in the aquifer underlying Grants Pass comes from GPID leakage, he said, and critical creeks and wetlands rely on irrigation water for summer flows. "This has created a 75-year-old existing ecology," Skaggs said. "Go slow, check it out, make sure it works." But district patron Stanley A. Vejtasa reminded people that GPID already pumps two-thirds of the water it removes from the river. "It's the water in the canals that's helping our valley stay green. It's not the dam. It's the water in the canals," he said. One speaker suggested that everyone in that green valley and not just GPID patrons should share the cost of providing water, an idea embraced by GPID Board Chairman Dennis Becklin. "I too believe the cost of this district needs to be spread out among all the people who receive benefits from the district," he said. "That ultimately is one of our key objectives." Recent history suggests that charging nonpatrons for GPID water is unlikely. In the past few years, dozens of former patrons have fought successfully to be removed from GPID because they didn't actually receive irrigation water. And earlier this year current irrigators balked at a one-time $20 surcharge to pay for the district's mounting legal fees in its fight to save the dam. For a minority who spoke in favor of dam removal, GPID's failure to deliver on past promises is reason enough to revoke their water right. "People make their promise and they lie to you. They're not going to follow through, just give it lip service," said Paul McGeary. "That's not fair." The state's water director echoed that view. "They can't keep changing the deal," Pagel said. "The system of water rights demands some certainty." Mail Tribune Copyright � The Mail Tribune 1998, Medford, Oregon USA