Letters to the Editor 08/03/2011

To the Editor:

Early homestead acts produced excessive granting of water rights, and Whychus Creek is but one of many suffering the consequence. Piping is intended to restore water to the river, while benefiting a handful of large commercial farms with pressurized water and free power. It also offers government a feel-good project, sold to the public as "environmentally beneficial, for the greater good," yet environmental groups across the country decry piping and it's destruction of historic habitat. Also sacrificed are community interests, property values, tourism, and the very aquifer supporting private wells (read USGS Study).

Even at double market value, government could have purchased equivalent water rights for the river, at a fraction the cost of piping, but this option would have reduced the dues paid to the irrigation corporation, and failed to provide electrical savings for the few big farms who run TSID (Three Sisters Irrigation District).

Their first big project took years of lobbying while landowners, naturalists, and a few community members wrestled with the DRC's plan to fund the suspect Mackenzie project. Agreements for saving trees, mitigating property damage and providing water for wildlife were made in several public meetings (on record in Salem), but ultimately even the EPA grant requirements were ignored by TSID.

After the fact, and to their own surprise, the BLM and the local Water Master's research revealed that TSID lacked many of the easements and right-of-ways required for their project. Lawsuits are ongoing, yet DRC continues to shovel out tax dollars, explaining that their job is to "fund the squeaky wheel," not to create or oversee the projects. They also claim funding of such projects requires community support, yet leave the job of educating and guaranteeing support to those benefiting from the money. All TSID needed was adequate time and community apathy to accomplish their goals.

Jan Daggett