REAL Oregon Class 9 Launches in Klamath Falls

Panel Discussion: The Return of Salmon and the Future of Water in the Basin

The session’s signature event—a panel discussion on the return of salmon and the future of water in the Klamath Basin—continues a long-standing REAL Oregon tradition. For all nine classes, this conversation has offered a rare opportunity to hear directly from stakeholders who rarely share the same room.

Over the years, this dialogue has evolved: from the fresh wounds of the failed Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA), to the slow and complex process of dam removal across Oregon and California, and now to the celebration of fish returning to the Upper Basin for the first time in generations. Panelists expressed appreciation that REAL Oregon continues to provide a space where irrigators, conservationists, tribal representatives, and business leaders can come together to “speak their truth” and engage in meaningful, civil conversation.

This year’s panel included:
 Moderator: Scott White (Class 1 Alumnus), General Manager – Klamath Drainage District
 Rodney Cheyne, Producer & President – Klamath Irrigation District, Klamath County Wheat League
 Derrick DeGroot, Commissioner – Klamath County
 Heather Harter, Executive Director – Klamath County Chamber of Commerce
 Becky Hyde, Rancher, Vice Chair – Upper Klamath Agricultural Collaborative, and Commissioner – Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
 Karl Wenner, M.D., Landowner, Conservationist, and Avid Duck Hunter

Though Willie Ray Jr., Chairman of the Klamath Tribes, was unable to attend, his perspective was recognized as an important piece of this continuing conversation.

Panelists described and demonstrated the emotional complexity of this moment—balancing optimism about ecological recovery with deep frustration and fear about the implications for agriculture and rural livelihoods.

Many reflected that the Klamath Power and Facilities Agreement (KPFA) was advanced with the understanding that agriculture would not oppose dam removal and, in return, would be protected through promised infrastructure like fish screens and a 24-month stakeholder mediation process—commitments that remain unfulfilled nine years later.

Participants noted that large-scale fish screen installations, particularly those capable of handling high water flow rates, are prohibitively expensive—estimated between $5 million and $25 million per site. With these costs, irrigation districts cannot feasibly install or maintain the infrastructure that was promised, raising fears about future water access and whether irrigators could lose canal rights to fish protection mandates.

Panelists also discussed how withholding irrigation water impacts the recharge of domestic wells and municipal water supplies, compounding tension between agricultural and residential users. Several emphasized that community-driven, lower-cost solutions could offer an alternative to large, federally managed projects.

Despite years of frustration, the conversation took an inspiring turn when two panelists who had long held opposing views over the KBRA—and who had not spoken directly for years—agreed publicly to move forward and collaborate on shared solutions. Their willingness to reconcile demonstrated the transformative potential of dialogue when people show up ready to listen and lead.

Recurring themes emerged throughout the discussion:

• The challenge of division in Oregon politics, which makes it harder to advance bipartisan solutions.
• The overreach of federal influence in local water decisions and the “swinging pendulum” of political priorities.
• A belief that dam removal was agriculture’s only bargaining chip, and its loss leaves many feeling uncertain about the future.
• The perception that farmers, though using only a fraction of the total water, bear responsibility for most of the solutions.
• The reality that reforming the Endangered Species Act has become politically untouchable, even as its local impacts deepen and the law has historically been weaponized against natural resource industries.
• A call for unity within Oregon’s agricultural community, recognizing that division only weakens their collective influence at the federal level.

Throughout the discussion, words like optimistic, frustrated, collaborative, complex, broken, fixable, and hopeful echoed around the room. One panelist captured the tension perfectly:

“The return of the fish will either be our greatest opportunity—or the nail in the coffin for agriculture.”

For the Class 9 cohort, witnessing this exchange was a reminder that real leadership often begins in uncomfortable conversations—and that even in a region long defined by conflict, progress is still possible when people commit to showing up, listening, and seeking common ground. Panelists stayed afterward to enjoy dinner and fellowship with the class, continuing the conversation in a spirit of shared respect and community.