[env-trinity] ONRC Editorials on Klamath Crisis and Recent ESA Hearings

[Tom Stokely]

Posted by Jim McCarthy <jm at onrc.org> 
  (The following ONRC piece ran in the Bend Bulletin on 7/31 as an "In My View" Op-Ed under the headline "Walden doesn't care about the environment." Unfortunately, Bulletin op-eds are not available online.)
In the minds of many Oregonians, the words "Klamath crisis" have become synonymous 
with drought, conflict, dying fish and wildlife, and political posturing. For four years, the 
drought plaguing this region has not lessened, but the ranks of politicians using the crisis 
to further anti-environmental agendas have swelled. On July 17th the basin was subjected 
to yet another round of posturing, this time in the form of a one-sided field hearing on the 
Endangered Species Act in Klamath Falls. 
Congressmen Greg Walden of Oregon and Wally Herger of California sponsored the 
Klamath's latest political theater production, aimed more at making political hay than 
finding real solutions to the Klamath's problems. It's hard to hold a fair hearing when you 
only invite the people who agree with you, and the event's witness list was packed with 
people opposed to fish and wildlife recovery efforts. Little discussion focused on the core 
problem facing the region-that federal and state officials have simply promised more 
water to irrigators, fishermen, and Native American tribes than the environment can 
safely deliver. 

Walden and Herger made scant mention of the massive fish kill that struck the Klamath 
River in 2002, when the Bush administration's decision to slash river flows resulted in the 
deaths over 34,000 salmon. Or the plight of the region's National Wildlife Refuges, where 
wetlands crucial to migratory birds and bald eagles are often left bone-dry by 
management decisions that favor high desert irrigation. The only folks who seemed 
interested in discussing the plight of the region's threatened fish ? as well as the four 
Native American tribes who depend upon them ? were the Native Americans themselves. 

But the hearing really wasn't about the destructive, man-made imbalances in the Klamath 
Basin, or finding solutions to the water crisis. It was about building support for Walden's 
"Sound Science for Endangered Species Act Planning" legislation in Congress-legislation 
that would suffocate the ESA and the fish and wildlife it protects under a mountain of red 
tape. 

Signed into law by President Nixon, the Endangered Species Act provides a safety net for 
bald eagles, sea otters, and other wildlife and plants on the brink of extinction, ensuring 
that activities like logging, dam building, and irrigation development do not push them 
over the edge. The law protects not only the animals and plants themselves, but also the 
places they call home. More importantly, the ESA preserves our natural heritage and way 
of life for future generations by keeping the sometimes frayed web of life strung together. 

Not surprisingly, the law isn't particularly popular with developers and other special 
interests. In the case of the Klamath Basin, where efforts to protect threatened fish and 
bald eagles during 2001's punishing drought meant water deliveries for irrigation were 
reduced, complaints from irrigation interests have spurred Walden to attempt to gut the 
ESA. Rather than seeking to repeal the popular law directly, Walden's bill would 
hamstring species recovery with well-placed bureaucratic obstacles. 

Under Walden's legislation, "sound science" would essentially mean "science that sounds 
good to the special interests that oppose conservation laws." Walden's bill would dictate 
what information federal biologists can consider when making decisions about how to 
protect vanishing species. It would also create new layers of bureaucracy and red tape by 
requiring agency decisions to undergo time-consuming ? and expensive ? reviews before 
biologists could act to help wildlife nearing extinction. 

Walden claims he is responding to a National Research Council report on endangered 
species recovery efforts in the Klamath Basin. But while Walden has said the NRC report 
shows poor science is often used in Endangered Species Act decisions, esteemed scientists 
who helped produce the report have a different opinion. As NRC panelists and UC Davis 
professors Peter Moyle and Jeffrey Mount wrote in December: "(The report) credited 
federal biologists for using the best information they had (in the Klamath Basin) and 
rejected claims they were using 'junk science' as some members of Congress claimed." 
More recently, Mount has said, "Let me make it perfectly plain: the. report did not fault 
the Endangered Species Act." 

For three decades, the Endangered Species Act has safeguarded America's precious 
natural heritage for future generations. The law isn't broke, and doesn't need of fixing. 
Congressman Walden should drop his wrong-headed bill, and get behind efforts to address 
the real problems that have caused fish and wildlife in the Klamath Basin to decline in the 
first place. 
---------------------------------------------------- 

http://www.heraldandnews.com/articles/2004/07/19/viewpoints/op_ed/9919.txt 

Phasing out lease lands would benefit farmers, refuges, Basin residents 

Published July 19, 2004 
By Jim McCarthy 

Guest columnist 

U.S. Reps. Greg Walden, R-Ore., and Wally Herger, R-Calif., brought some 
political theater to Klamath Falls this month, hoping to gain momentum for 
their efforts to dismember the Endangered Species Act. 

These elected officials claim the Klamath Basin's painful water woes will 
disappear if we eliminate protections for America's fish, wildlife, and the places 
they call home. Their prescription coincides with their anti-conservation views, 
as well as the financial interests of their major campaign contributors. But given 
the facts on the ground, their judgment is as flawed as the so-called Klamath 
solutions produced by the Bush administration - and backed by the two 
Congressmen - since 2001. 

To review their poor record: In 2002, the Bush administration chose to ignore 
the reality that there wasn't enough water to safely supply all of the Basin's 
competing needs. As a result, 34,000 Klamath River salmon died in what may 
have been the largest adult fish kill in American history. A recent U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service report concluded low river flows - caused by irrigation 
diversions - sparked the kill. 

Since the fish kill, the administration has relied on a government water bank to 
maintain meager river flows, while leaving the region's crucial national wildlife 
refuge wetlands bone dry. This risky, shortsighted, and expensive plan 
depends heavily on federal tax dollars to pay irrigators to deplete vital 
groundwater, often putting neighboring wells at risk. Under this policy, both 
ends of the river lose. 

Eliminating the Endangered Species Act won't change the fact that the river 
needs water. The thousands of salmon killed in 2002 were mostly Chinook, a 
non-endangered species vital to the coastal economy and Native American 
tribes. The federal government guaranteed the tribes' rights to fish for Chinook 
long before the Klamath Irrigation Project existed. Those commitments include 
the water rights to maintain robust fish populations. Gutting the Endangered 
Species Act won't eliminate those rights, or change the fact that the tribes hold 
the most senior water rights in the basin. 

Not enough to go around 

With or without this law, conflicts over water will only increase until we fix the 
Klamath's central problem: too many users chasing too little water. 

In their rush to exploit the Klamath crisis, Walden and Herger have ignored or 
blocked fair and cost-effective solutions that would yield benefits for both ends 
of the basin. One solution is phasing out commercial farming lease program on 
Tule Lake and Lower Klamath national wildlife refuges. This move would 
significantly reduce the heavy toll of summer irrigation on fish, wildlife, and 
fishing communities, while improving agriculture's economic strength, and 
increasing natural water storage and groundwater recharge. 

Walden and Herger have fought to protect the lease lands, but the Bureau of 
Reclamation program has actually drained tens of millions of dollars from the 
region. Between 1980 and 1996, irrigators leasing the refuge lands sent 
Washington, D.C., about $1.9 million a year in rents. A tiny fraction of that 
money trickled back to the Klamath, in payments to counties based on the 
rented federal acres inside their boundaries. For example, when $1.9 million in 
lease land fees went to Reclamation in 1996, a paltry $10,381 came back to 
Klamath County. Some $166,773 came back to Siskiyou County that year, and 
$32,994 came back to Modoc County. Thus in 1996, the lease land program 
drained nearly $1.7 million dollars from the Basin economy, never to return. 
This process goes on year after year. 

Certainly, the lease land program is a good deal for the handful of participating 
irrigators. But is it fair to the community? 

Because Reclamation offers good land for below market rates, lease land users 
have little reason to rent from private landowners. Who could blame them? But 
the millions spent to rent federal land will never help local landowners pay their 
mortgages, upgrade their farm equipment, or send their kids to college. The 
money just goes to Washington. 

Meanwhile, private land rental prices stay unprofitably low. Local landowners 
go bankrupt because they can't pay their mortgages. Elderly farmers can no 
longer rely on renting their land to finance a retirement. If phasing-out the 
lease land program means former lease land renters take their $1.9 million of 
annual rental business to local landowners, there is no doubt a phase-out will 
boost the local economy - and help keep the community whole. 

County finances would fare the same or better if the lease lands became 
refuge-managed marsh. Federal law requires the refuges to make yearly 
payments to local counties for the lands they manage, similar to Reclamation's 
annual lease lands payments. For example, between 1994 and 2003, the 
Klamath Basin refuges - not including the lease lands - paid Klamath County an 
average of $105,000 per year, or about $2.20 per acre. In 1996, the refuges 
paid Klamath County $2.88 per acre. Meanwhile, Reclamation rented the lease 
lands for $86 per acre on average - and gave Klamath County $1.88 per acre. 

Irrigation costs would drop 

A lease land solution could also significantly reduce irrigation costs after the 
Klamath Project's electrical subsidy expires in 2006. To keep water drained off 
of the lease lands, Tulelake Irrigation District pays approximately $40,000 
yearly to pump an average of 90,000 acre-feet of water through Sheepy Ridge 
Tunnel. Post-2006, this cost is expected to rise to $700,000 annually. But if 
Tule Lake's lease lands were returned to wetlands, the refuge's potential water 
retention capacity would increase by some 100,000 acre-feet, reducing or 
eliminating potentially astronomical pumping costs while providing natural 
water storage to meet the needs of fish and wildlife. 

In addition, leaving significantly more water on Tule Lake refuge would mean 
better aquifer recharge and reduced pumping costs for well users in the area. If 
Walden supported a lease land phase-out instead of paying irrigators to mine 
Klamath aquifers, irrigators could see well levels rise. Right now, they're 
watching groundwater levels drop out from under them. 

A lease land phase-out is a fair deal for the whole Basin. It would reduce 
summer irrigation demand by some 50,000 acre-feet, during a time when 
flows and lake levels are critical for fish. This added water security - plus 
100,000 acre feet of added water retention capacity - could be achieved 
entirely on public lands at low cost to taxpayers. Klamath communities should 
join in urging Walden and Herger to stop practicing political theatrics while the 
whole basin suffers, and show true leadership by supporting real solutions to 
the Klamath's problems. 
  

  The Author 
  Jim McCarthy is a policy analyst for the Oregon Natural Resources Council in 
  Ashland.

Jim McCarthy 
Policy Analyst 
Oregon Natural Resources Council 
PO Box 151 
Ashland OR 97520 
541-201-1058 
jm at onrc.org 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20040811/bee7af88/attachment.html>