For the second time in the
past 10 years, another
brouhaha regarding science
and politics on the Klamath
River has erupted within the
U.S. Department of the
Interior, ignited by a claim
made by a “whistleblower”
working for a federal
agency. A month ago, a
recently fired Bureau of
Reclamation official filed a
whistleblower complaint
against the Interior,
claiming that the studies
undertaken in the past few
years to weigh the pros and
cons of removing four
Klamath River hydroelectric
dams were geared towards a
pre-determined outcome
established by Interior
political appointees.
According to Paul Houser,
who was hired as the science
advisor and science
integrity officer at the BOR,
Interior Secretary Ken
Salazar stated that he
wanted to “remove those
dams” last year, before the
studies were complete.
The latest incident
involving Dr. Houser
will undoubtedly put
proponents of the
Klamath River settlement
agreements and President
Barack Obama’s
administration in an
embarrassing and
defensive position, at
least initially.
However, as is often the
case with any employee
that is terminated, it
remains to be seen how
much “sour grapes”
personal vindication —
on both sides of the
matter — underlies this
issue.
Fodder for
political hype
Thinking back on the
evolution of another
well-publicized
whistleblower incident,
which occurred back in
2002, I find it
interesting how these
announcements generate a
flurry of initial media
and political interest,
and how, with time, the
real story behind them
often takes years to
mature. In the meantime,
these types of
controversies provide
fodder for all types of
political hype,
particularly in election
years.
In the two previous
presidential election
years — 2004 and 2008 —
the George W. Bush
administration critics
had their chance to go
after the Interior
Department, based on the
whistleblower complaint
filed by Michael Kelly,
a former biologist
employed by the National
Marine Fisheries
Service.
Kelly alleged a
violation of law, rule
or regulation and gross
mismanagement by agency
employees during the
2002 formal consultation
on Klamath Project
operations with the BOR.
He filed for protection
under the federal
Whistleblower Protection
Act, in a move that was
highly publicized by
environmental advocates
immediately after the
lower Klamath River fish
die-off in 2002.
Interests sympathetic to
Kelly then attempted to
directly link the fish
die-off to alleged
political maneuvering
orchestrated by senior
policy officials in the
Bush administration.
Even presidential
hopeful Sen. John Kerry
called on the U.S.
Interior Department's
inspector general to
look into whether
"political pressure from
the White House is
intimidating staff and
influencing policy" in
Klamath River management
decisions.
... the rest of
the story
So, the inspector
general complied, but it
wasn’t until 2004 that
the “rest of the story
was told,” long after
Kelly’s claims had
essentially became
gospel with urban media
outlets.
Unfortunately for the
friends of Whistleblower
Kelly, Interior
Department Inspector
General Earl Devaney’s
report — released in
March 2004 — found “no
evidence of political
influence affecting the
decisions pertaining to
the water in the Klamath
Project.” The report
also found that “none of
the individuals we
interviewed — including
the Whistleblower — was
able to provide any
competent evidence that
the Department utilized
suspect scientific data
or suppressed
information that was
contained in economic
and scientific reports
related to the Klamath
Project.”
At a congressional
hearing held by House
Democrats over three
years later, intended to
draw greater attention
to this matter, the
chairman of a national
academy committee
established to study
Klamath River fisheries
issues, in no uncertain
terms denied that his
committee’s work was
tampered with by Bush
administration political
appointees, or by
“anybody else.”
A similar incident
involved former Bush-era
Interior official Julie
MacDonald, who was
subjected to
particularly withering
fire in the media for
five years.
In the report
Her critics charged her
for altering scientific
field reports to
minimize protections for
imperiled species like
the bull trout. She
resigned from the
department in 2007 after
an inspector general’s
report appeared to
support related
allegations made by
environmental activists.
Ultimately, though,
after another five
years, the evidence has
gradually and
convincingly shown she
was likely in the right.
Only now is she finally
starting to realize some
semblance of vindication
after going through
years of “trial by
media.”
Dr. Houser’s 11-page
complaint appears to be
pretty straightforward,
and at least initially,
it will be very
interesting to see how
the Interior Department
responds. California
Congressman Wally Herger
has called for an
“independent entity at
Interior” to vet
Houser’s concerns, and
share the results with
the public.
“Interior’s promotion of
sound science in this
process is of paramount
importance,” said
Herger.
The congressman is
right, but I sense it
will be some time before
the politics that
surround the latest
Klamath whistleblower
incident will allow the
real truth — which very
well may be Dr. Houser’s
version — to be told and
upheld. In the meantime,
it will make for plenty
of interesting coffee
shop conversation in
this election year.
Felice Pace posted at 8:48 pm on Sun, Apr 8, 2012.
But when Dan plies his trade presenting the positions and perspectives of his clients he should get his facts straight. He did not get the facts of the Michael Kelly whistleblower case right - as Mr. Kelly pointed out in his comment on this site - and he did not get the facts straight about the latest whistleblower complaint from a (former) Bureau of Reclamation employee.
Dan states that the latest whistleblower was "claiming that the studies undertaken in the past few years to weigh the pros and cons of removing four Klamath River hydroelectric dams were geared towards a pre-determined outcome established by Interior political appointees." But that is not, in fact, what whistleblower Paul Houser claimed. What he actually claimed is not that the studies themselves were biased but that the "Overview Report" written by Interior officials which claims to summarize the scientific studies/reviews was intentionally biased. Mr. Houser - a professor at George Mason University - also claimed that he was fired for calling Interior officials on their biased summary report.
You can read Mr. Hauser's whistleblower complaint in the original at this link: http://www.klamathbasincrisis.org/settlement/science/houserallegation022412.pdf
If Hauser's whistleblower compliant proves true, it is much more serious and damaging than if he were blowing the whistle on biased science reports. That's because it would mean that those tasked with staffing the Secretarial Determination process (not those doing the science) intentionally misrepresented their own results. And because most high officials and members of Congress will only read the Overview Report (and not the original science reports from which the summary was derived) the implications of the alleged intentional falsification at that level are much more serious.
I have read both the Overview Report and the scientist reports which the summary report claims to represent and I can attest to the fact that the Overview Report - as Mr. Hauser claimed - cherry picked the good news and left out the bad news. I believe the cherry picking was intentional because I called it to the attention of the officials in charge of the whole process and nothing was done about it.
But don't take my word for it; like Dan Keppen I'm a professional plying my trade and serving the interests to which I owe allegiance. Instead read the summary report and the reports it claims to summarize.
The science reports which were allegedly misrepresented are available at: http://northamerica.atkinsglobal.com/klamathriver/pages/default.aspx . And the allegedly biased "Overview Report" is available at: http://klamathrestoration.gov/keep-me-informed/secretarial-determination/role-of-science/secretarial-determination-studies
Judge for yourself; if you will do that neither I not Dan Keppen will be able to pull the wool over your eyes.
Mike Kelly posted at 8:09 pm on Tue, Apr 3, 2012.
your 'rest of the story'. You are correct that it takes a long time for these things to
play out. I won my whistleblower case three years after the original filing.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the Biological Opinion for the exact
reasons that I claimed made it illegal. You can verify this with a little research.
If you try hard enough, you will also find independent verification of the political
manipulation that lead to the illegal BiOp. What you have done here with this
article is called 'cherry picking'.
Personally, I'm optimistic about the way people have been working together to solve the Klamath crisis. I'm not sure how you misinforming people is helpful.