Klamath Basin Water changes to esa debatable 101305

Instead, that water was reallocated to meet the alleged needs of three fish species protected by the Endangered Species Act. The process that led to this action has since led the National Research Council to twice conclude that the decisions made by federal agencies that year were not scientifically justified.

Advocates of peer-reviewed science are not trying to "gut" or "dismantle" this dated law. We are simply trying to make it work better.

DAN KEPPEN
Executive director, Family Farm Alliance Klamath Falls

Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., is co-sponsoring reforms to the Endangered Species Act for the wrong reasons.

Admittedly, the 2001 federal decision to curtail irrigation in the Klamath Basin may have been unnecessary, and it was an extreme hardship for local farmers. But the lesson from the Klamath is that in dry years, there is simply not enough water to meet the competing needs of all interests.

Consider what happened in 2002, another dry year, when the federal government decided to meet irrigation demands in full and reduce river flows instead. The low flows contributed to the deaths of at least 30,000 salmon downstream. That season was as tragic for the families of native Americans and fishing communities as the previous season was for Klamath farmers.

Legislation that undermines the Endangered Species Act will do nothing to resolve the conflict over limited water supplies. The long-term solution for the Klamath is to reduce agricultural use of water.

TIM MAYER Hood River

______________________________________________

Hood River News - letter to the editor - Saturday, October 8, 2005

Water nurtures us

I want to challenge some of the reasons Rep. Greg Walden gives for his support of reforms to the Endangered Species Act or ESA (Hood River News, Sept. 28). Yes, the 2001 federal decision to curtail irrigation in the Klamath Basin may have been unnecessary and unsupported scientifically. But the lesson from the Klamath is not that the ESA needs major reform.

It is the water is over-appropriated in this basin as it is in much of the West. In dry years in the Klamath, there is simply not enough water to meet the competing needs of farmers, fishermen, conservationists, power companies, and municipalities.

Consider what happened in 2002 in Klamath, when another dry winter produced water shortfalls for a second summer in a row. That year, the federal government decided to meet irrigation demands in full and reduce flows to the river instead. A mass fish kill of at least 20,000 salmon occurred downstream later that summer. The consensus of the scientific community was that this mass die-off resulted from a combination of factors including the low river flows. The 2002 season was as great a tragedy for the families of Native Americans and fishing communities as the previous season was for Klamath farmers. The long-term solution for the Klamath is to reduce agricultural use of water, by far the largest water user in the basin. This could be done through the retirement of marginal farm lands on a willing-seller basis. This is the only solution that provides adequate water for all interests.

The conflict in the Klamath illustrates a problem that exists all over the West. Historically, the needs of fish and wildlife were never considered when waters were allocated among competing users. As a result, rivers and streams were left dry and fish and wildlife populations plummeted in many areas.

The sorry state of our rivers is one of the primary reasons that a strong ESA is still needed today. A healthy, rich environment is good for all of us, economically, physically, and spiritually.

Tim Mayer
Hood River

___________________________________

Dear Editor:

I read with interest Tim Mayer’s October 8, 2005 letter to the editor, where he challenges Rep. Greg Walden’s support of much-needed efforts to modernize the 31-year old Endangered Species Act. Mr. Mayer chooses to focus on the Klamath Basin as an example of why the ESA should not be updated. Many of us who actually live in the Basin see things a bit differently than he does.

Mr. Mayer’s resurrects arguments made by anti-farming activists who have, for the past three years, continued to claim that there is a correlation between 2002 Klamath Project operations and the Klamath River fish die-off in 2002. Judge Armstrong in 2003, based on the conflicting evidence presented by the parties regarding the cause of the fish die-off, found a “triable issue of fact” exists on this matter, and ultimately dismissed a related lawsuit as “moot” earlier this year. Further, a 2003 report released by the National Academy of Sciences also failed to find a link between the die-off and Project operations. Contrary to Mr. Mayer’s assertion, it cannot clearly be shown that low flows alone killed the salmon that year.

The ESA improvement bill supported by Rep. Walden is, in part, intended to prevent a reoccurrence of the disastrous decision-making that occurred in the Klamath Basin in 2001, when the federal government announced that, for the first time in 95 years, no water would be provided for irrigators from Upper Klamath Lake. Instead, that water was reallocated to meet the alleged needs of three fish species protected by the ESA. The process that led to this action has since led the National Research Council to twice conclude that the decisions made by federal agencies that year were not scientifically justified.

Advocates of peer-reviewed science are not trying to “gut” or “dismantle” this dated law. We are simply trying to make it work better. If the administration of the ESA has reached such a point that oversight is perceived as critical, the act is not working.

Sincerely,
Dan Keppen
Executive Director Family Farm Alliance
Klamath Falls, Oregon

Changes to ESA debatable