Thursday, June 28, 2007

The Klamath River Salmon Kill

Read "Leaving No Tracks" by Jo Becker and Barton Gellman, The Washington Post, June 27, 2007.

In April 2001, with the agricultural region drawing water from the Klamath River was gripped by a serious drought, studies by federal government scientists concluded unequivocally that drawing water from the river for irrigation would harm federally protected species of fish, violating the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The Bureau of Reclamation stopped irrigation to protect the fish. "Bush and Cheney couldn't afford to anger thousands of solidly Republican farmers and ranchers during the midterm elections and beyond." Vice President Cheney personally contacted the Department of the Interior, expressing concern for the matter. Rather than go against the Fish and Wildlife Service recommendations, he help arrange for the National Academy of Sciences to set a panel to scrutinize the work of the FWS biologists who wanted to protect the fish.

"Cheney got what he wanted when the science academy delivered a preliminary report finding "no substantial scientific foundation" to justify withholding water from the farmers......seizing on the report's draft findings, the Bureau of Reclamation immediately submitted a new decade-long plan to give the farmers their full share of water."
When the lead biologist for the National Marine Fisheries Service team critiqued the science academy's report in a draft opinion objecting to the plan, the critique was edited out by superiors and his objections were overruled, he said. The biologist, Michael Kelly, who has since quit the federal agency, said in a whistle-blower claim that it was clear to him that "someone at a higher level" had ordered his agency to endorse the proposal regardless of the consequences to the fish.

Months later, the first of an estimated 77,000 dead salmon began washing up on the banks of the warm, slow-moving river. Not only were threatened coho dying -- so were chinook salmon, the staple of commercial fishing in Oregon and Northern California. State and federal biologists soon concluded that the diversion of water to farms was at least partly responsible.

Fishermen filed lawsuits and courts ruled that the new irrigation plan violated the Endangered Species Act. Echoing Kelly's objections, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit observed that the 10-year plan wouldn't provide enough water for the fish until year nine. By then, the 2005 opinion said, "all the water in the world" could not save the fish, "for there will be none to protect." In March 2006, a federal judge prohibited the government from diverting water for agricultural use whenever water levels dropped beneath a certain point.

Last summer, the federal government declared a "commercial fishery failure" on the West Coast after several years of poor chinook returns virtually shut down the industry, opening the way for Congress to approve more than $60 million in disaster aid to help fishermen recover their losses. That came on top of the $15 million that the government has paid Klamath farmers since 2002 not to farm, in order to reduce demand.

The science academy panel, in its final report, acknowledged that its draft report was "controversial," but it stood by its conclusions. Instead of focusing on the irrigation spigot, it recommended broad and expensive changes to improve fish habitat.
Comment: What bothers me most about this story is the National Academy of Sciences report. Certainly the National Academy of Science panels can not always be right, but this story suggests that the NAS did not exercise proper diligence in selecting a balanced, expert panel and subjecting its reports to proper review to assure accuracy. I hope that inference is wrong!

I remember salmon fishing at the mouth of the Klamath river as a boy. It was the experience to remember for a lifetime! It makes me recognize how much people who may never enjoy a natural environment can value the simple knowledge that it remains there to be enjoyed, if only by others. JAD

The Interim Report of the National Academy

The Final Report of the National Academy

No comments: