<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>Posted by Jim
McCarthy <jm@onrc.org> </FONT>
<BLOCKQUOTE>(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.)</BLOCKQUOTE>In the minds of many Oregonians, the words “Klamath crisis”
have become synonymous <BR>with drought, conflict, dying fish and wildlife, and
political posturing. For four years, the <BR>drought plaguing this region has
not lessened, but the ranks of politicians using the crisis <BR>to further
anti-environmental agendas have swelled. On July 17th the basin was subjected
<BR>to yet another round of posturing, this time in the form of a one-sided
field hearing on the <BR>Endangered Species Act in Klamath Falls.
<P>Congressmen Greg Walden of Oregon and Wally Herger of California sponsored
the <BR>Klamath’s latest political theater production, aimed more at making
political hay than <BR>finding real solutions to the Klamath’s problems. It’s
hard to hold a fair hearing when you <BR>only invite the people who agree with
you, and the event’s witness list was packed with <BR>people opposed to fish and
wildlife recovery efforts. Little discussion focused on the core <BR>problem
facing the region—that federal and state officials have simply promised more
<BR>water to irrigators, fishermen, and Native American tribes than the
environment can <BR>safely deliver.
<P>Walden and Herger made scant mention of the massive fish kill that struck the
Klamath <BR>River in 2002, when the Bush administration’s decision to slash
river flows resulted in the <BR>deaths over 34,000 salmon. Or the plight of the
region’s National Wildlife Refuges, where <BR>wetlands crucial to migratory
birds and bald eagles are often left bone-dry by <BR>management decisions that
favor high desert irrigation. The only folks who seemed <BR>interested in
discussing the plight of the region’s threatened fish ? as well as the four
<BR>Native American tribes who depend upon them ? were the Native Americans
themselves.
<P>But the hearing really wasn’t about the destructive, man-made imbalances in
the Klamath <BR>Basin, or finding solutions to the water crisis. It was about
building support for Walden’s <BR>“Sound Science for Endangered Species Act
Planning” legislation in Congress—legislation <BR>that would suffocate the ESA
and the fish and wildlife it protects under a mountain of red <BR>tape.
<P>Signed into law by President Nixon, the Endangered Species Act provides a
safety net for <BR>bald eagles, sea otters, and other wildlife and plants on the
brink of extinction, ensuring <BR>that activities like logging, dam building,
and irrigation development do not push them <BR>over the edge. The law protects
not only the animals and plants themselves, but also the <BR>places they call
home. More importantly, the ESA preserves our natural heritage and way <BR>of
life for future generations by keeping the sometimes frayed web of life strung
together.
<P>Not surprisingly, the law isn’t particularly popular with developers and
other special <BR>interests. In the case of the Klamath Basin, where efforts to
protect threatened fish and <BR>bald eagles during 2001’s punishing drought
meant water deliveries for irrigation were <BR>reduced, complaints from
irrigation interests have spurred Walden to attempt to gut the <BR>ESA. Rather
than seeking to repeal the popular law directly, Walden’s bill would
<BR>hamstring species recovery with well-placed bureaucratic obstacles.
<P>Under Walden’s legislation, “sound science” would essentially mean “science
that sounds <BR>good to the special interests that oppose conservation laws.”
Walden’s bill would dictate <BR>what information federal biologists can consider
when making decisions about how to <BR>protect vanishing species. It would also
create new layers of bureaucracy and red tape by <BR>requiring agency decisions
to undergo time-consuming ? and expensive ? reviews before <BR>biologists could
act to help wildlife nearing extinction.
<P>Walden claims he is responding to a National Research Council report on
endangered <BR>species recovery efforts in the Klamath Basin. But while Walden
has said the NRC report <BR>shows poor science is often used in Endangered
Species Act decisions, esteemed scientists <BR>who helped produce the report
have a different opinion. As NRC panelists and UC Davis <BR>professors Peter
Moyle and Jeffrey Mount wrote in December: “(The report) credited <BR>federal
biologists for using the best information they had (in the Klamath Basin) and
<BR>rejected claims they were using ‘junk science’ as some members of Congress
claimed.” <BR>More recently, Mount has said, “Let me make it perfectly plain:
the… report did not fault <BR>the Endangered Species Act.”
<P>For three decades, the Endangered Species Act has safeguarded America’s
precious <BR>natural heritage for future generations. The law isn’t broke, and
doesn’t need of fixing. <BR>Congressman Walden should drop his wrong-headed
bill, and get behind efforts to address <BR>the real problems that have caused
fish and wildlife in the Klamath Basin to decline in the <BR>first place.
<BR>----------------------------------------------------
<P><B><A
href="http://www.heraldandnews.com/articles/2004/07/19/viewpoints/op_ed/9919.txt">http://www.heraldandnews.com/articles/2004/07/19/viewpoints/op_ed/9919.txt</A></B>
<P><B>Phasing out lease lands would benefit farmers, refuges, Basin
residents</B>
<P>Published July 19, 2004 <BR>By Jim McCarthy
<P>Guest columnist
<P>U.S. Reps. Greg Walden, R-Ore., and Wally Herger, R-Calif., brought some
<BR>political theater to Klamath Falls this month, hoping to gain momentum for
<BR>their efforts to dismember the Endangered Species Act.
<P>These elected officials claim the Klamath Basin's painful water woes will
<BR>disappear if we eliminate protections for America's fish, wildlife, and the
places <BR>they call home. Their prescription coincides with their
anti-conservation views, <BR>as well as the financial interests of their major
campaign contributors. But given <BR>the facts on the ground, their judgment is
as flawed as the so-called Klamath <BR>solutions produced by the Bush
administration - and backed by the two <BR>Congressmen - since 2001.
<P>To review their poor record: In 2002, the Bush administration chose to ignore
<BR>the reality that there wasn't enough water to safely supply all of the
Basin's <BR>competing needs. As a result, 34,000 Klamath River salmon died in
what may <BR>have been the largest adult fish kill in American history. A recent
U.S. Fish and <BR>Wildlife Service report concluded low river flows - caused by
irrigation <BR>diversions - sparked the kill.
<P>Since the fish kill, the administration has relied on a government water bank
to <BR>maintain meager river flows, while leaving the region's crucial national
wildlife <BR>refuge wetlands bone dry. This risky, shortsighted, and expensive
plan <BR>depends heavily on federal tax dollars to pay irrigators to deplete
vital <BR>groundwater, often putting neighboring wells at risk. Under this
policy, both <BR>ends of the river lose.
<P>Eliminating the Endangered Species Act won't change the fact that the river
<BR>needs water. The thousands of salmon killed in 2002 were mostly Chinook, a
<BR>non-endangered species vital to the coastal economy and Native American
<BR>tribes. The federal government guaranteed the tribes' rights to fish for
Chinook <BR>long before the Klamath Irrigation Project existed. Those
commitments include <BR>the water rights to maintain robust fish populations.
Gutting the Endangered <BR>Species Act won't eliminate those rights, or change
the fact that the tribes hold <BR>the most senior water rights in the basin.
<P>Not enough to go around
<P>With or without this law, conflicts over water will only increase until we
fix the <BR>Klamath's central problem: too many users chasing too little water.
<P>In their rush to exploit the Klamath crisis, Walden and Herger have ignored
or <BR>blocked fair and cost-effective solutions that would yield benefits for
both ends <BR>of the basin. One solution is phasing out commercial farming lease
program on <BR>Tule Lake and Lower Klamath national wildlife refuges. This move
would <BR>significantly reduce the heavy toll of summer irrigation on fish,
wildlife, and <BR>fishing communities, while improving agriculture's economic
strength, and <BR>increasing natural water storage and groundwater recharge.
<P>Walden and Herger have fought to protect the lease lands, but the Bureau of
<BR>Reclamation program has actually drained tens of millions of dollars from
the <BR>region. Between 1980 and 1996, irrigators leasing the refuge lands sent
<BR>Washington, D.C., about $1.9 million a year in rents. A tiny fraction of
that <BR>money trickled back to the Klamath, in payments to counties based on
the <BR>rented federal acres inside their boundaries. For example, when $1.9
million in <BR>lease land fees went to Reclamation in 1996, a paltry $10,381
came back to <BR>Klamath County. Some $166,773 came back to Siskiyou County that
year, and <BR>$32,994 came back to Modoc County. Thus in 1996, the lease land
program <BR>drained nearly $1.7 million dollars from the Basin economy, never to
return. <BR>This process goes on year after year.
<P>Certainly, the lease land program is a good deal for the handful of
participating <BR>irrigators. But is it fair to the community?
<P>Because Reclamation offers good land for below market rates, lease land users
<BR>have little reason to rent from private landowners. Who could blame them?
But <BR>the millions spent to rent federal land will never help local landowners
pay their <BR>mortgages, upgrade their farm equipment, or send their kids to
college. The <BR>money just goes to Washington.
<P>Meanwhile, private land rental prices stay unprofitably low. Local landowners
<BR>go bankrupt because they can't pay their mortgages. Elderly farmers can no
<BR>longer rely on renting their land to finance a retirement. If phasing-out
the <BR>lease land program means former lease land renters take their $1.9
million of <BR>annual rental business to local landowners, there is no doubt a
phase-out will <BR>boost the local economy - and help keep the community whole.
<P>County finances would fare the same or better if the lease lands became
<BR>refuge-managed marsh. Federal law requires the refuges to make yearly
<BR>payments to local counties for the lands they manage, similar to
Reclamation's <BR>annual lease lands payments. For example, between 1994 and
2003, the <BR>Klamath Basin refuges - not including the lease lands - paid
Klamath County an <BR>average of $105,000 per year, or about $2.20 per acre. In
1996, the refuges <BR>paid Klamath County $2.88 per acre. Meanwhile, Reclamation
rented the lease <BR>lands for $86 per acre on average - and gave Klamath County
$1.88 per acre.
<P>Irrigation costs would drop
<P>A lease land solution could also significantly reduce irrigation costs after
the <BR>Klamath Project's electrical subsidy expires in 2006. To keep water
drained off <BR>of the lease lands, Tulelake Irrigation District pays
approximately $40,000 <BR>yearly to pump an average of 90,000 acre-feet of water
through Sheepy Ridge <BR>Tunnel. Post-2006, this cost is expected to rise to
$700,000 annually. But if <BR>Tule Lake's lease lands were returned to wetlands,
the refuge's potential water <BR>retention capacity would increase by some
100,000 acre-feet, reducing or <BR>eliminating potentially astronomical pumping
costs while providing natural <BR>water storage to meet the needs of fish and
wildlife.
<P>In addition, leaving significantly more water on Tule Lake refuge would mean
<BR>better aquifer recharge and reduced pumping costs for well users in the
area. If <BR>Walden supported a lease land phase-out instead of paying
irrigators to mine <BR>Klamath aquifers, irrigators could see well levels rise.
Right now, they're <BR>watching groundwater levels drop out from under them.
<P>A lease land phase-out is a fair deal for the whole Basin. It would reduce
<BR>summer irrigation demand by some 50,000 acre-feet, during a time when
<BR>flows and lake levels are critical for fish. This added water security -
plus <BR>100,000 acre feet of added water retention capacity - could be achieved
<BR>entirely on public lands at low cost to taxpayers. Klamath communities
should <BR>join in urging Walden and Herger to stop practicing political
theatrics while the <BR>whole basin suffers, and show true leadership by
supporting real solutions to <BR>the Klamath's problems. <BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>The Author
<P>Jim McCarthy is a policy analyst for the Oregon Natural Resources Council
in <BR>Ashland.</P></BLOCKQUOTE>Jim McCarthy <BR>Policy Analyst <BR>Oregon
Natural Resources Council <BR>PO Box 151 <BR>Ashland OR 97520 <BR>541-201-1058
<BR>jm@onrc.org </FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>