We
have in the Klamath River Basin a fundamental clash of ideologies.
Ideologies have litigated the Klamath Basin to the point that trust was
destroyed by the water shut off of 2001. Residents of the Klamath
Watershed have been rebuilding some level of trust since that point.
Now what happens? The Pacific Coast Federation of Fisheries
Association, Earthjustice, et. al. (and ad nauseam) litigate again.
PCFFA, et.al needs to look to a saying out of the 1960's that said you
could either be part of the problem or the solution. They, along with
other participants in the irrigation water shut off in 2001, and who
brought the latest case to the court of the very same Judge Armstrong
have passed to the problem side of the equation. After national
attention focused on the Klamath Basin in 2001, they again seem set to
blow apart whatever trust that now exists. In 2001 it was agriculture
against everybody else. In 2006 it is agriculture versus everybody
else with particular emphasis on the fishermen.
The cornerstone of anti agricultural ideology, nurtured by media
outlets, is based upon popularizing the notion that agriculture is
responsible for conditions by de watering the river. As with most
reports, yours waves this banner, ignoring the National Academy of
Sciences report which clearly points out that the problems in the
Klamath River are watershed wide and that one single entity can't be
blamed.
You almost get there in your "A Fighting Chance for the Klamath".
You
present a graphic of the Klamath which shows two important points,
which you miss. These points are:
. The very high salmon returns of 1995. This was
reproduction from the
drought year of 1992, when agriculture voluntarily worked with
downstream interests to work some solution. We did to a certain
degree, as three and four years after the event Salmon were abundant.
. You show a graphic of agricultural diversions. What you
didn't do, I
don't know why, is to graph that against the flows to the Pacific of
the Klamath River. This would show that the Klamath Irrigation
Diversions of 200-300,000 acre feet clearly can not dewater the nearly
13,000,000 average annual acre feet of Klamath River flow.
You quote Steve Thompson of the US Fish and Wildlife Service "The
simple fact is that more demands have been put on the river than it can
support". This is true, but major unsupportable demands are the
Biological Opinions of the USFWS and NOAA. Those demand mutually
exclusive high water levels in Klamath Lake and high flows in the
Klamath River. Those two opinions can't balance the Klamath water
system between themselves as many as eight out of ten years allowing no
other diversion. Why should those demands be considered reasonable?
You quote Paul Heikklia from Oregon State University in discussion of
diversions. He states that the problem is timing of releases. He's
right, but not about what he says is the problem. Before 2001, flows
and temperature in Winter and early Spring were never identified as
problems. The problem with timing is the demand for more water release
in the Summer and Fall. Then, the water in Klamath Lake is at
temperatures of 70-80 degrees. That water is eutrophic, by definition
high in nutrients and algae. Water of that temperature and quality
can't be turned into clean 55 degree salmon water when summer air
temperatures are 80 degrees and above.
People see warm, nutrient laden water in the Klamath River. It is water
they demand from agriculture storage in Klamath Lake. It is water that
would be gone if not for storage. When they see this is not cooling and
cleaning the water, in fact just the opposite, the reaction is continue
to blame agriculture for problems they refuse to recognize.
There is not enough diversion to fix the Klamath if agriculture were to
vanish tomorrow. There is however, enough water behind Link River Dam
to extinct Klamath Salmon. That water, timed for release when it is,
will kill enough returning juvenile salmon to eliminate them from the
river. The Pacific Commercial Fishery will also be eliminated. I
hope
that it hasn't been already. Problems escalated in the Klamath and the
Pacific Fishery with the 2001 shutoff and the implementation of the
Hardy Flow report and the current Biological Opinion.
If the Bush Administration had the courage, the problem could be fixed
by an executive order banning use of the Hardy Report and reinstating
the 1992 Biological Opinions.
I hope we have not reached the point where we can no longer learn from
mistakes, because we have made plenty. PCFFA is racing toward yet
another, and this one might be fatal. Earthjustice sees hope because
they see another chance to remove agriculture.
Steve Cheyne
April 9, 2006