Response to AP article on Klamath sucker fish

By Dan Keppen

June 26, 2006

Local agricultural and business leaders have dedicated thousands of volunteer hours and have spent millions of dollars in the past ten years to participate in processes associated with environmental restoration, particularly with respect to sucker fish. Most impressive, however, is the multitude of actions undertaken on-the-ground, often in conjunction with federal, state and tribal agencies:

· Local efforts to assist National Wildlife Refuges (e.g. “Walking Wetlands”)

· Ecosystem Enhancement and Sucker Recovery Efforts in the Upper Basin

· Fish Passage Improvement Projects (Link River Dam, Chiloquin Dam Removal, “A” Canal Fish Screen)

· Wildlife Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Efforts

· Local Efforts to Improve Water Quality

· Efforts to Improve Klamath Project Water Supply Reliability and Water Use Efficiency

Many of these efforts were driven by an initial desire to implement meaningful restoration actions intended to provide some sort of mitigation “credit” that could be applied towards reducing the burden carried by Klamath Project irrigators to “protect” threatened and endangered fish species. For many years, that credit was not recognized. For example, Federal agencies or non-profit conservation groups have acquired tens of thousands of farmland in the Upper Klamath Basin for habitat purposes. Each time the agencies sought additional land, they promised that each acquisition would provide environmental benefits, reducing pressure on the Klamath Project’s family farmers and ranchers. Those promises have not materialized, and Project irrigation water still remains the sole regulatory tool used to address federal ESA objectives for endangered suckers and threatened coho salmon in the Klamath River watershed.

Dan Keppen

(Permission to post from the author.)