| Updated: Wednesday, November 9, 2005 |
Several years and numerous studies later, farmers and fishing interests in the Klamath Project have been sent back to the drawing board.
This time they need to develop a plan with more
protection for coho salmon, according to a decision last month by the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Court reversed a Biological Opinion by the Bureau of Reclamation and the
National Marine Fisheries Service that would have provided a 10 year plan
intended to balance water needs for coho salmon and irrigation for agriculture.
“The agency has not demonstrated that it has followed the mandate of the
Endangered Species Act to avoid the likelihood of jeopardy to the (Southern
Oregon/Northern California Coasts) coho,” the Court concluded.
The Court called the previous Biological Opinion's
Reasonable and Prudent Alternative “arbitrary and capricious because it fails
to analyze the effects of eight of ten years of the proposed action on the
Southern Oregon/Northern California Coasts coho, a species that has a three-year
life cycle.”
While a representative of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's
Associations agrees with the Court's analysis, a Klamath Water Users Association
statement claims, “this is another prime example of why the ESA should be
updated and amended. Anti-agriculture groups have used this act once again not
to aid in recovery of the species, but more as a tool to try and derail the
Klamath Irrigation project.”
The Klamath Project is located in southern Oregon and northern California, with
water from the Klamath River provides irrigation for approximately 220,000
acres.
The Klamath River is also an important salmon habitat. Coho salmon were declared
a federal threatened species in 1997.
Begun in 1900, the project reclaimed wetlands and lake areas for agriculture
with a series of dams, canals and channels.
The water issue has been argued for many years, but reached a head in 2001 when
the federal government shut off water to farmers to protect fish resulting in
economic loss. The following year, full water allocations were restored to the
farmers and the fishing industry claimed low flows in the Klamath River caused
more than 30,000 fish to die. Irrigators claim other factors, including water
temperature and disease, contributed significantly to the fish deaths.
Several years in the making and the result of numerous studies, the 10 year plan
was intended to phase in a number of solutions that would protect both farms and
fish.
Those proposals include regulating water flows from the dams based on rainfall,
with a target minimum survival flow for coho by 2011 and the establishment of a
water bank.
In a 3-0 opinion, the court found the Biological Opinion made assumptions that
were not supported by adequate research or scientific analysis as to long term
coho viability.
“The scant analysis in Phases I and II is more troubling when we consider the
duration of each Phase and the three-year life cycle of the SONCC coho,” the
Court opinion states. “Phase I spans 2002 through 2005. Phase II lasts from
2006 to 2009. Phase III, when the coho will be provided with 100 percent of
NMFS's estimated flow needs, lasts only two years, from 2010 to 2011.”
The court also found that waiting until the final phases to implement minimum
survival water flows for the coho may result in extinction.
“Phases I and II occupy eight years of the ten-year plan. Five full
generations of coho will complete their three-year life cycles, hatch, rear, and
spawn, during those eight years. Or, if there is insufficient water to sustain
the coho during this period, they will not complete their life cycle, with the
consequence that there will be no coho at the end of the eight years,” the
Court opinion states. “If that happens, all the water in the world in 2010 and
2011 will not protect the coho, for there will be none to protect.”
Glenn Spain of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations agrees
with the analysis.
“The court said it's not enough to wait eight years to see whether the salmon
will survive,” Spain said. “Salmon are a threatened species under federal
law and classified endangered under California law. We can't wait eight years
without major damage.”
Spain claims historic data shows salmon in the Klamath River are one to two
percent of what they were since the major dams were built in 1917.
“We already have a possible $100 million loss this year with closures for
salmon fishing along 700 miles of Oregon and California coastline,” Spain
said.
Spain said the target minimums in the 10 year plan are “within the ballpark”
and should be implemented now.
“They can't punt when a whole fishery and industry are a stake,” Spain said.
“It can't be business as usual and damn the torpedoes full speed ahead.”
In a written statement, the Klamath Water Users Association, representing
irrigators, said the court ignored scientific evidence.
“The court elected to substitute its judgment on matters of biology and
species protection for the judgment of the agencies assigned this job by law,
and implies the Klamath Project can unilaterally recover the coho, which it
cannot,” the KWUA said. “We believe that the Biological Opinion in question
clearly reflected NOAA Fisheries' best judgment as to the long term viability of
the species. The Reasonable and Prudent Alternative identified by NOAA Fisheries
concluded that the species will not be jeopardized as long as by year 2011 the
full 100 percent flow is achieved.”
The KWUA also says water flows have already been increased for the coho.
“In recent years, Klamath Project water users have cooperated in programs that
have resulted in ever-increasing amounts of water being dedicated to in-stream
flows for coho salmon located far downriver from Project lands,” the KWUA
says. “In fact, by release of water stored during high flow periods for
irrigation, the Klamath Project has furnished flows higher than would occur in a
natural state.”
Finally, the KWUA says the Endangered Species Act is being used inappropriately
and that irrigators should be not be solely blamed for the problems.
“The Klamath project accounts for less than 4 percent of the water resource in
the entire watershed. Recovery of this species can not be done solely on the
backs of these family farms.”
For more information, the following websites are available for the involved
agencies and groups:
€ Klamath Water Users Association at www.kwua.org;
€ Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations at www.pcffa.org;
€ National Marine Fisheries Service report at swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/psd/klamath/r127KlamathCoho.htm;
and
€ Ninth Circuit opinion in downloadable PDF format at www.ca9.uscourts.gov.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for
non-profit
research and educational purposes only. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Source: http://www.mtshastanews.com/articles/2005/11/09/news/area_news