Smith backs Cheney, farmers in fish-kill debate

Klamath Basin - The GOP senator disputes findings that diverting water triggered the salmon die-off in 2002  

August 11, 2007

JEFF MAPES

The Oregonian

Sen. Gordon Smith argues there is no evidence a massive fish kill on the Klamath River in 2002 was caused by water diversions to farmers.

Generating fresh controversy over a key Oregon environmental issue, the Republican senator also defends the role Vice President Dick Cheney played in intervening with federal officials to help farmers in the Klamath Basin. And he casts doubt on claims that the salmon die-off caused subsequent commercial fishing restrictions off the coast.

The Klamath issue is flaring anew because the House Natural Resources Committee is investigating whether Cheney exerted improper political influence to override scientifically based management of the water resources.

Environmentalists, who have long been at odds with Smith, said the senator's stance contradicts a study by the California Department of Fish and Game, which found that the water diversions played a key role in the deaths of some 77,000 salmon.

The debate over the Klamath fish kill comes as Smith is gearing up for what could be a tough re-election race next year. His staunch defense of the farmers gives him a chance to cement ties with rural voters who are a key part of his political base. But if he's seen as insensitive to environmental issues, it also could undermine his attempts to seek the political middle in Oregon .

Smith said he has no regrets about his role in pushing the administration to aid the farmers, who had their water cut off for a year to protect both the Klamath River salmon as well as suckerfish in Klamath Lake .

"Whenever the government says to any group of Americans, we are cutting you off 100 percent, not one drop (of water), that gets my blood boiling," said Smith in an interview with The Oregonian. "I make no apology for going to bat and doing what I could with the influence of my office to defend farmers."

The senator first raised the issue Tuesday in an interview with the Eugene Register-Guard in which he sought to distance the fish deaths from the water diversions to farmers.

"I don't know that there's a connection between water for suckerfish that went to farmers, and salmon 18 months later that died of a gill disease," Smith told the Register-Guard's editorial board.

Smith subsequently acknowledged in an interview with The Oregonian that the fish kill came about six months after water was first diverted to farms, but he argued that the die-off could have occurred even without the diversions.

The California Fish and Game report cited a complex stew of factors that led to the fish kill, the largest in West Coast history. There were larger-than-normal salmon returns, warm water temperatures and low river flows. That combined to crowd the fish, hastening the spread of disease.

The report concluded that, "River flow and the volume of water in the fish-kill area were atypically low," and that the river flow was the only factor controlled by humans.

Smith cited another sentence buried in the report that said "no single factor" could have been "individually responsible for the fish kill." But critics accused him of engaging in revisionist history.

"It's stretching credibility to claim that the flow management decisions by the Bush administration in 2002 had nothing to do with the low flows in the Klamath River," said Steve Pedery of Oregon Wild, a Portland-based environmental group.

Glen Spain, of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, said he was not critical of Smith's role in protecting farmers. But he said: "Had there been more water in the river, we might never have had the problem, and when they put more water in the river, the problem went away."

Greg Addington, executive director of the Klamath Water Users Association, said river flows had been equally low in some other years without causing massive fish problems. "We do think that there were a lot of natural factors that went on," he said, calling it "ridiculous" to place blame on the farmers.

The House committee began investigating Cheney after a June 27 story in The Washington Post detailing how the vice president intervened with federal agencies to restore water to farmers.

"All I knew was that there was a legal process," Smith said of Cheney's involvement. "And what I had asked the administration to do is, look at all the science, figure out what could be done, and please do it if you can."

Smith also cast doubt on the connection between the fish kill in 2002 and the severe curtailment of commercial salmon fishing in 2006. In making their decision, fishery officials cited continuing problems with the Klamath River runs, including the fish kill in 2002.

Jeff Reeves, a Charleston fisherman and vice chairman of the Oregon Salmon Commission, praised Smith for helping get emergency aid to fishermen and said he didn't blame farmers. But he said there was no way to know for sure what effect the die-off had on subsequent fishing restrictions.

"Sitting here today," he said, "I couldn't tell you what the right thing would have been to do."

Jeff Kosseff of The Oregonian contributed to this story. Jeff Mapes: 503-221-8209; jeffmapes@news.oregonian.com

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/

news/1186808114210840.xml&coll=7