The real disaster is the Klamath River

Yes, by all means, Congress must rush tens of millions of dollars in disaster aid to salmon fishermen facing the largest and most costly fishing closure in West Coast history.

But it must not stop there. Because if Congress and the Bush administration do nothing about the source of the crisis, the shallow and sick Klamath River, this is a disaster waiting to happen again and again and again.

The Klamath River is the source of the entire economic and social disaster that now stretches hundreds of miles along the Oregon and California coasts. Commercial fishermen will have only a token season up and down the coast this summer because there is no other way to preserve the once mighty Klamath chinook run that has collapsed under the abuse heaped on the river.

The time has come to restore the Klamath. The river's problems are obvious: too much water diverted for irrigation and other uses, too many dams blocking salmon from spawning habitat, too much fish-killing bacteria and algae.

Yet there is a real chance that Congress will do nothing this session but cobble together an aid package for commercial fishermen, and call it good. Oregon's congressional delegation has introduced bills in both the House and Senate to provide $81 million in disaster relief to commercial fishermen and fishing communities, and $45 million to restore the Klamath and improve salmon runs. That's the right approach.

However, Sens. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Gordon Smith, R-Ore., also are co-sponsoring a stripped-down bill that would provide the $81 million for disaster relief and nothing for restoring the Klamath or its salmon run. One argument we keep hearing is that a "clean" assistance bill won't get bogged down in a debate over restoration issues, and Congress can return to the Klamath in later legislation.

Well, maybe. But a serious debate over Klamath restoration is exactly what's needed here. Otherwise, you know where this is headed: Congress sends a pile of one-time money to fishermen, then shies away -- again -- from the hard choices in the Klamath Basin, and it's business as usual until the next disaster strikes and we do all this again.

Why not begin fixing the river? Why not start now? There's a lot of water this year, thanks to the wet winter. There is a compelling economic case, given the crisis up and down the coast. The four major fish-killing dams on the river are up for relicensing. Some Klamath irrigators even have traveled to the coast to talk with commercial fishermen about their shared interest in Klamath water.

The Klamath can be restored. For inspiration and ideas, look at the nearby Sacramento River. In the 1990s, the winter chinook run on the Sacramento was down to fewer than 200 adult fish. Then state and federal governments, irrigators, environmental groups and others agreed on plans to remove obsolete dams, screen water diversions and reduce irrigation use and pollution. It cost more than $200 million, but today thousands of winter chinook are coming back to the Sacramento, and biologists are reporting a three-fold increase in mature adults every year.

The same steps are needed on the Klamath. Buyouts of willing sellers of irrigation rights would reduce water demand in the upper basin and leave more cold, clean water for instream flows. The four dams, which together produce only about $27 million in electricity annually, should be breached or required to provide safe fish passage. The feds should demand steps to reduce the bacteria and algae in the river.

Yes, all this will require money and hard decisions. But it makes no sense to leave the Klamath the way it is, slowly killing off salmon, year after year after year, while Congress sends millions of dollars of aid to West Coast fishermen. That policy is a proven disaster.