Fiction, not facts, floats on the Klamath

Times-Standard ^ | June 20, 2003 | Tim McKay

[farmfriend]

Fiction, not facts, floats on the Klamath

Tim McKay

This spring's exceptional showers may have not washed away conflict in the Klamath Basin. Although plentiful rains did not boost the upper Klamath's drought-level snowpack, the Bush Administration has stuck by a water management plan proven lethal to fish -- as witnessed by last year's kill of more than 34,000 adult Klamath salmon.

Working behind a smokescreen created by some congress members bent on gutting the Endangered Species Act (ESA), anti-government zealots seeking to inflame tensions and a handful of ag interests riding a wave of taxpayer subsidies from the federal Bureau of Reclamation (BuRec) continue to ignore the Klamath's central problem: an unfair division of too little water.

The biggest fiction is that the ESA created the conflict. If there was no ESA, the sham argument goes, there would be no problem. This view conveniently ignores that the Klamath water crisis has been a century in the making.

The root problems lie in the BuRec's short-sighted development of a massive irrigation project that failed to account for the reserved fishing rights of Klamath River Indian tribes or the needs of federal waterfowl refuges created by President Teddy Roosevelt. The result: 80 percent of Klamath Basin wetlands destroyed, entire lakes drained, the elimination of natural river flows and ecosystem collapse.

Endangered species are not the problem; their plight is only the symptom.

The ESA, in fact, may well halt the destruction of the Klamath's fisheries, a resource that once supported thousands of families from the Klamath's headwaters to its mouth, and up and down the California and Oregon coasts. Despite portrayals of the issue as "people vs. fish," the truth is that behind every endangered lake fish, and every threatened salmon, is a Native American family, a commercial fishing family or a family dependent on river tourism. These families are not the Klamath's villains, nor should politicians pretend they are invisible. Their communities deserve their fair share of water left in the river for fish.

According to a recent economic study, sponsored by the U.S. Geological Survey, of the Klamath/Trinity River, improving its flows and water quality would more than double the value of the lower river's current $800 million sportfishing and tourism economy. In contrast, the upper Klamath Basin irrigation economy is valued at $100 million. Restoring salmon could also help to bring back some of the $75 million in coastal commercial fishing salaries lost each year as a result of Klamath fishery closures.

Maintaining the sorry status quo will only perpetuate economic uncertainty in the upper basin and continue the Klamath's decline. There are simply too many interests competing for too little water. Balancing water demand with water supply through conservation, voluntary farmland buyout programs, a phase-out of commercial farming on the Klamath's national wildlife refuges and marsh restoration will help actually create a more stable future for the irrigators by ensuring a more certain water supply.

Contrary to popular misinformation, wetlands are nature's water storage and cleaning system. Ag lands on the Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge have no winter water-storage capacity and depend entirely upon scarce summer water. Restoring marshes on its 17,000 acres of commercial lease lands could increase natural water retention by 100,000 acre-feet (equivalent to the water that 1 million people use in one year), and reduce summer water demand by more than 43,000 acre-feet.

The Lower Klamath and Tule Lake Wildlife Refuges were created for the 6 million or so ducks and geese that once funneled through them each winter. Today, with these numbers greatly diminished, these refuges shockingly are the only ones in the nation that allow commercial leaseland agriculture and the use of toxic pesticides and herbicides.

Advocates for this status quo say that it benefits wildlife. But according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, crops consumed by waterfowl provide less than 200 pounds of food per acre, in the form of waste grain. Functional seasonal wetlands, on the other hand, produce up to 2,600 pounds of food per acre, including seeds, plants, and insects -- plus sheltering habitat. For these reasons, some marshes attract 80 percent more species than nearby crops.

Separating fact from fiction is not easy in the Klamath. The good news is that responsible leaders have recognized the real issues, and are trying to strike a balance. California Congressman Mike Thompson and Oregon Congressman Earl Blumenauer have introduced comprehensive legislation to solve the Basin's woes. Their bill, HR 1760, would purchase land and water rights from willing sellers, help farmers adopt efficient irrigation practices, return water to fisheries and provide economic relief to communities devastated by last summer's fish kill. To overcome this water crisis, the Klamath Basin needs the common-sense approach of Thompson-Blumenauer, not more rhetoric.

One things Californians can do is to implore Sen. Dianne Feinstein to embrace this logic and introduce her version of HR 1760 in the U.S. Senate. Her active involvement in this issue is a big part of the solution.

Tim McKay is executive director of the Northcoast Environmental Center in Arcata. He lives in Westhaven.

[farmfriend]

Klamath update ping.

Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.

[Carry_Okie]

These people are hopeless.

[InABunkerUnderSF]

What a pack of fetid dingo's kidneys.

People before fish, farms before fools.

SOSS!

[Iconoclast2]

This guy is a world class liar, the lineal descendant of Stalin's publicists.

[backhoe]

For old times sake:

KlamathBasinCrisis

To find all articles tagged or indexed using KlamathBasinCrisis, click below:
	click here >>>	KlamathBasinCrisis	<<< click here
(To view all FR Bump Lists, click here)

[Mr.Atos]

Portland, Salem, Eugene the rest of Oregon is wilderness (aka National Park) to the leftists.

You have one friend in Portland... unfortunately, only one it seems.

[Drammach]

Now hold on here, before you All start casting stones!

Seems to me, I recall anecdotes from Klamath basin farmers telling about (and complaining about) the fact that the wetlands and marshes were depleted.
They proferred sad stories of the wetland wildlife staggering into their farmyards and wistfully pleading for water, which the the farmers "shared" with the poor creatures, in heartfelt sympathy.

Now, here's an article, which shows clear evidence of the government's violation of it's own Wetland Protection Statutes.

Your response? Shoot the messenger.
Granted, the writer may be (probably is) a leftie, tree-hugging fungi-green liberal.
However, the "enemy" has pointed out some valid problems.

Draining Upper Klamath Wetlands for irrigation does not help maintain sustainable water levels during drought.
By maintaining those wetlands, and assuring their survival, you assure higher lake water levels, and increased "draw capacities" from the lake channels.
Wetlands and marshes keep soil moist, which means more runoff into the lake when rains occur.
Dried out marshes and wetlands become "sponges" that soak up every drop that hits the ground. (no runoff, no lake replenishment!)

I don't know much about the proposed legislation this guy is touting, but a knee-jerk rejection of what he is saying about keeping Upper Klamath water in the Upper Klamath Basin DOES MAKE SENSE.

I am not against the Klamath farmers, but I am not against REAL common-sense conservation either. ( That's "conservation", not "enviro-weinee extremism".)
Conservation means proper management of resources.
That means cutting back on crop size and irrigation during a drought.
That means there is going to be some dead fish.
A few dead salmon is OK with me, I'm sure salmon die-offs during drought has occurred for thousands of years without the salmon becoming extinct.

That means lower water levels in the Lower Klamath system.
I have no problem with actually cutting back water flow to the Lower Klamath system during drought, in order to benefit the Upper Klamath economy and environment.
Maintaining those wetlands and the benefits of their water storage/cleaning will benefit the Lower Klamath system as well, in better times.
They can share in the sacrifice, as well as the benefits.

I could go on, but most of you won't read past the 1st paragraph anyway, and discount what I have to say out of hand.

Fact is, the writer brought out some good points, which could benefit the farmers, in the long run.
Not one or two summer's crops, but sustainable agriculture in a natural dust bowl.
How much you wanna bet there will be a re-run of the past, with no one learning any lessons about water management?
How much you wanna bet that the only thing that's been done to rectify the situation is to go into court?
How much you wanna bet that no one has lifted a finger, or gotten off their butts to make sure the water situation gets better?
No attempts at conservation, or water management, no compromises with competing interests?

Everyone just fights over what is a Bad Situation All Around.
No One wants to solve the problems and share resources reasonably, they just want to take legal actions to get what's "their's".

If everyone just fights over diminishing water resources for the next 5 or 10 years, NO ONE WILL WIN.
You ALL will lose.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!!

[sasquatch]

FYI:
Almost ignored - at least in the early stages of the fish kill - was the impact of the Trinity River diversion, which began in
1963. Up to 90 percent of that river - almost 1 million acre-feet annually - is diverted south for industrial, agricultural and
residential use in central and southern California. That's far less than the diversion for the Klamath Project, which usually
ranges from 300,000 to 450,000 acre-feet annually.

http://www.heraldandnews.com/articles/2003/04/04/viewpoints/editorials/alook.txt

[Carry_Okie]

Now, here's an article, which shows clear evidence of the government's violation of it's own Wetland Protection Statutes.

Your response? Shoot the messenger.

I'm shooting the messenger for being a ruthless liar. There's so much in the article that is calculated distortion I'm not going to bother untangling it.

[Just another Joe]

Klamath ping

[countrydummy]

what a pack of lies! I see little to any truth in this article at all! Using the good ole increase in the economy and tourism dollars play makes me so sick! Just how, pray does that work, when there is no one left living in the area! OHHHH...grrrrrrrr!

[steelie]

Drug labs, heat wave, exceptional run of fish, false flow bump, all add up to a cascade effect. The water behind klamath dam is excess water collected during winter storms and spring snowmelt.

I will post a fuller story later today.

[hattend]

BTTT

[hubel458]

Drammach--You and Tim are asswipes.If you run hundreds of thousands ac ft of water to refuges by making them bigger, above and beyond what they get now, then there is not
water in storage for river it just evaporates.That's what used to happen, IE the river out of UKL dried up in some hot years.And thr refuges now are full, except where they do the seasonal flooding.And ther is no overall shortage of water, just a shortage of complete storage, which we are trying to get done. but you greens and your lawsuits have
things all screwed up.Then where they have storage(the Trinity side which you scum cover up), they send most to
S Cal, shorting Klamath Trinity system.And in last 25 years over a 100,000 acres of ranchland has went to wetlands above lake and it just hogs up the water, evaporating it so the lake and river is shorted worse now than before.You
people and your friends are all crooks and scum.
Crooks if you know this and scum if you don't, but
are letting it happen.Ed Hubel.

[Risa]

>>Fact is, the writer brought out some good points, which could benefit the farmers, in the long run.<<

I agree with you. The problem needs to be solved in a way that preserves the area's fragile system of water accumulation. Otherwise, a time will come when no one will have water.

As an aside, I don't understand why everyone assumes that the interests of people who farm are superior to the interests of people who fish or depend on tourism for a living? Am I missing some information? Did the fishing and tourism people come after the farmers? Is it because, by experience, forum people can better empathize with the farmer?

To me it seems an immense tragedy for whomever is left out of the solution. Before it was the farmers, now the others.

[Risa]

On the other hand, after reading the responses posted while I composed mine, I realize I don't really understand the causes of the problem, so I shall butt out.

regards,
risa

[farmfriend]

Part of the problem is that the science they used to claim the fish needed the water was bad science. The year the water was cut off to the farmers, lake levels were at record highs. They claimed the suckerfish needed 7 or 8 feet of water to survive yet they do well in Tulle lake that is 1.5' deep. They claimed they need the extra water for salmon but they did not count the hatchery salmon when they ruled the Coho endangered. Were talking about genetically identical fish. Also, salmon spend 95% of their life in the ocean but it was never listed as critical habitat. The Pacific oscillation, foreign fishing boats and predation were not considered in the original ruling. Plus the gentleman who set the lake levels for that year was the commodore for the local yacht club. The year the farmers were denied water was the first year they didn't have to pull their boats out of the water do to low lake levels.

[hubel458]

There is no big tragedy this year.All have plenty of
water, contrary to greenie statements.Their is so much water that a few hundred small fish died from the river being up and roaring, when they released many millions of them from the hatcheries.But they come out with statments that farms must be shut down.It is wet spring and water should be stored but lake was full.At least this year in late summer the judge will force the greenies in the Tribes and gov to put cool Trinity stored water, into the system when the fish are coming, which will stop fish deaths like last year.The greenie folks in control of the whole system
are responsible for that fish kill, last fall, by holding
back Trinity water.WHEN THOSE FISH CAME IN,, THERE WAS TEN
TIMES AS MUCH COOL WATER IN TRINITY STORAGE,,AS THE UPPER BASIN HAD STORED IN KLAMATH LAKE. And upper basin water was warm...So any problems are the result of greenie criminal mismanagement, by green judges, green tribal and gov potentates, and green politicos who do things do make present administration look bad.And I don't care about
present administration either on this problem, as they
could have made sure things were done right.We on the farm side are not at fault, and we told them they had the water to help those fish, and they didn't do it.Ed.