[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
WATER MANAGEMENT AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ISSUES IN THE KLAMATH BASIN
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
June 16, 2001 in Klamath Falls, Oregon
__________
Serial No. 107-39
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
73-135 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2002
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska, George Miller, California
Vice Chairman Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Elton Gallegly, California Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Samoa
Joel Hefley, Colorado Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Ken Calvert, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Scott McInnis, Colorado Calvin M. Dooley, California
Richard W. Pombo, California Robert A. Underwood, Guam
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Adam Smith, Washington
George Radanovich, California Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Islands
Carolina Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Mac Thornberry, Texas Jay Inslee, Washington
Chris Cannon, Utah Grace F. Napolitano, California
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Tom Udall, New Mexico
Bob Schaffer, Colorado Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Mark E. Souder, Indiana James P. McGovern, Massachusetts
Greg Walden, Oregon Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho Hilda L. Solis, California
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Brad Carson, Oklahoma
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Betty McCollum, Minnesota
C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, Idaho
Tom Osborne, Nebraska
Jeff Flake, Arizona
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana
Allen D. Freemyer, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeff Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on June 16, 2001.................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Gibbons, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Nevada............................................ 6
Hastings, Hon. Doc, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Washington........................................ 6
Herger, Hon. Wally, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 4
Pombo, Hon. Richard W., a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Simpson, Hon. Mike, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Idaho............................................. 8
Smith, Hon. Gordon, a U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon,
Letter submitted for the record............................ 161
Walden, Hon. Greg, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon............................................ 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Statement of Witnesses:
Bishop, Franklin M., President and CEO, Intermountain Farm
Credit..................................................... 90
Prepared statement of.................................... 93
Crawford, John, Klamath Project Farmer and Member of Tulelake
Irrigation District Board of Directors..................... 35
Prepared statement of.................................... 39
Fletcher, Troy, Executive Director, Yurok Tribe.............. 86
Prepared statement of.................................... 88
Foreman, Allen, Chairman, The Klamath Tribe of Oregon........ 75
Prepared statement of.................................... 78
Gaines, Bill, Director of Government Affairs, California
Waterfowl Association...................................... 139
Prepared statement of.................................... 142
Gasser, Robert E., Klamath Basin Businessman................. 144
Prepared statement of.................................... 146
Grader, William F. ``Zeke'', Executive Director, Pacific
Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations............... 119
Prepared statement of.................................... 122
Kerr, Andy, Senior Counselor, Oregon Natural Resources
Council.................................................... 95
Prepared statement of.................................... 96
Molder, Sharron, Principal, Tulelake High School, Tulelake,
California................................................. 41
Prepared statement of.................................... 44
Raybould, Hon. Dell, Idaho State Representative.............. 48
Prepared statement of.................................... 49
Solem, David, Manager, Klamath Irrigation District........... 104
Prepared statement of.................................... 106
Vogel, David A., President, Natural Resource Scientists, Inc. 57
Prepared statement of.................................... 58
West, Hon. M. Steven, 2001 Chairman, Klamath County Board of
Commissioners, Klamath County, Oregon...................... 29
Prepared statement of.................................... 31
Wooldridge, Sue Ellen, Deputy Chief of Staff, Department of
the Interior............................................... 9
Prepared statement of.................................... 13
Additional materials supplied:
Horton, Patricia L. et al., Letter submitted for the record
by Hon. Greg Walden........................................ 161
Miscellaneous Photographs and Letters submitted for the
record..................................................... 164
Roberts, Jack, Oregon Labor Commissioner, Statement submitted
for the record............................................. 162
WATER MANAGEMENT AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ISSUES IN THE KLAMATH BASIN
----------
Saturday, June 16, 2001
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Resources
Klamath Falls, Oregon
----------
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:20 a.m., at the
Klamath County Fairgrounds, 3531 S. 6th Street, Klamath Falls,
Oregon, Hon. Richard Pombo presiding.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RICHARD POMBO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Pombo. Good morning. I wanted to welcome everybody here
this morning. The hearing of the House Committee on Resources
will please come to order. Today, the Committee will exercise
its oversight jurisdiction with regard to the water management
and endangered species issues in the Klamath Basin. I would
like to thank everyone here for coming to this important event.
I would like to also thank Representative Greg Walden, whose
congressional district we are in this morning, as well as my
other colleagues present here today. I am grateful for their
interest in this important matter.
Let me begin by introducing myself. I am Richard Pombo. I
represent the 11th Congressional District in California, which
is the home of San Joaquin and Sacramento Counties. I do not
want to speak too long because we are here to listen to you. My
purpose today is to focus attention on the Klamath Basin
problem, find solutions and to assist in any way that we can.
Let me say this, though, after serving as Chairman of the
House Resources Committee, Endangered Species Act working
group, I have attended numerous hearings throughout the years
around the country and heard testimony from people who have
lost their homes, their jobs and their dignity due to
questionable interpretations of the Act. It is clear to me that
ESA has been misused for years by some advocacy groups to
threaten the rights of private property owners.
Further, the impacts from environmental lawsuits on
businesses and families throughout California and across the
nation have been financially and emotionally devastating. We
have sacrificed enough. I simply cannot stand by quietly as
farmers, ranchers, families and businesses, especially those in
the West who depend on natural resources for a living, suffer
for no constructive purpose.
It is time to take back our economic and constitutional
rights. After all, the human species deserves the most
important place in the ESA equation.
I look forward to hearing from the panels of witnesses
today, and to explore ways to improve the water management and
endangered species issues in the Klamath Basin and across the
Nation. Again, I want to thank everyone for being here this
morning, and I also want to point something out. It's taken a
tremendous amount of work putting this hearing on, and I
appreciate the interest that is shown by the number of people
who have turned out for the hearing today. Because this is an
official congressional hearing as opposed to a town hall
meeting, we have to abide by certain rules of the Committee and
of the House of Representatives, so we would ask that there be
no applause of any kind or any kind of demonstration with
regards to the testimony. It is important that we respect the
decorum and the rules of the Committee.
At this time I would like to recognize Mr. Walden for any
opening statement that he may have at this point.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pombo follows:]
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RICHARD W. POMBO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Good morning. Welcome, everyone. The hearing of the House Committee
on Resources will please come to order.
Today, the committee will exercise its oversight jurisdiction with
regard to the water management and endangered species issues in the
Klamath Basin.
I would like to thank everyone here for coming to this important
event. I would like to also thank Representative Greg Walden, whose
congressional district we are in this morning, as well as my other
colleagues present here today. I am grateful for their interest in this
important matter.
Let me begin by introducing myself. I am Richard Pombo. I represent
the 11th Congressional District of California, which is home to the San
Joaquin and Sacramento counties.
I do not want to speak too long because we are here to listen to
you. My purpose today is to focus attention on the Klamath Basin
problem, find solutions and to assist in any way that we can.
Let me say this, though, after serving as Chairman of the House
Resources Committee Endangered Species Act (ESA) working group, I have
attended numerous hearings throughout the years around the country, and
heard testimony from people who have lost their homes, their jobs and
their dignity due to questionable interpretations of the Act.
It is clear to me that ESA has been misused for years by some
advocacy groups to threaten the rights of private property owners.
Further, the impacts from environmental lawsuits on businesses and
families throughout California and across the nation have been
financially and emotionally devastating. We have sacrificed enough.
I simply cannot stand by quietly as farmers, ranchers, families,
and businesses, especially those in the West who depend on natural
resources for a living, suffer for no constructive purpose.
It is time to take back our economic and constitutional rights.
After all, the human species deserves the most important place in the
ESA equation.
I look forward to hearing from the panels of witnesses today, and
to explore ways to improve the water management and endangered species
issues in the Klamath Basin and across the nation.
Again, I want to again thank everyone for being here.
______
STATEMENT OF THE HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Walden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, colleagues.
I want to welcome you to the great 2nd District of the State of
Oregon and the Klamath Basin, ground zero of the Endangered
Species Act debate. I very much appreciate you taking your time
out of your busy schedules and away from your families and your
districts to come here on this Father's Day weekend to hear
from the people of this Basin about the problems that they face
and the potential solutions to them.
You know, sometimes I feel like the fellow who's speeding
along on one of those back country roads, and you come up over
the rise and here's a four-way intersection and there's a
terrible wreck in the middle of it. There's glass and twisted
metal and vehicles and injury, each driver saying he had the
right of way when he came to that intersection. In some
respects, it's that collision that we're examining today.
Tribal interests point to treaty obligations. Fishermen say
it's their right to have the water. Environmentalists say, Get
the farmers out and give us the water. The farmers point to
land grants that I've seen, signed by President Hoover in fact,
saying they want water forever. It is this wreck that we've
come upon.
For nearly a century these interests sped along their way,
and then on April 6th, 2001, the government stepped in and
said, No water for the farmers, and there was an extraordinary
disaster that's ensued since then.
First, we must do everything we can do to help the economic
lives of those who are having their water taken away, their
farms dried up and their livelihoods destroyed. We must provide
that help. Toward that end, we have gotten the administration
to agree to add $20 million into emergency supplemental
legislation. That money, approved by the Committee on Thursday,
will be voted on by the U.S. House of Representatives next
week. Know that that is but a drop in a dry canal in terms of
the economic devastation that's in this Basin. We're working on
18 other efforts to help get assistance, and we saw that today
with the food bank effort here.
The Committee's focus today is on what happened and why it
happened. How did we get to this point? It's on the reliability
of science and the openness of that process. It must focus on
how the Endangered Species Act works, and how it fails us, and
how it should be changed for the better. Our efforts today must
also focus on the future of this Basin. What can we do to
preserve a farming way of life here while improving water
quality and quantity for the other needs, and how rapidly can
we do that.
Some farmers simply want out. Frankly, I don't blame them.
They're being choked out and they have nowhere to go. They
should not be forced to shoulder the entire cost of the
Endangered Species Act requirements alone. But with the juicy
carrots that are being dangled in front of them, you have to
ask, Is this but yet another Federal proposal that will never
be carried out, a promise that will not be kept?
These are tragic times and present us with complex and
thorny problems that hundreds of thoughtful people have spent
years trying to sort out. It's clear to me the time has come
for significant Federal reform of the Endangered Species Act. I
hope today we will begin to see before us a way to untangle the
wreckage, restore the rights and resolve the conflicts in this
Basin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Chairman, colleagues. I welcome you to the Klamath Basin -
Ground Zero in the Endangered Species Act debate. I very much
appreciate your taking time away from your districts - and on father's
day weekend - your families - to come hear from the people of this
basin.
Sometimes I feel like the fella who's speeding along a back road
for hours without seeing another vehicle, comes up over a rise. Ahead
is a four-way intersection of gravel roads. And in the middle is the
worst, tangled mess of metal and glass you've ever seen. Each driver
saying he had the right of way.
In some respects, it is this collision that we examine today.
Tribal interests point to treaty obligations and argue for habitat
restoration and fish recovery beyond ESA levels to harvestable levels.
Pacific Coast Fishermen say the salmon's decline is due to habitat
and inadequate stream flows and demand more water.
Environmentalists say let the government buy out farmers and return
the land to its pre-settlement state.
Farmers point to land grants signed by President Hoover saying they
and their heirs will forever have water rights for mining, agriculture
and other uses. And they rely on the solid tenets of the Kuchel Act as
well.
For nearly a century these conflicting demands sped along their way
and then on April 6, 2001 they collided in the intersection that brings
us here today.
First, we must do triage to save the economic lives of the farmers
whose ditches are dry, whose fields are turning brown and whose bank
accounts are turning red.
Toward that end, I have encountered little objection. Next week the
House will vote to support $20 million in emergency disaster aid to
farmers. Thursday, I wrote to Secretary Veneman and told her relief
must come in the nature of grants - not loans - and that I stand ready
to assist if new legislative authority is needed to accomplish this. We
all know that time is of the essence.
We're working on 18 other efforts to get help to those in need -
from seven semi-truck loads of food for the food bank to working to get
livestock feed to ranchers to working on new ways to channel federal
forest and range jobs to local residents, we are leaving no stone
unturned.
The Committee's focus today is on what happened and why it
happened.
It is on the reliability of the science and the openness of the
process.
It must focus on how the Endangered Species Act works and how it
should be changed to work better.
Our efforts today must also focus on the future for this basin.
What can we do to preserve a farming way of life here while
improving water quality, quantity and fish habitat? And how rapidly can
we do it`?
Some farmers simply want out and 1 do not blame them. They should
not be forced to shoulder the cost of the ESA requirements alone. But
will the juicy carrot being dangled in front of those most desperate
materialize - or will it become just another unkept federal promise a
few years from now?
These are tragic times and they present us with complex and thorny
problems that hundreds of thoughtful people have spent years trying to
sort out.
It is clear to me that the time has come for significant federal
legislative action. 1 hope today we will begin to see before us a way
to untangle the wreckage, restore the rights and resolve the conflicts.
Thank you.
______
Mr. Pombo. Mr. Herger.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. WALLY HERGER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Herger. Thank you, Chairman Pombo, and all my other
colleagues for coming. I want to thank you for sharing our
strong concerns about the Endangered Species Act and for being
witness in our commitment to making the updates in the law that
are long overdue.
Ladies and gentlemen, we are at war with the extreme
environmentalists. What they have done in the Klamath Basin is
nothing short of a tragedy. I have never seen anything like it
in my years of public office. The Endangered Species Act has
been invoked to completely destroy an entire local economy
under the pretense of saving a non-commercial sucker fish. They
used bogus science, misinformation and their political friends
in the previous Clinton/Gore administration to bring an entire
community to its knees, and nothing in the law prevented it.
Nothing in the law required open decision making, public
involvement or public review. Nothing in the law required
independent review of the science. Nothing in the law required
that the needless social and economic suffering that were sure
to result would be considered.
There is something fundamentally wrong, and indeed, immoral
about this, and it must be changed. Across the West the
extremist environmentalists are using the Endangered Species
Act to drive farmers, ranchers and land owners from their homes
and from the lands that they have worked for generations. Their
goal is not to protect the environment. It is to destroy local
economies, bankrupt businesses and drive people from the land.
This is exactly what is happening in the Klamath Basin. To the
extreme environmentalist, there is no balance, there is no
middle ground.
Herein lies the challenge. We must use this tragedy to
educate the American public. Protecting the environment and
promoting economic well-being does not have to be an either/or
proposition. We have the experience and technical know-how to
do both. Indeed, we must do both, because a healthy environment
depends upon a healthy economy. There is no better example of
that than the centuries-long relationship between agriculture
and wildlife in the wildlife refuges right here in the Klamath
Basin.
What I can tell you is that they have only strengthened our
resolve, and we are not going to give up. The fact that we are
holding this hearing today on the dire need to update the
Endangered Species Act is a positive first step. And unlike the
last 8 years, we now have a presidential administration in
Washington that is willing to listen to our concerns and work
with us to ensure that common sense and balance prevail in the
implementation of our environmental laws and policies.
I would like to thank Sue Ellen Wooldridge for being here
to testify today. She worked extremely hard for us and did her
best with the hand she was dealt by the Clinton/Gore
administration. We are not here to criticize her efforts, but
we are here to ask her help and that of the administration in
working to fully undo the political decisions that have
devastated this economy. It is extremely unfortunate that the
real decision-makers, the Clinton/Gore officials who have
either retired or moved on, are not present today to answer for
their actions. I will strive to bring those individuals in
front of the Congress to be accountable for what they have
done.
Today, we must do two things. First, we must thoroughly
examine the science, the decision-making and the process by
which the biological opinions were developed so that we can
uncover the political knots, undo them and rework them, based
on, 1) independent peer-reviewed science, 2) actual historical
evidence and, 3) balance. Not politics, speculation and
guesswork. We must also uncover the specific provisions of the
Endangered Species Act that fostered this tragic result so that
we can begin developing recommendations for this Committee on
how to restore balance to this misguided law so that people and
communities will come first. Thank you.
Mr. Pombo. Mr. Gibbons.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JIM GIBBONS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First of
all, I want to join my colleagues in their comments about the
Endangered Species Act and its need for reform. And I do
believe at this point, Mr. Chairman, that everything that needs
to be said, has been said, perhaps not by everybody, but it has
been said already.
I want to look out here in the audience and just say thank
you. Can you hear me now? About the only thing I can do is
swallow this thing. I want to thank this community for your
courtesy and your hospitality in hosting us today throughout
this trying time. You have been just gracious, friendly and
overwhelmingly welcoming to us as we come here. And I want to
say as a Committee that we're here to listen, we're here to
learn, and we're here to join with you in your effort to help
reform the Endangered Species Act, and I believe that is our
common goal that we need to be here to do is to learn from you.
It has been said, Mr. Chairman, that World War II veterans
were America's greatest generation. In my view, it is America's
farmers and ranchers who are America's greatest generation for
feeding this country, to keep us free. This battle is the
Gettysburg of our nation in a civil war to ensure that our
environment and our economy will work together. If the ESA is
the Gettysburg of the Civil War right here in Klamath Falls, we
will begin this fight here, we will join in this fight, and we
will win in this fight to win the reform of the ESA. And if the
economy in Klamath Falls were radioactive, the ESA has become a
nuclear bomb, so we must win this war, not just for Klamath
Falls, but for states like Washington and Oregon, California
and Nevada. I want to thank you for having this hearing here
today.
Mr. Pombo. Mr. Hastings.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOC HASTINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mr. Hastings. Thanks you, Mr. Chairman. I think it's always
good to review history, because when the National Reclamation
Act was signed into law in 1902, the United States' vision to
expand and homestead in the West finally became a reality. The
development of irrigation and hydropower projects in the
seventeen western states commenced, and not long after, the
Klamath Projects in Oregon and California and the other
irrigation projects were authorized.
For those of us who live in and represent the regions that
encompass the Bureau of Reclamation Projects, we know very well
how irrigation and hydropower have developed our regions. Many
contractors can go back to their own history, to those who
homesteaded the West at the turn of the century. They were
seeking a better way of life, a new place to live, and the
government's water projects contributed to the development of a
robust agricultural economy.
The recent actions in the Klamath Basin, however, run
counter to that vision and violate the central promise of
western expansion. What we now face is a serious crisis in the
relationship between water, people and wildlife. But to a
greater extent, we face a serious crisis in the future of
Western ideals, philosophies and a way of life most of us have
been accustomed to. Actions in the Klamath Basin could have
much broader implications and may well lead to the exact
opposite goal of transforming the West. That implication could
be denying progress, locking up the land and driving people
out.
While some might find that these are rather harsh comments,
I must remind you that the Klamath Basin is not the only region
in the West that has been impacted by the underlying issue at
hand--the implementation of the Endangered Species Act and the
over-zealous targets regarding species recovery. I know this to
be true, because a similar experience is occurring in my own
district right now.
For 3 years, irrigators in the Medtile Valley in central
Washington have been without water. The National Marine Fishery
Service, or NMFS, shut the water off in order to save hatchery
salmon known as the Carson stock. While simultaneously shutting
off the water for farmers and devastating the economy in that
valley, only 50-plus miles away, NMFS was clubbing the same
Carson stock of hatchery fish. Why? Because NMFS determined
that the Carson stock was co-mingling with wild stock in a
different tributary, thus degrading the salmon population.
Now, this situation in the Medtile Valley is occurring at
the same time that salmon runs, both hatchery and wild, are the
largest in the Pacific Northwest since 1938. In addition, the
debate over endangered salmon is not over fish in general, but
specifically, the amount of wild fish in the system. Now, the
only way to distinguish a wild salmon from a hatchery salmon is
by a fin that the hatchery workers clip on hatchery bred
salmon, but hatchery fish have been spawning with wild stocks
for decades. The first hatchery was put into the Columbia
system nearly 80 years ago. But most importantly, this has been
going on before the passage of the Endangered Species Act.
Now, for those unfamiliar with the implementation of the
Endangered Species Act in the West, this story, of course,
sounds ludicrous; killing one species for co-mingling with
another, bankrupting communities to save endangered species
that humans consume, shutting off water that has been available
for nearly a hundred years to farmers and ranchers in order to
save suckers. As communities, governments and industry and
tribal interests continue to discuss and debate the future of
endangered species in the West, we need to come to a resolution
on one very important issue.
We know that fish need water. That's self-evident. But no
Federal agency or entity has ever determined with good science
just how much water is enough. We know how much water is
necessary for irrigation, for transportation, for power
generation, but there is no agreement on how much water fish
require. We must be able to quantify what constitutes recovery.
Regulations and enforcement should not refer to pre-civilized
conditions. How did fish survive when drought occurred before
the West was inhabited? Are we to use pre-civilization alleged
fish counts as goals for endangered species recovery? I think
not. Due to the decision by the U.S. Government to settle the
West, people are here and the landscape has changed, and we
must accept that.
Because the lives and futures of people have been subject
to extreme actions due to fish, my colleagues and I are
seriously committed to amending the Endangered Species Act.
Until each of these scenarios related to endangered species
recovery is addressed, including the economic impact of
listings on local communities, it will be extremely difficult
to come to any consensus on salmon recovery.
If the Klamath Basin and the Medtile Valley serve as
guidelines for what lengths the Federal bureaucracy will go for
endangered species recovery, then to me it is clear that the
commonsense approaches are really the endangered species. We
must require sound science, we must require economic balance,
we must inject reason and leadership into the decision-making,
and we must ensure that the Federal Government is not over-
stepping its bounds by interpreting the law at levels that
seriously harm people and communities.
We cannot turn back the hands of time and assume the
Klamath Basin or any other region of the West should operate as
it once did. Instead, we must find creative solutions whereby
everyone can utilize the water. We know that people here today
want these solutions. Unfortunately, there are others, mostly
outside of our region, who do not want solutions. They want an
issue as a weapon to advance their agenda.
The solutions that we seek must include fish and people. It
is not an either/or decision. And we can do this together,
provided that we set guidelines that are manageable, attainable
and reasonable. I don't think any of us here today would
consider ourselves as anti-fish, but we must also recognize
that not just fish rely on natural resources for survival.
I'm honored and privileged to be here with my colleagues,
and I want to thank my good friends, Greg Walden and Wally
Herger, who represent this area, for their efforts on behalf of
you. And I also want to congratulate and work with Richard
Pombo, who has been the lead in the U.S. Congress in amending
the Endangered Species Act, and I pledge to work with them so
that we can find a solution to this in the long term. And I
thank all of you for being here today.
Mr. Pombo. Mr. Simpson.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MIKE SIMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I see the microphones
are working about as good as the ESA is. I do want to thank
Greg for inviting me to your district. It is as beautiful as
you've always told me it is down here, and I want to tell you
all that I have never seen anybody as active at working on a
problem for their constituents as Congressman Walden and
Congressman Herger have been in this area, and we owe them all
a great deal of thanks for what they have been doing, because
they have been up day and night trying to address this problem
and solve it for you.
I am very pleased to be here, but I'm sorry that I need to
be here. I have come, like the rest of my colleagues here, to
listen to these individuals that are going to testify, to see
if we can find some solutions to this problem that is facing
us.
Many people have seen this train wreck coming for many
years. Our Chairman of our hearing today, Mr. Pombo, has warned
about this train wreck for years and years, so it comes as no
surprise to many of us, but I'm sorry that it happened here
first or to the extent that it has here first. My concern is
not only for the welfare of you that live here in this Basin,
but for the fact that if this action isn't halted, it will
spread throughout the entire West. It will effect every
district of every Congressman in the entire west, and it needs
to be addressed.
Some say that there are no changes necessary to the
Endangered Species Act. I would suggest that if there are no
changes necessary to the Endangered Species Act then common
sense has no place in our laws or their application. I think we
need to bring common sense back into the Endangered Species
Act, a law that passed overwhelmingly with bipartisan support
when it was adopted. I don't think anyone anticipated the
extent to which the Endangered Species Act would be
misconstrued, as it has been. Today, I doubt we could get the
Endangered Species Act through Congress, if we didn't have one,
if we knew then what we know now, so we need to look at this,
we need to work with our colleagues, some of the individuals
who haven't felt the impacts of the Endangered Species Act like
we have in the West. So I'm very glad to be here and I look
forward to the testimony. Again, I congratulate Mr. Walden and
Mr. Herger for the work that they're doing on your behalf.
Thank you.
Mr. Pombo. Thank you. I would like to invite our first
witness, Sue Ellen Wooldridge, representing the Department of
the Interior, to join us at the witness table.
Good morning. I want to thank you for being here this
morning. I know that your prepared testimony has been turned in
to the Committee already. I would like to ask that you keep
your oral testimony to 5 minutes. We will then have questions
from the Committee. I will limit my colleagues to 5 minutes
each for their questions. All the panels will be run that way
here so that we can try to stay on time with the hearing. So
thank you very much for being here. If you're ready, you can
begin.
STATEMENT OF SUE ELLEN WOOLDRIDGE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Ms. Wooldridge. Great, thank you. Thank you very much,
Congressman Pombo. I am endeavoring to do my best to keep my
remarks to 5 minutes. I will help myself by speaking quickly
because I think I do have more than 5 minutes to say. I do want
to thank you for the invitation to participate here today. I
think I join with Congressman Simpson that I am pleased to be
here today, but not happy to be here today.
I have with me representatives of the Bureau of
Reclamation, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Fish and Wildlife
Service, U.S. Geological Survey, Secretary's Indian Water
Rights Office, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Marine Fishery Service, and they are
here to assist me, should you have some specific technical
questions which are beyond my competence.
Mr. Pombo. Thank you.
Ms. Wooldridge. Last month I and other administration
representatives spent several days and evenings traveling in
the Basin. We started about at the peak of the Sprague River
and the Sycan River, and we made it all the way down to Arcada.
We met with farmers and ranchers from project and non-project
areas, leaders from the Klamath Tribes, Yurok, Karuk and Hoopa
Tribes, with Federal, State, city and county officials, various
environmentalists, commercial fishermen, PacifiCorp which runs
the dams on the Klamath, and numerous other interested
citizens.
I would like to recognize them now, and also acknowledge
the folks who are sitting behind me, for what I perceive as
their continued and unfailing politeness and courtesy in
dealing with the Federal representatives that were out here at
that time, and here today. Their comments were frank, pointed,
helpful, and I think will help us fulfill our purpose in coming
out here, which was to look for long-term solutions for the
problems within the Basin. We were moved, pained, upset by the
stories we heard. We're not indifferent to them, by any means,
and they are difficult at best to cure. And it is extremely
difficult to be part of something that leads to those
conclusions.
We heard about farms closing, we heard about fathers moving
away from families to find work, businesses laying off workers,
a myriad of problems in schools with children who hear their
parents discuss their woes in the evening and have to go to
school the next day, wondering if they're still going to be in
the school district. The stories were endless and compelling.
We heard their frustrations. But, again, as I said, we were
impressed and want to thank them again for their graciousness.
Secretary Norton speaks regularly of her 4-C approach to
managing the Department--Communication, Consultation,
Cooperation, all in the service of Conservation. It means that
we as the Federal Government, representing the Department of
the Interior, must communicate a consistent message, consult
with interested and affected parties, cooperate with local
regional interests and conserve our cultural and national
heritage. Our trip was intended to further these principles.
We were told the basin needs Federal leadership; and quite
frankly, that was a little astonishing to those of us who are
generally in favor of local control and local interest. What's
that?
Mr. Pombo. Just ignore it and keep going.
Ms. Wooldridge. That's 4 minutes? Okay, I'm sorry. I will
go fast.
Mr. Pombo. I'll say this. This is the only time you're ever
going to hear me say this. I will be liberal with the time.
Ms. Wooldridge. Okay. I have no idea where to go from here.
I just finished one of my 7 pages.
We were told the basin needed Federal leadership, and it
was kind of a shock to us. It was a shock to us, but we are
prepared to exercise that leadership and work in cooperation
with the locals to try to come up with some solution, and I
know that all the Members on the panel are willing to do that
as well. And I don't honestly think a Federal crammed-down
solution is the answer in the basin, but I know that with good
will and a lot of heavy effort and lifting, we can come up and
try to help resolve these problems.
The second theme we heard when we were here had to do with
drought and financial relief that was needed for the basin.
Third, we heard that the scientific basis of the Federal
management decisions must be improved. I will speak to that
more generally in a moment. And finally, we heard there was a
strong desire for this basin-wide solution.
We have severe drought conditions here. I was informed
yesterday that we are now in the driest year on record in the
basin. We've surpassed the 1977 drought. By law, the Department
of the Interior plays rolls in this. As you know, the Bureau of
Reclamation operates the project. We have trust
responsibilities to the tribes. The Fish and Wildlife Service
operates the refuges. And with all of these, we have to obey
the law which exercises and determines the priorities for the
water in the basin.
As you all know, on April 6th, based on the priorities and
the biological opinions of the Fish and Wildlife Service and
the National Marine Fishery Service, reclamation announced that
it was unable to operate the Upper Klamath Lake this year and
to provide Project water for irrigation or the refuges. So what
are we doing about that?
Congressman Walden referenced that the administration had
requested $20 million in the supplemental budget. I understand
the House Appropriations Committee has redirected the request
to cover the release of not less than $20 million from
available funds from the Commodity Credit Corporation. The
preventive planting coverage, I believe, from the Department of
Agriculture, which I know has some limitations, is part of the
standard crop insurance. USDA has allocated two million to the
Basin through Emergency Watershed Protection, and USDA's Farm
Service Agency has provided some initial allocations, up to a
half million dollars. Reclamation is working on ground water
supplies. California's Office of Emergency Service is making
available five million dollars to help with ground water
development. Reclamation is continuing ground water
investigations, both in Oregon and California. The list goes
on, and I would go through them all, but I want to try to get
to some of the things I know are important to the panel and to
the people in the audience.
Interior is continuing to lead an inter-agency group back
in Washington and out here on the ground with folks who are out
here, trying to come up with ideas for resolving the long-term
problems within the Basin, and we will continue that as long as
we can and there's good will and interest in having us be
involved in that.
Let me turn to the science. One of the things that was a
consistent theme, and we've heard it today as well, is that the
science underlying the biological opinions which formed the
basis for the decision that Project deliveries could not been
made was bad science, irresponsible, not credible, you name it.
We were told that the science was not exposed to a public
process or peer review, and is thus susceptible to these
criticisms.
The Endangered Species Act requires that the protection of
species be based on the best science available. That is the
statutory mandate. One does not need to agree or disagree about
whether that standard was achieved in order to believe that the
process of making ESA determinations should be as transparent
as possible. It is vital that the Department of the Interior
and the other participants base water and fish decisions on
sound science and an objective assessment of what we know and
don't know.
In our quest for credibility, we cannot ignore the
criticisms we receive. We are mindful, for instance, that one
set of reviewers in this case commented with respect to our
draft biological opinion that it was difficult to evaluate
because it was, and I am quoting, Full of--actually, that was
an ellipsis full of--now I'm quoting--``Misspelled words,
incomplete sentences, apparent word omissions, missing or
incomplete citations, repetitive statements, vagueness,
illogical conclusions, inconsistent and contradictory
statements, often back to back, factual inaccuracies, lack of
rigor, and rampant speculation.''
While many of these criticisms related to the form in the
Fish and Wildlife and NMFS opinions, a number related to their
substance, and thus, the quality of the opinions with respect
to their being based on the best science available. And while
Fish and Wildlife Service made a multitude of changes after
those criticisms were leveled, the existence of that type of
criticism does not give rise to public confidence in the work
of the Department. We agree that not all of the science used
for the NMFS opinion for the Coho, or the Fish and Wildlife
opinion for the suckers, has been independently peer-reviewed.
And actually, just as an aside, when we first came in to
the new administration, laying there waiting for us were
letters from a number of you on this panel, pointing out the
insufficiencies of that peer review process. Where peer review
science was available, the Fish and Wildlife Service and NMFS
used it. Where unpublished ``gray literature'' data was
available, they used it. The Services continued to believe that
the opinions were reasonable and based on the best science
available. Unfortunately, the public does not have the
additional opinion of scientists with the appearance of
independence to confirm or deny this, and thus, the criticisms
are left unanswered and we cannot point to independent peer
review to lend credibility.
In order to address these concerns, the Secretary will
direct the science upon which the Fish and Wildlife Service's
biological opinion is based, and which exists in the
administrative record, be subject to an independent scientific
review. Such a review is to be conducted by an objective,
outside scientific body or group of experts that is widely
recognized and has a disciplined scientific review focus. The
science underlying the NMFS biological opinion will be subject
to similar review. In addition, plans already exist to subject
the forthcoming study by Professor Hardy to independent peer
review.
At a minimum, the independent science review should be
asked to assess the degree to which the opinions used--I'm
sorry--the Services use the best scientific information
available at the time they prepare their biological opinions to
assess how the Services use the science information available
to make their management recommendations, identify objective
scientific information that has become available since those
opinions were prepared, and identify gaps in the knowledge and
scientific information. In addition, the USGS, building on that
scientific assessment, will undertake scientific studies
focused on the identified knowledge gaps. As a non-regulatory
agency with a purely scientific mission, the USGS will direct
its science in both the upper and lower basin toward the
critical needs of the decision makers as we go forward.
With regard to project operations in the coming years, when
we develop future long-term operations plans, we will instruct
ourselves to fully review the existing scientific data and seek
appropriate public comment as we go forward into the next water
years. This concludes my prepared testimony. I'm pleased to
answer any questions you may have.
Mr. Pombo. Thank you. Ms. Wooldridge, I'd like to
concentrate, if I can, on the science for a little bit. The
Endangered Species Act requires that the Services use the best
available science. When there is conflicting science, when
different groups--different outside groups, the Fish and
Wildlife Service, NMFS, and others have done biological
surveys, have looked at data and come to different conclusions
and there's a difference, how does Fish and Wildlife Service
determine which is the best available science?
Ms. Wooldridge. How, as in what is the legal obligation or
process by--.
Mr. Pombo. What do you use? How do you base your decision?
Ms. Wooldridge. Well, this may be the place where I need to
turn to one of the people who are sitting here. I don't know if
you wish to have them here. My understanding is very basic, and
that is that they take into account those comments and go out
to those persons who have made those decisions and discuss them
and test them, but I can't answer that question more precisely
than that.
Mr. Pombo. If you could prepare an answer to that question
and have it for the record of the hearing, I would appreciate
it, because I've known a number of cases, when we are looking
at listings or habitat designations, there are differing
opinions from different biologists and different scientists,
and it appears to me that some of that science is ignored.
Ms. Wooldridge. Well, it does seems to be the case when you
deal with these, where you have--the science is all agreed to
in the sense of the data, and you have differing conclusions or
analyses from that data. I can tell you, as a decision-maker,
it's very difficult to decide what the tie breaker is. And the
Fish and Wildlife Service has their obligation, and they do
what they believe they are required to do by making a judgment
as to which is more likely, and they have a statutory
obligation to choose the one that is the most conservative in
the sense of protecting species. But I can understand that, and
I will be happy to provide the answer.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Wooldridge follows:]
STATEMENT OF SUE ELLEN WOOLDRIDGE, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF, DEPARTMENT OF
THE INTERIOR
Thank you for the invitation to participate today in this oversight
hearing on the Endangered Species Act and Water Management in the
Klamath Basin. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today on behalf
of the Department of the Interior. I have with me representatives of
the Bureau of Reclamation, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Fish and
Wildlife Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, and Secretary's Indian
Water Rights Office, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration within the Department of Commerce. They are here to
assist in responding to specific questions you may have. I will make
some brief oral comments but I request that my entire written statement
be included in the record of this hearing.
MY VISIT TO KLAMATH BASIN AND WHAT WE HAVE LEARNED
Last month, I and other administration representatives spent
several days and evenings traveling the length of the Klamath Basin.
Our intention was to meet with as many individuals and groups as
possible to learn first-hand the circumstances faced by the Basin, the
perceived needs of the Basin as understood by the various groups, and
the effects, both existing and potential, that the Federal Government
has had and will have on the Basin.
We met with farmers and ranchers whose lands are above Upper
Klamath Lake, farmers who have lands within the Bureau of Reclamation
project area, leaders from the Klamath, Yurok, Hoopa Valley, and Karuk
tribes, with Federal, state, city and county agency and elected
officials, environmentalists from a myriad of organizations, school
administrators, business people, commercial fishermen, management
personnel from PacifiCorp (Scottish Power), as well as interested
citizens not belonging to any of those groups. Each person or group
described for us in vivid detail the impact that current drought, and
the Endangered Species Act and other federal legal requirements were
having on their businesses, their families, those they serve, or the
interests they wish to protect. I would like to recognize and, through
this record, thank everyone we met with for their frank and helpful
comments.
I was greatly moved by my meetings and pained by stories of the
distress of many people here, stories of farms closing operations,
fathers moving from families to find work, businesses laying off
workers. I was equally moved by a desire to do as much as we can to
help and to renew some degree of certainty to lives in this region. I
am also painfully aware of limitations brought by a very limited
resource and the multiple demands on it, and by the multiple
responsibilities of the Department.
Secretary Norton speaks regularly of her 4-C approach to managing
the Department of the Interior - COMMUNICATION, CONSULTATION,
COOPERATION, and CONSERVATION. To manage resources and our legal
responsibilities effectively, we must 1) Communicate a consistent
message; 2) Consult with interested and effected parties; 3) cooperate
with local and regional interests; and 4) Conserve our natural and
cultural heritage. Our trip was intended to further these principles.
We learned many things. While opinions varied as widely as the
subject matter, we did hear a number of common themes.
First, we were told that the Basin needs leadership by the Federal
Government to address the conflicts at hand. This was relatively
surprising to us, and generally inconsistent with our philosophy that
local problems are solved best by local solutions. However, it is also
understandable, as there seems to be a Basin-wide view that the Federal
Government - including Federal law - is largely responsible for the
existing conditions.
These conditions are variously described by the differing groups as
including over-allocation of existing water, broken treaty rights, past
favor toward agricultural interests, breach of promise to agricultural
interests, bad or corrupt science, inadequate funding of water
enhancement projects, poor forest and habitat management, overly
conservative interpretation of existing resource data, failure to
encourage the State of Oregon to address diversions by upper basin
water users and general callousness toward the economic and human
impacts of resource management decisions.
The second common theme we heard is that immediate drought and
financial relief is needed for farmers and the farming communities. As
one local leader (Marshall Staunton) described it, the Federal law-
mandated cut-off of water to the Klamath Project is a--major human
tragedy in the Upper Klamath River Basin.'' There are approximately
1,400 farmers in the region, many of them small producers, and
agriculture and agriculture-related businesses are a substantial factor
in the Basin's economy. However, because of the water shortage, many
farmers have not been able to plant crops or maintain livestock herds.
Third, we heard that the scientific basis of Federal management
decisions must be improved. While I will address this issue in a few
moments, it is beyond question that where Federal resource decisions
are made, the scientific basis of those decisions should be
unassailable as biased or less than the best available science.
Finally, we heard a strong desire for a basin-wide solution which
will provide predictability and certainty. This presents both a
quandary and an opportunity. There exists in the Basin a wide variety
of groups or mechanisms dedicated to solving some part of the Basin's
problems. These include, to name a few, the Upper Klamath Basin
(Hatfield) Working Group, the Klamath Watershed Coordination Group, the
Oregon Klamath Adjudication Alternative Dispute Resolution process, the
Klamath Basin Compact Commission, the Klamath River Basin Fisheries
Task Force and most recently, the mediation conducted in conjunction
with the Kandra litigation. The quandary is how to utilize these
existing forums and groups to achieve solutions. The opportunity is
demonstrated by the obvious and overwhelming interest of the people in
the Basin to find them.
So, having heard these common themes, what are we doing? First, I
will discuss the current situation, then our efforts to date and
finally, what we intend to do.
WHERE WE ARE - DROUGHT and ESA
While in this crisis much focus has been on the Endangered Species
Act, it should not be forgotten what local residents already know -
severe drought conditions are affecting the Basin. Snow water and
precipitation amounts for the water year are well below average.
Currently, the basin-wide precipitation is one half of normal.
Streamflow forecasts are near record low levels. Projected net-inflow
to Upper Klamath Lake for the summer is expected to be less than 35
percent of average. Inflow to Gerber and Clear Lake reservoirs has
ceased.
The Federal Government has placed the Klamath Basin in ``D3''
status, which predicts ``. . . damage to crop or pasture losses likely;
fire risk very high; water shortages common; water restrictions
imposed.'' The Governors of Oregon and California and the U.S.
Secretary of Agriculture have issued drought declarations for Klamath,
Modoc, and Siskiyou counties. In short, this is the worst drought since
1977, and potentially the worst on record.
By law, the Department of the Interior plays several roles in the
management of resources in the Klamath Basin. The Bureau of Reclamation
(Reclamation) operates the Project, which includes the management of
water levels in Upper Klamath Lake and Gerber Reservoir (both in
Klamath County, Oregon), as well as Clear Lake Reservoir (in Siskiyou
County, California). The Project historically provides water to
approximately 210,000 acres of irrigated agriculture and two major
portions of the Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuge complex. The
Project also affects flows in the Klamath River through an agreement
with PacifiCorp, a hydropower company that operates Link River Dam at
the south end of Upper Klamath Lake.
The Secretary has a trust obligation to the Native American Tribes.
Four federally-recognized tribes reside in the Klamath Basin'the
Klamath Tribes of Oregon and the Hoopa Valley Tribe, the Karuk Tribe,
and the Yurok Tribe of California. These Tribes have recognized
property interests in the Basin which the United States holds in trust
for their behalf and which varies with the individual Tribe and its
associated ethnological and legal history. Among other interests, the
Klamath Tribes have treaty-protected fishing, hunting, and gathering
rights, and the Hoopa Valley and Yurok Tribes also have federally
reserved fishing rights in the Klamath Basin. The fishing rights
entitle the Tribes to harvest for subsistence, ceremonial, and
commercial purposes. The Tribes also have water rights in the Basin
necessary to support their resources.
The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) operates six National Wildlife
Refuges in the Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuge complex, and the
FWS carries out consultations for Federal actions under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) for species listed by the Service.
The National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) complex covers more than 150,000
acres. The Lower Klamath NWR is host to the largest fall population of
staging waterfowl in the Pacific Flyway (nearly 1.8 million birds),
winters the largest concentration of bald eagles (200-900 birds) in the
Lower 48 states, and supports 20-30% of the Central Valley population
of sandhill cranes during fall migration. In addition, the refuge hosts
large numbers of nesting waterbirds and diverse wildlife species. Water
for this management program is normally provided through Reclamation
facilities.
The Klamath Basin refuge complex annually has over 55,000 visitors
for recreation and bird-watching. In addition, there were over 16,000
migratory bird hunters in 1999, a number reduced to 13,000 last year
due a short-term water shortage. These visitors provide considerable
economic benefits to local businesses. The lack of water this year will
force a significant reduction in waterfowl hunting at these refuges,
and may lead to a fall-off in other visits as well.
The FWS is also responsible under the Endangered Species Act for
the Lost River and shortnose suckers, which occur only in the upper
Klamath Basin and are listed as endangered. The National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) has the lead ESA responsibility for
consultation on the coho salmon which is listed as threatened. These
and other fish have supported Tribal fisheries and a large commercial
fishery at the mouth of the river; these fisheries have been greatly
diminished in recent years.
Several legal mandates affect the management of Project water to
meet these multiple needs. Following a review of the various
authorities, the Department has managed the Project for the following
purposes: 1) species listed under the ESA; 2) Tribal trust
responsibilities, 3) irrigated agriculture, and 4) National Wildlife
Refuges. This order of priority was confirmed by the Court in Klamath
Water Users Protective Association v. Patterson.
Under the ESA, the Bureau of Reclamation must consult with its
sister agency the FWS and the NMFS regarding impacts of Project
operations on endangered suckers and threatened coho salmon. This has
been a long and complex process and the subject of much public
discussion. On April 5 and on April 6, 2001, the FWS and the NMFS,
respectively, provided Reclamation with final Biological Opinions
regarding operation of the Klamath Project for the 2001 water year.
Reclamation conformed its operations plan to those opinions.
On April 6, 2001, Reclamation announced that with the exception of
delivery of 70,000 acre feet for Project irrigated acres on areas
served from Clear Lake and Gerber Reservoir, and a certain amount of
water to be delivered to Tule Lake Sump for the protection of suckers,
no water would be delivered from Upper Klamath Lake for Project
operations. Reclamation is unable to operate Upper Klamath Lake this
year to provide project water supply for irrigation or for the refuges.
ASSISTANCE
Since the Committee will not hear directly from the Department of
Agriculture, I will address the immediate efforts undertaken by the
Administration to provide what relief is available under current
authorizations and appropriations. The Administration, Secretary
Norton, and Secretary Veneman are committed to working with Congress to
ensure these funds are appropriately invested in the region to assist
producers during this difficult time
The Administration and the Department of Agriculture
President Bush requested $20 million in his supplemental budget for
the Department of Agriculture to make available financial assistance to
eligible producers in the Klamath Basin. This $20 million was proposed
to supplement existing assistance already available to help farmers and
ranchers adversely affected due to limited water availability in the
region. I understand that the House Appropriations Committee has just
re-directed this request to cover the release of not less than $20
million from available funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation, in
the belief that this may be a more efficient means to provide the
funds.
Prevented planting coverage is part of the standard crop insurance
contract and is available on insurable crops in the impacted counties,
except forage production and nursery. For producers with crops
ineligible for coverage through the crop insurance program, USDA's Non-
insured Assistance Program (NAP) provides compensation similar to that
available through crop insurance. Crops covered through NAP in the
Klamath area include alfalfa hay, onions, mint, horseradish, rye,
forage (grazed), forage (production, Oregon only), and various other
minor crops.
Through the Emergency Watershed Protection program USDA has
allocated $2 million to the basin area for re-seeding efforts, which
will help farmers establish vegetative cover with low moisture
requirements on lands that they had laid bare in anticipation of
planting, reducing wind erosion.
Additionally, USDA's Farm Service Agency has provided almost
$400,000 to help farmers get water for their livestock. Initial
allocation for Klamath County, Oregon is $225,000 and $167,000 total
for 2 California counties, Modoc and Siskiyou.
Interior
A. Groundwater Supplies:
1. Cooperation with State Programs. The Bureau of Reclamation
(Reclamation), in partnership with the Oregon Water Resources
Department (ORWD) and the California Department of Water Resources
(CDWR) is working to develop groundwater supplies to assist
agricultural water users served by the Klamath Project.
Reclamation met with high-level policy makers from CDWR and ORWD on
May 11, 2001, to coordinate fast-track groundwater development for this
year and to develop a longer-term program to use groundwater for
drought contingencies and supply augmentation purposes.
Wells in some locations may have to be drilled to a depth of
between 700 and 1,000 feet (or greater) to reach the water-bearing
volcanic zone, which may exceed $300,000 per well. The potential yield
(short-term and long-term) is unknown. Groundwater in the Klamath Basin
has never been put to such a test, so the amount of yield that may be
sustained is unknown at this time.
California's Office of Emergency Service is making available up to
$5 million to Tule Lake Irrigation District. Wells are anticipated to
be on line this year, to help soften the blow, and Reclamation
continues to cooperate with state agencies to facilitate construction
of wells.
Reclamation is continuing groundwater investigations in both the
Oregon and California portions of the Klamath Basin that began with the
October 1997 Klamath Basin Water Supply Initiative. Groundwater
development holds potential in this area as a supplemental tool to be
included for any long-term water management plan, and Reclamation will
continue to coordinate with the State governments to further long-term
efforts to use groundwater resources to help supplement dry-year needs
in the Klamath Basin. While the effort currently under way may generate
some supplemental water supplies later this summer, it will likely not
generate a fully-developed dry-year supply.
OWRD and USGS are cooperating on a regional ground water study in
the Upper Klamath Basin. The study includes agricultural areas in
southern Oregon and northern California. Reclamation has provided
logistical and financial support to this effort. This regional ground
water study will take 4 to 6 years to complete due to the data
collection requirements. This study represents the primary effort to
determine the amount of ground water that can be produced on a long-
term basis.
2. Reclamation, Groundwater Acquisition. Reclamation has initiated
a program to purchase groundwater from willing sellers to augment
Klamath Project water supplies during the current irrigation season.
Nearly $2.2 million in fiscal year 01 in drought funding will be spent
on this endeavor. The emphasis is on supporting preventative planting
of cover crops to prevent soil erosion. Reclamation has partnered with
OWRD to develop up to 60,000 acre-feet of groundwater during this
season for stream flow, water quality, and project supply augmentation.
In addition, funding for lining of canals in California and Oregon
district will help water conservation for the short and long term.
B. Groundwater in National Wildlife Refuges:
The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is focusing on groundwater
development in the Klamath Basin. It is estimated that in the future,
refuges will experience conditions wherein 70 percent of the refuge
wetlands will be dry 70 percent of the time during fall waterbird
migration. Impacts are likely to be felt throughout the Pacific Flyway.
To address this situation in the short term, the FWS has commissioned a
groundwater study on the Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge in
California where eleven test wells have been developed. Nine of these
wells adjacent to, or on the refuge show promise. Two wells produced
geothermal water. The FWS intends to develop 23,000 acre-feet of
groundwater, intended for late summer/early fall use, when refuge water
supplies are most critical. It may be possible to get one or two wells
on-line in time to meet refuge requirements this fall.
The FWS is also considering purchasing an additional well from a
private owner, as well as paying for groundwater pumped from another
owner. This water will be applied at a rate of 35 acre-feet/day to keep
the largest unit from going dry for a 150-day period starting on June
1. Pumping associated with this program is eligible for Reclamation
Project power rates.
C. Agency Coordination
Further, with respect to Interior's efforts, the Secretary has
taken the lead in coordinating among Interior, the Department of
Agriculture, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
and internally, we have formed a working group to explore potential
long term solutions and work with the states and with all interested
local groups.
SCIENCE
As I stated earlier, we have received much criticism of the science
used to support our decisions under the ESA. Specifically, we have been
told that the science used was not exposed to a public process nor peer
reviewed and thus does not appear credible.
The ESA requires that protection of species be based on the best
science available. One does not need to agree or disagree about whether
that standard was achieved in order to believe that the process of
making ESA determinations should be as transparent as possible. It is
vital that Interior and other participants base water and fish
decisions on sound science and an objective assessment of what we know
and what we don't know.
In our quest for credibility, we cannot ignore the criticisms we
receive. In this case, we are mindful that while many of these
criticisms relate to the form of the FWS and NMFS Opinions, a number
relate to their substance, and thus the quality of the Opinions with
respect to their being based on the ``best science available.'' We
agree that not all of the science used for the NMFS opinion for the
Coho or the FWS opinion on the suckers has been independently peer
reviewed. Where peer reviewed science was available, the Services used
it. Where unpublished ``gray literature'' data was available, the
Services used it. The Services believe that the opinions are reasonable
and based on the best science available. Unfortunately, the public does
not have the additional opinions of scientists with the appearance of
independence to confirm this.
In order to address the concerns expressed about the scientific
basis for management decisions in the Klamath Basin, the Secretary will
direct that the science upon which the FWS Biological Opinion is based,
and which exists in the Administrative Record, be subject to an
independent scientific review. Such a review is to be conducted by an
objective outside scientific body that is widely recognized and has a
disciplined scientific review focus. The science underlying the NMFS
Biological Opinion will be subject to similar review. In addition,
plans already exist to subject the forthcoming DOI commissioned study
by Professor Hardy, from Utah State University, to independent peer
review. At a minimum, the independent science review body should be
asked to:
1. Lassess the degree to which the the determinations made by the FWS
and NMFS were based on best existing knowledge and best available
scientific information at the time they prepared their biological
opinions;
2. Lassess how the FWS and NMFS used the scientific information
available to make management recommendations;
3. Lidentify objective scientific information that has become available
since the FWS and NMFS prepared the biological opinions; and
4. Lidentify gaps in the knowledge and scientific information that need
to be addressed.
Building on this scientific assessment--as part of Interior's own
scientific efforts in the Klamath Basin--USGS will undertake additional
scientific studies focused on the identified knowledge gaps. As a non-
regulatory agency with a purely scientific mission, USGS will direct
its science in both the upper and lower basin toward the critical needs
of decision makers.
Additionally, in fiscal year 2001, the FWS began to collect
baseline information for a study to assess fish habitat conditions in
the Klamath River and its tributaries below Iron Gate Dam. We hope that
actions will result from the study that will help recover species,
avoid further listings, enhance tribal trust responsibilities, restore
recreational fisheries and related local economies, and reduce impacts
of conservation efforts on water users.
LOOKING AHEAD
Interior has organized longer term efforts. I can report on very
good progress in implementing Public Law 106-498, the Klamath Basin
Water Supply Enhancement Act.
As I noted earlier, Reclamation in 1997 entered into a partnership
with the States of Oregon and California and the Klamath River Compact
Commission to begin a Water Supply Initiative. Based on information
collected through sustained public outreach efforts, Reclamation has
identified 95 potential projects.
Public Law 106-498 provides Interior important authority and
direction to advance efforts begun under the Initiative, and authorizes
additional important feasibility studies. Representatives of Oregon and
California are very interested in expanding the partnerships initiated
with the Water Supply Acquisition Program by participating in the
feasibility studies authorized in Public Law 106-498. Reclamation will
be working closely with the States over the next few months to develop
a comprehensive strategy for full implementation of the Act.
The Act authorized and directed the Secretary of the Interior to
study, in consultation with affected State, local and tribal interests,
stakeholder groups and the interested public, the feasibility of:
Increasing the storage capacity and/or yield of the Klamath
Project facilities while improving water quality, consistent with the
protection of fish and wildlife.
Developing additional Klamath Basin groundwater supplies;
and,
Finding innovative solutions in the use of existing
resources, or market-based approaches, consistent with state law.
Using funding previously provided for the Water Resources
Initiative, Reclamation has been able to initiate partial
implementation of the Act as follows:
1. Increasing Klamath Project Storage Capacity/Yield: In December
2000, Reclamation released an appraisal level report examining the
desirability of raising the Upper Klamath Lake as much as two feet to
elevation 4145.3 feet. The report considered two alternatives: 1)
construction of new dikes and sea walls, and modification of existing
dikes to contain the lake within its current boundaries, and 2)
acquisition of lands inundated by raising the lake without structural
construction or modification to contain the lake within its current
boundaries. Option 1 is estimated to cost $125 million and option 2 is
estimated at $129 million; the cost of either option is approximately
$800 an acre-foot. A feasibility study would consider environmental
impacts and costs and benefits of raising the lake. The study is
expected to begin on a limited basis during Fiscal Year 2001, using
existing funding from the Water Resources Initiative.
Reclamation also has completed a cursory review of existing
information to determine if it is feasible to increase the storage
capacity by raising the Gerber Dam. Feasibility of this project is
considered likely, and collection of engineering data has begun. A plan
of study is in preparation during Fiscal Year 2001, using existing
funding from the Water Resources Initiative.
2. Developing Groundwater Supplies: In Fiscal Year 1999,
Reclamation entered into a cooperative agreement with the Oregon Water
Resources Department to study the potential of obtaining supplemental
groundwater supplies in the Klamath and Lost River Basins in Oregon.
Preliminary results indicate good potential for high production wells
in the aquifer underlying lands irrigated by Shasta View Irrigation
District. These wells are anticipated to have a low impact on other
wells in the area. In the 2001 irrigation season, an existing well will
be pump-tested. If long term pumping appears feasible, a plan of study
will be prepared regarding the potential to drill additional test and
production wells. This ongoing effort helped to facilitate the
emergency relief efforts described above.
Reclamation also entered into a cooperative agreement in Fiscal
Year 1999 with the CDWR to examine groundwater in the California
portion of the Klamath and Lost River Basins. Since the Fall 1999, CDWR
has performed semiannual water level measurements on 35 wells. Data
will be collected over a three year period to assess the potential for
groundwater augmentation.
In addition, as mentioned above, Reclamation provided funding for a
cooperative study by the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral
Industries and the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) to determine the
geologic potential for additional groundwater availability in the Wood,
Sprague and Williamson River valleys. Information gained from that
study could be used to initiate a full feasibility study.
3. Innovative Solutions: Reclamation recently initiated a one-year
pilot Klamath Basin Irrigation Demand Reduction Program to determine
irrigators'' interest in receiving a payment in lieu of applying
surface water to their irrigated lands. This pilot program may aid in
development of a long-term demand reduction program. Reclamation
received approximately 550 proposals from irrigators willing to forego
surface water on their irrigated lands in exchange for a combined total
exceeding $20 million. Reclamation's Fiscal Year 2001 budget for
implementation of this program is approximately $4 million.
Public Law 106-498 also directed the Secretary to complete ongoing
hydrologic surveys in the Klamath Basin conducted by the USGS,
mentioned earlier. The study has four phases and is scheduled to be
completed in Fiscal Year 2005. The Act also authorized the Secretary to
compile information on native fish species in the Upper Klamath River
Basin, upstream of Upper Klamath Lake. A compilation of existing
information is currently underway, and will be used to determine the
necessity of further studies.
We will do our utmost to see that these studies are given very high
priority. We fully appreciate the necessity of these and other projects
to work toward a sustainable future within the basin--both for those
who live and work there and for the wildlife we are pledged to
conserve.
With regard to Project Operations for coming years, when the Bureau
develops future plans to meet its multiple obligations and other
biological assessments are developed in consultation with FWS on such
plans, FWS will fully review the existing scientific data and to seek
appropriate public comment and peer review.
This concludes my prepared testimony. I am pleased to answer any
questions you may have.
______
Mr. Pombo. Well, this is where I have a real problem--one
of the places I have a real problem with the service is because
many times I believe they make a political decision, and that's
not their job. Their job is to base their decision on science
and not on politics. And if it's a political decision, it's at
that time that they should boot it over to Congress, because
that's our job, and we have to stand for election. And it
shouldn't be--the bureaucracy in general should not be making
political decisions. And when you are deciding between
competing science, if it never goes out to peer review, if you
never have an outside body look at that science, you are making
political decisions.
Ms. Wooldridge. I don't disagree with that.
Mr. Pombo. And I'd like to remind our audience that the
decorum of the House requires that you not respond positively
or negatively to any of the testimony or the questions that are
asked.
As we look at reforming the Endangered Species Act and
changing it and trying to make it work better, one of the
things that the administration could be extremely helpful on is
making suggestions on the science side. What do we need in the
Act so that when you come to a decision, we can count on that?
I know science is never finished. Things are always being
studied. There's always new evidence that comes out. But I
don't have confidence in the process as it exists right now,
and it would be extremely helpful for any suggestions that the
administration would have in terms of, how do we set up a peer
review system that I believe we can count on and trust? So I
would greatly appreciate that.
At this time, I turn to my colleague, Mr. Walden.
Mr. Walden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
followup on a couple of the comments you made, Sue Ellen. And I
want to go back to the Oregon State University analysis of the
pre-decision or draft professional scientific review copy,
which you read from and cited in your testimony, and I
appreciate that because it is a damning indictment of the
original work. And the thing that troubles me is this document
was put out 6 March of 2001--the OSU review. The decision to
turn the water off for farmers came out 6 April, 2001, a month
later.
And I know, in making contact with OSU, they say that there
were changes made to the biological opinion after their review.
But can you explain to me how those changes were made in that
short a period of time, when what is listed here, and I'll
quote again. ``The document is excessively long, the problems
are not window-dressing rather than obscure the data and make
it very difficult to find validity in the claims. The document
has the potential to have a severe negative impact on the
Services' public credibility.'' This is 6 March--the OSU
report--and I'm just curious. How do you get from there to 6
April and make the number of changes that had to have been made
to satisfy OSU.
Ms. Wooldridge. I can't answer that directly and I don't
want to make a flippant remark. I do have a list of the changes
that they made in response to that. I am not aware of whether
they were in contact with those professors independently or
whether they had some advance notice of what the critique was
going to be.
Mr. Walden. Well, let me take it another step then, because
this is one of the issues I keep hearing about is the need for
peer reviewed science. Was there a requirement in the law that
the draft opinion be peer reviewed?
Ms. Wooldridge. No.
Mr. Walden. So had OSU not been asked to peer review it,
the possibility exists that the original document that they
found extraordinary flaws in could have been the basis upon
which your decision was made.
Ms. Wooldridge. Yes. I will say--.
Mr. Walden. But what you--.
Ms. Wooldridge. --that the Fish and Wildlife Service sent
it to the American Fisheries Association for them to send it
off for these comments.
Mr. Walden. Right, and I understand that in this case, but
my point is to the bigger issue about why or why not we need to
amend the Endangered Species Act, because the potential exists,
had the Fish and Wildlife Service not done this, because
they're not required by law to send it off--they did it of
their own volition--that we could be building the foundation
for decisions the magnitude of that in the Klamath Basin based
upon non-peer reviewed data.
Ms. Wooldridge. That's correct.
Mr. Walden. And in this case, it has been peer reviewed.
And in this case, frankly--and I spoke, or my staff did, with
OSU and the people who did the review yesterday, and they said,
Yes, these things were cleared up. But I want to read from an
e-mail from Professor Douglas Markel to somebody here in
reference to this. And he says that, among other things, ``No
doubt there's uncertainty surrounding a whole bunch of issues
in the biological opinion, but the final product is at least a
well reasoned document.'' Then he goes on to write, ``It errs
on the side of the fish, which may be the position the authors
feel is required of them. Personally, I'm somewhat more
optimistic about the future of the suckers and would have
thought that a different decision could have been reached.''
That was Thursday, the 14th of June. What do we do when we have
scientists that differ in an issue that is as critical as this?
What do I tell these people? What do we do? How do we change
the law so we don't face this.
Ms. Wooldridge. I know the question is not rhetorical. I do
think that is the benefit of having peer review. And should
you, as you mentioned, wish to go that direction and try to
explore those, I know the administration would be happy to
provide our experience and what we can to help with that.
Mr. Walden. Well, and as I understand it--at least one
draft or comments I've heard you make, the administration
supports peer review.
Ms. Wooldridge. Yes, it does.
Mr. Walden. An outside review.
Ms. Wooldridge. Yes, it does.
Mr. Walden. Let me ask you another question involving the
Hardy flow report. Somebody gave me this today, which continues
to raise the questions. Hardy flow report flawed. Quote, ``We
used some incorrect data.'' And it's a quote from a publication
of a subsequent interview, with questions specifically about
the Hardy flow report. Loveland stated, quote, ``There were
problems. We used some incorrect data and that's being looked
at now.'' When asked if it changes the report, Loveland
responded, ``Yes, it very well could We have to turn it over to
the Justice Department to coordinate the efforts of Hardy on
the river flow/Coho issue.'' Is that something you're familiar
with in terms of questions--.
Ms. Wooldridge. I'm not familiar with that e-mail. I do
think I have some understanding that there was some changes
that were made in some modeling that the Bureau of Reclamation
was using, and that they've been working with Professor Hardy
to fix those, and that that will inform his determinations as
he's going forward. The Hardy II process has not finished.
Mr. Walden. Let me ask you another question, because my
time is running out. A couple of months ago I wrote to the
Secretary regarding the legislation that Senators Smith and
Wyden and I got passed last year, calling on the Bureau of
Reclamation to do a complete analysis of this Basin to see how
we can improve water storage, water quality, water quantity.
The initial Bureau of Reclamation response was that it might be
several years before they could complete that or even start
that study. Can you report back to me now whether or not we can
speed that up? We don't have several years to wait.
Ms. Wooldridge. I do understand that. In that legislation,
you asked that we conduct a number of feasibility studies, and
I can--and I actually cut it out of my remarks because I was
going so slowly--that we have begun a feasibility study on
increasing the Klamath Project storage capacity. That is also
funded in the next years' budget, in the Secretary's budget.
And we will commit to you that we are going to make sure that
we are making these high priority as we go through. They are
subject to budget constraints and not any lack of interest in
trying to bring these to a conclusion as soon as we can.
Mr. Walden. But you will do everything possible to--.
Ms. Wooldridge. Yes, sir.
Mr. Walden. And we will work with you, if you need
congressional assistance on that.
Ms. Wooldridge. Thank you very much.
Mr. Walden. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pombo. Mr. Gibbons.
Mr. Gibbons. Thanks you very much, Mr. Chairman. Ms.
Wooldridge, we want to welcome you here. We know that you've
been in this job something less than 6 months. We're not here
to blame you, because we know that you've inherited just one
hell of a problem. We're here with the hope that you can help
us on all of this, and certainly that's the direction that
these questions are being addressed.
Ms. Wooldridge. Thank you.
Mr. Gibbons. In my preparation for this hearing today, I
looked at the overall view of the Klamath Basin and realized
that it has approximately 5,000 square miles to it. There are
hundreds of public and private activities throughout the Basin
that, in effect, have some sort of impact on this species. I
want to ask just one basic question. Why is the Endangered
Species Act only being applied to the Klamath Project.
Ms. Wooldridge. That is a very good question. The Federal
project has certain deliveries, at least as described by the
project in the biological assessment. The other users of water
within the basin are unadjudicated, and that is within the
province of the State of Oregon and in the State of California.
And we have been--because the Federal project has these
certainties, you can determine jeopardy looking just at that.
And, of course, the problem is that that focuses the full
burden of the Endangered Species Act on a particular group of
people, and that is not right. But from the perspective of
somebody who's representing the Department of the Interior,
it's a box that's very hard to get out of, because we can't
tell the outside of Project uses or users that they are
violating the ESA when we don't know what their right is. And
so we are hopeful that this long-term solution is going to
include trying to look outside the project as well as just at
the project, because you can't have a Basin-wide solution that
looks solely at these particular people. But it is a conundrum
and a problem.
Mr. Gibbons. Well, I do know that there are other Federal
projects, especially in the Upper Klamath region of Klamath
Lake, that are also not subject to this restriction, and they
are Federal projects. Let me ask just one follow-up question
very briefly here in an effort to get through this. What are
the most recent timelines for beginning and completing water
augmentation studies that were authorized in legislation that
was sponsored by Congressman Walden and the two Oregon Senators
from the Upper Klamath Basin.
Ms. Wooldridge. My understanding is that we have begun
those studies already, that they are underway. And they
originally were on a time frame based on what we assumed were
going to be the kinds of appropriations that we might be able
to bring to bear on those projects. As I mentioned briefly, we
are going to make sure that these are very high priority, they
are funded for next year, so that we know that we've got money
to continue to get toward those in terms of being included, and
we will do what we can to make sure that that happens.
Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Chairman, in order to move this hearing
along, I'll yield back the balance of my time. But I did want
to say that it's a pleasure to have an administration that's
willing to work with us and not against us.
Ms. Wooldridge. Thank you.
Mr. Pombo. Mr. Simpson.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's good to see you
and for you to be here today. And like Congressman Gibbons, I
want you to know that you are among friends and we look forward
to working with you to try to address this issue and others
that face us in the West. One thing I'd like to know is--and I
guess maybe I'm a little backwards on this, but it's my belief
in that I don't believe there's anything called Federal water.
I think it's state water. And I'd like to know if the taking of
this water in this project is consistent with Oregon water law,
and the use of this water is consistent with Oregon water law.
Ms. Wooldridge. My belief is the answer is yes.
Mr. Simpson. Is there a consistent Federal policy on when
and how water can be essentially taken from a project like
this? Apparently this was taken without--you know, they just
said, We're going to turn off your water. In other areas in
Idaho where they've tried to restore salmon with flow
augmentation, it's been through a willing seller, willing
buyer, for whatever we had--427,000 acre feet taken for the
last several year, to willing sellers. Is there any consistent
policy, and why we would have a willing seller/willing buyer in
one area, and in another area just say, We're going to turn it
off?
Ms. Wooldridge. I am venturing probably beyond my level of
competence. My basic understanding is that these issues are
governed by state law. This is a federalism issue, and water
has always been a matter of the state law that governs it. And
I assume that the consistent policy would be that we ensure
that those state laws are respected and carried out and are not
trumped by some Federal grab of water--Federal water law or
something.
Mr. Simpson. Fine. I'm glad to hear you say that, and I
look forward to working with you to try to make sure that that
is the case, because I can tell you that with the variety of
Federal agencies, that there are attempted Federal takes of
State water law, to override them, whether it's bypass flows in
Colorado or whether it's the recent, I guess you could say,
order from NMFS for Idaho power, to give up 350,000 acre feet
of their water that's stored behind Brownly Dam--Brownly
Reservoir, without any other consideration. I see a clear
pattern that the Federal Government is trying to take control
of State water, and I look forward to working with you to try
to make sure that that doesn't happen.
One other area I'd like to ask you just a little bit about,
and that is the area in the ESA of listing a delisted species.
How do you list one, and then how do you delist one? And as you
know, listing is not that difficult anymore. Delisting is
almost impossible. Do we need to make reforms in the area of
how we list an endangered species? And from what I understand
out here, these sucker fish--it would be nice if they were
named something differently--but they used to grab them with
hooks and pull them out of the river, so many, and then
apparently they were listed with only so many estimated
population, and then they've had fish kills that were more than
what they thought were actually in the lake, so it kind of
makes me wonder about the ease with which we list. And if
there's that many, why is it so difficult to delist them?
Ms. Wooldridge. Boy, that's one of those where you say
that's a mystery wrapped in a conundrum. I have asked the same
questions. I won't pretend to be an expert on this either. My
understanding, at least with respect to the suckers, is that
the Fish and Wildlife Service is concerned because there isn't
recruitment or new fish being born into particular year classes
that you would see in a natural system, and that rather than
seeing a spike in a population for every several years, that's
not happening. And so while the absolute number is an estimate,
but larger than when it was listed, the concern is that it's
not--that it is still susceptible because it's not recruiting
itself, you know, in those years.
Mr. Simpson. Well, I appreciate the testimony. I look
forward to working with the administration to address some of
these concerns that we have with the Endangered Species Act--
not to repeal it, not to have less concern for those species
that need protection, but to actually bring some common sense
back into the Endangered Species Act with the realization that
humans beings are part of our environment also.
Ms. Wooldridge. Thank you.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
Mr. Pombo. Mr. Herger.
Mr. Herger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And again, I want to
join in welcoming you, Ms. Wooldridge. I don't envy the
position that you're in, coming in in a new administration.
You're inheriting what is probably one of the greatest
tragedies I've ever seen take place. But if I could ask, it
would appear that the actual historical evidence indicates that
the die-offs of the sucker fish actually occurred in years in
which water levels in the Upper Klamath Lake where high, and
not low, and that is supported by a study done by the Klamath
Water Users Association. It seems to me that what the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service is saying here would actually be harmful
for these fish.
And getting back to--you've talked about it a little bit
and certainly the questions that have been directed to you come
down to peer review. We have what would appear to be historical
evidence that, if anything, these sucker fish are healthier
when the water levels are lower than they are when they're
high. We have some who we would feel are on a political,
extreme environmental jihad here. I hate to put it in those
terms, but I don't know any other way you could look at it. It
would appear that they are looking for--in the scientists, or
at least the biologists who have looked at this have almost
picked out what they could to ensure that there is not a mesh
with our environment and with the economy of our area. And
again, that might seem like harsh terms, but I see that, not
only in the Northern California part of the Klamath Basin that
I represent, but I see it in an area in the southern part of my
district where we're trying for put a highway in where there's
been, just yesterday, the 148th death, fatality on a road that
because of a meadowfoam and a garter snake, they can't improve
the highway, or where we had a levee that broke where 6 years
before the Corp of Engineers said it would break, but they
found a beetle there that supposedly was endangered.
Again, it would seem that we are not having peer review.
We've heard this come up about peer review, and I'd like to
have you comment on this and whether or not--you mentioned it's
not in the law. Do you feel it should be in the law, and if
it's not in the law, can we still implement it? And I'm even
going to go one step further than that. I'm concerned of where
we have those of like minds that seem to be part of this
extreme environmental movement who, basically, they want to run
people off the land, whether it be here as farmers, or whether
it be out in the Chico area that I represent, where again the
148th fatality from about Marysville to Chico have taken place
in the last 10 years.
But again, this peer review is very important. We put men
on the Moon more than 3 decades ago. I'm convinced that we can
both protect our environment, and as my colleague, Mr. Simpson,
said, I don't think there's any of us who want to see us do
away with the Endangered Species Act, but certainly we want to
see it implemented in a proper way, in a balanced way, in a way
where we utilize the best science, not just a very biased
interpretation of science that we seem to go getting. So my
question is, getting around--it's not in the law. Can we still
utilize it because it makes sense, because it's the right thing
to do, and even to go one step forward, extend that just a
step, and that is, can we ensure that we have independent peer
review of scientists outside of this closed block of Fish and
Wildlife and NMFS and some of those others who seem to have
this bias in the wrong way? Is there something that we can do
in the administration here?
Ms. Wooldridge. Well, let me answer that this way. I think
that peer review does two things. It helps us to know, as
decision makers, that our judgments are reasonable. And often
in these cases, you don't know absolutely where something is
true or false, but if you know that what you've done is
reasonable, that is helpful, because it adds to the credibility
of what is being done. So it helps because it helps you know
that your judgments are correct, and it helps so that those who
are affected by it can have confidence that it wasn't a product
of a political decision.
As you did say, the ESA does not necessarily require this,
or does not require this. And my brief here today was not to
talk about what the administration thought should be done to
modify or reinterpret or make modifications to the Endangered
Species Act. Our focus in the 5 months that we've been there
has been to use what administrative or administrative kinds of
things that we could do to help make sure that these decisions
were implemented properly, in accordance with the law. So the
answer is yes, and I think we can, as in this case, as we have
said, as we go forward with this, that we will subject this to
peer review and we will use independent peer review. That is
not to say that within that, that we are going to--they've got
to talk to somebody, and they will need to know from our
biologists what is the data and how it was gathered, and those
sorts of things, but in terms of the actual review, yes.
Mr. Herger. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pombo. Mr. Hastings.
Mr. Hastings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to add my
voice to those that welcome you and recognize that you are
inheriting things that you're trying to deal with with the best
that you have. I would just kind of--being last to ask
questions, a lot of those questions have already been asked by
my colleagues, but I would like to wrap it up in this sense,
because there is a common thread that all of us I think were
saying and all of us have been concerned about in dealing with
the Endangered Species Act. And, obviously, it talks about the
good science and peer review. And it all revolves around, to
me, and I think especially for people that are impacted--people
here in the Klamath Basin, certainly people in the Medtile
Valley in my area--and that is, they want a solution. They
don't want an issue. And you can get to a solution if you can
get people together and somehow arrive at a common ground. But
what is missing in all of this--and I can see it from my
constituents, and I certainly sense it listening to what has
been going on here--is a lack of interaction, and you said you
were going to correct that, in your testimony. But it deals
around science and good science and so forth.
I am reminded of former Governor Dixie Lee Ray of
Washington. I was in the legislature when she was Governor. She
has since passed on. She wrote two books, ``Trashing the
Planet'' and ``Environmental Over-kill.'' And in both of those
books, while Governor Ray was--at least, the extreme
environmentalists didn't like her very much because she was
exposing, I think, what they were all about. She never said
that an issue was wrong. She just said, Prove it. That's all
she said was ``prove it.'' And her basis, coming from a
scientific background, was to have good science that is peer
reviewed, and I think that's all people are asking. So I guess
I would ask you go a step further, to take back to the
Department of the Interior--and I would certainly hope that the
Committee would agree with me, but if not, at least for any own
satisfaction--I would like to know what specific steps, since
the Department of Interior is in favor of peer review--what
specific steps will you be taking in the short-term to try to
answer some of the questions that were brought up about Dr.
Hardy's report, for example? I mean, if there are holes in this
thing, how are we going to correct that? What steps are going
to be done and how the Department of the Interior is going to
handle that here with the Klamath Basin, but with other issues
that are no doubt going to come up in your four or 8 years that
you will be in office. Could I ask you to get something for the
Committee--and if not for the Committee, certainly for me, and
I will share with the Committee--on what you're going to do?
Ms. Wooldridge. I would be happy to do that in writing. I
do think it is going to call for us to make some judgments in
terms--we do thousands of biological opinions, for instance, a
year. And it may well be that we need to make a kind of a
standard or judgment with regards to which of those, and how
often, and that kind of thing--because peer review, as you can
imagine, is very costly--but where you have decisions which are
equally costly to people, I think it is only reasonable that we
then maybe make that kind of a cut. Where we have fairly
dreadful impacts on people, that we make sure that our
decisions are as correct as we can make them.
Mr. Hastings. Well, I would hope that--because, again, the
common thread that we are all asking about is what is the
basis? What is the basis, based on science, peer review,
whatever the case may be? Prove it, in other words, if you're
going to make a decision that's going to affect so many people.
And I would just ask the Department, this administration--and
I'd be willing to work with them--to put this in place as soon
as possible so that it's easier for us then to go back and tell
our constituents that it was done in a manner that is
responsible, but probably more important, a manner that is
seeking to find a solution rather than to maintain an issue, as
so many people outside our region want to have. Thank you for
your testimony.
Ms. Wooldridge. Very well.
Mr. Pombo. Mr. Herger.
Mr. Herger. Just very quickly, and if I could, just cutting
to the chase. What will it take to reopen the consultation on
the existing biological opinion.
Ms. Wooldridge. I believe that our view of it is that the
consultation is ongoing.
Mr. Herger. So it's ongoing. Would you like to go further?
Is it possible then--again, it would appear that there's more
information here. It would appear that we have not had an
adequate, if at all, independent peer review. We're looking at
again the bankruptcy of communities. Is there any commitment,
or is it possible to get an indication of the Department of
Interior's--.
Ms. Wooldridge. Well, Congressman, let me answer it this
way. I'm not quite sure I'm following exactly what you're
asking, but let me-- We're moving into the next years'
operation, and these folks back here in the community have to
have a certain amount of certainty, to the extent possible, of
about what is going to be happening with them. And we have two,
1-year biological opinions. We need to have the long-term
opinion. We need to do an EIS-NEPA on the operations of the
project. Those things, to me, seem pretty clear that we need to
have those. And as we continue to consult with the services on
the operation of the project, what we said today is that we
will make sure that there is an independent review of the
science which forms the basis of these opinions.
Mr. Herger. Thank you.
Mr. Hastings. I would go back, but you took all my time.
Mr. Pombo. Well, before I excuse you, Ms. Wooldridge, I'd
just say that science is probably, in my mind, one of the most
important issues that we have to face in terms of reforming the
act, the Endangered Species Act. But one of the other things
that really gets to me is the Act is not enforced equally in
all parts of the country. There is a difference between the way
that it is implemented in the West versus the way it is
implemented in the East--there's a big difference. And just to
maybe balance things out a little bit, it's come to my
attention--I've been told that the Potomac River near
Washington D.C. is home of an endangered sturgeon, and that the
drinking water process--the purification process that
Washington D.C. goes through--as part of that process, they
dump alum into the Potomac. And from what the biologist has
told me is that that kills the eggs of the sturgeon. So maybe
if we shut off the drinking water for Washington D.C., it would
gain the kind of attention to this problem that we need, that
we may be able to make some changes. So I would suggest to you
that as part of your ongoing review, that maybe we can look at
that as well.
But I want to thank you very much for your testimony. I
know that there are several questions that were asked of you
that you will be answering for the record. If you could get
those to us on a timely basis so that we can include them, I
would appreciate it.
Ms. Wooldridge. I'd be happy to do that. Thank you very
much.
Mr. Pombo. Thank you. I'd like to call up our second panel
of witnesses. We have the Honorable Steven West, John Crawford,
Sharron Molder, the Honorable Dell Raybould, and Dave Vogel. If
you would join us at the witness stand, please--the witness
table.
STATEMENTS OF THE HONORABLE M. STEVEN WEST, COMMISSIONER OF
KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON; JOHN CRAWFORD, KLAMATH BASIN FARMER;
SHARRON MOLDER, TULELAKE HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPAL, TULELAKE,
CALIFORNIA; THE HONORABLE DELL RAYBOULD, IDAHO STATE
REPRESENTATIVE; DAVE VOGEL, PRESIDENT, NATURAL RESOURCE
SCIENTISTS, INC.
Mr. Pombo. Thank you very much for joining us here today.
I'm going to begin with Mr. West, who is the commissioner of
Klamath County, Oregon. Mr. West, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF M. STEVEN WEST
Mr. West. Thank you, Congressman. As the current Chairman
of the Board of Commissioners, it's also my privilege today to
represent my fellow Commissioners, John Elliot and Al Switzer.
Water is the life blood of Klamath County. In 1905
President Theodore Roosevelt recognized the importance of
irrigated agriculture by authorizing the Klamath Irritation
Project. The United States Government invited people to build
ranches and farms on the irrigated land, and much of that land
was divided into homesteads and awarded to returning veterans
of the First and Second World Wars.
The United States Department of Agriculture reports that
1,064 families in Klamath County are farmers, and these farmers
produce over a $120 million a year in farm gate sales. Using a
conservative multiplier, that's a $264 million industry in
Klamath County. Agriculture contributes 40 percent of the
region's economy, makes up over 10 percent of the region's tax
base, and employs over 7 percent of the region's workforce.
The people of the Upper Basin are facing an economic
disaster of epic proportions. It is both a natural and a
regulatory disaster. The natural disaster is a record drought.
The basin has received a D-2 Severe Drought designation.
Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman has declared a USDA
Drought Disaster Declaration, and President Bush has been
requested to issue a Presidential Disaster.
The regulatory disaster is the result of management
decisions made by the United States Bureau of Reclamation,
based on biological opinions from the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries. These
biological opinions started as memos from the agencies on
January 19th, the last day of the Clinton administration. The
biological opinions were implemented by the bureau on the 6th
of April.
During previous drought years, all interests in the basin
worked together to minimize the loss of the impact. The Bureau
was allowed flexibility in the operation of the Project to
minimize negative impact to agriculture and endangered species.
This year that common sense flexibility is gone. These
biological opinions have received little or no review, and it
appears that what little peer review that has been done has
largely been ignored. In light of the pervasive flaws in the
biological opinion, it's ludicrous to base such a far-reaching
decision on what is at least very questionable work. Why should
Federal agencies, as stewards of public resources, be allowed
to base decisions of this magnitude on such questionable
information?
The decision to not deliver water to the Klamath Irrigation
Project is having a huge negative economic consequence. The
dollars from agriculture are spent and re-spent here in the
basin. Hundreds of families are facing bankruptcy and the loss
of land that's been in their families for generations. Every
business, family, and individual in Klamath County is going to
feel the impact. There will also be significant loss of revenue
for local government services at a time when the demand for
those services has never been higher.
Klamath County Assessor Reg LeQuieu has estimated that tens
of thousands of acres of irrigated farm land currently valued
at from $622 to $146 per acre will be valued at only $28 per
acre without irrigation water. The tax loss has been estimated
at $640,000. President Theodore Roosevelt said, ``The
conservation of natural resources is the fundamental problem.
Unless we solve that problem it will avail us little to solve
all the others.'' The people of the Basin understand that
challenge and have been committed to producing local, balanced,
common sense solutions. Their cooperative efforts have restored
riparian zones, created over 20,000 acres of wetlands, enhanced
existing wetlands, and installed fish streams.
Independent studies show that these projects are all
working or contributing significantly to improving water
quality in the Upper Klamath Lake. But all the cooperative and
collaborative efforts were not given any credit in the
biological opinions. Because of the heavy-handed management
practices of these agencies, future local efforts are
threatened. The agencies have created a huge breach of trust.
The very citizens who have been committed to finding solutions,
and who have worked the hardest to implement those solutions,
are giving up on that process, and who could blame them? The
Federal Government has not been able to keep its promise for
water in the Klamath River system. Now they are making the
irrigators of the Klamath Irrigation Project and the people of
the Upper Klamath Basin pay the cost for the government's
broken promises.
So what are the solutions? There are equally important
immediate and long-term actions that need to be taken. The
immediate actions: Pass the $20 million emergency Federal
package that's in President Bush's supplemental budget and get
it to the affected people without a lot of agency red tape.
Next, find additional Federal funding that is proportional to
the Federal Government's responsibility for the current crisis.
Next, open the biological opinions to peer review which allows
for full participation by local stakeholders. Require and
empower Federal agency managers to participate in the
development and implementation of local consensus-based
cooperative solutions that are based on common sense. And the
Federal Government must acknowledge its responsibility and
obligations made to the Klamath Irrigation Project.
The long-term solutions are, first, develop a multi-year
Federal economic safety net for agriculture, similar in concept
to Senate Bill 1608, that would give time for long-term
solutions to be implemented, including amending the Endangered
Species Act to consider economic impact. Next, guaranty an
annual amount of water to agriculture in early spring that will
allow crop decisions to be made. Next, the Federal Government
must provide financial resources for restoration that are
proportionate to the size of the problem. Next, develop the
best opportunities for additional water storage in the Klamath
River system with a guaranteed amount of water dedicated to
irrigated agriculture. Stop all out of Basin transfers and
develop other sources of water to replace water to those who
have received, historically, these out of Basin transfers. And
finally, the Federal Government must level the international
economic playing field for United States agriculture.
It's time for the Federal Government to become part of the
solution, not just part of the problem. There's no room for
partisanship or political agendas when the stakes are this
high. Again, thank you for allowing me to testify before you
today, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Pombo. Thank you. Mr. Crawford.
[The prepared statement of Mr. West follows:]
STATEMENT OF M. STEVEN WEST, 2001 CHAIRMAN, KLAMATH COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
Good morning members of Congress, my name is Steve West. I am one
of the three full-time commissioners elected to represent the 64,000
residents of Klamath County. Currently, I serve as the 2001 Chairman of
the Klamath County Board of Commissioners, and I am pleased to also
represent my fellow Commissioners, John Elliott and Al Switzer, here
today.
I want to thank you for making time in your busy schedules to hold
this hearing today in Klamath Falls. My hope is that after this hearing
today, you will have a much better understanding of the challenges we
face in the Upper Klamath Basin and will help us in implementing both
immediate short-term and long-term solutions.
Water resource issues in Klamath County and the entire Klamath
River system are very complex. These issues include: two states, non-
adjudicated rights, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and multiple
endangered species that are competing for the same resource, out of
basin water transfers, tribal trusts, water quality and quantity
issues, flood and drought cycles, federal wildlife refuges, and a
hundreds of million dollar annual agriculture industry. To understand
the complexity, it takes more than reading a report or a legal brief.
To really understand, you must meet and listen to the people whose
lives these issues effect.
Water is the lifeblood of Klamath County. It supports wildlife,
recreation, tourism, agriculture, and most importantly, it supports
people. In 1905, President Theodore Roosevelt recognized the importance
of irrigated agriculture in feeding our growing nation and the world by
authorizing the Klamath Irrigation Project. Over the next forty-five
years, the United States Government invited people to build ranches and
farms on the land irrigated by the Klamath Irrigation Project. Much of
the land was divided into homesteads and awarded through lotteries to
returning veterans home from defending their country during the Second
World War. The Klamath Irrigation Project was completed in the 1960's
and was paid for by the farmers and ranchers. The project is a great
example of American hard work and ingenuity. The Project has become
home for generations of well-run family farms and ranches.
The United States Department of Agriculture reports that 1064
families in Klamath County are farmers. These farmers produce over
$120,000,000 a year in farm gate sales. This figure is not retail
sales, but what the farmer gets for the sale of raw products. If you
use a very conservative multiplier of 2 to 2.2, that is a $264,000,000
industry in Klamath County. Agriculture contributes over 40% of the
Klamath Basin's economy, makes up over 10% of the region's tax base,
and employs over 7% of the region work force. Klamath County and the
Upper Klamath Basin is a high desert region with an average annual
precipitation of only 10 to 12 inches. Without irrigation there is very
little agriculture in this area.
The people of Klamath County and the Upper Klamath Basin are facing
an economic disaster of epic proportion. This economic disaster is
effecting two states, three counties, one region's economy, and the
lives of everyone who has made the Upper Klamath Basin their home. It
is both a natural disaster and a regulatory one.
The natural disaster we face is a record drought. Mr. Rob Allerman,
the Bureau of Reclamation's Klamath Project hydrologist has estimated
that inflows into Upper Klamath Lake from April to September will be
less than the record drought of 1992 and similar to the drought of
1977. Total stream flow into the Upper Klamath Lake from all sources is
estimated to be at only 29% of normal. These are record low levels.
Mr. Roger Williams, Meteorologist in Charge, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Weather Service in Medford
reports that precipitation measured at Kingsley Field (Klamath Falls
Airport) from September 1, 2000 through March 26, 2001 was only 32% of
average. NOAA officials also report that the Northwest is the most
drought-impacted region in the country and that the Upper Klamath Basin
is the driest in the Northwest.
The National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) reports that the
``Snow Water Equivalent'' for snow pack in the Upper Klamath Basin as
of March 26, 2001 was only 34% of normal. Snowmelt occurred at all
elevations one to two months earlier than normal. The Upper Klamath
Basin would have had to of received 200% of normal spring rain to get
back to a normal water year. The highest spring ever recorded in
history in the Basin only produced 143% of normal.
The Upper Klamath Basin has received a D-2 Severe Drought
designation. Governor Kitzhaber, at the request of the Klamath County
Board of Commissioners and recommendation of the Oregon Drought
Council, has signed a State Drought Declaration for Klamath County.
Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman has declared a U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) Drought Disaster Declaration for Klamath County. The
Klamath County Board of Commissioners has also requested that Governor
Kitzhaber seek a Presidential Disaster Declaration from President Bush.
The regulatory disaster is the result of management decisions made
by the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBoR) based on Biological
Opinions (BO) from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Memos from the NMFS
and USFWS both dated January 19th, the last day of the Clinton
administration, were sent to the USBoR. These memos made new
recommendations for Upper Klamath Lake levels and Klamath River down
stream flows. The USFWS and NMFS memos were followed up with formal
Biological Opinions (BO). The Klamath River down stream flows and Upper
Klamath Lake levels demanded in these Biological Opinions were
implemented by the USBoR on April 6th.
It has been estimated that the Klamath River Down Stream flows and
Upper Klamath Lake elevations required by the Biological Opinions will
create an average water shortage of 250,000 acre feet in all water year
types. (An acre-foot of water is enough water to cover one acre of
area, one foot deep).
Drought conditions are nothing new to the Upper Klamath Basin.
During the drought years of 1992 and 1994, all interests in the Basin,
including agriculture and National Wildlife Refuges, worked together to
minimize loss and impacts. USBoR was allowed flexibility in the
operation of the Klamath Irrigation Project that minimized negative
impacts to agriculture and endangered species. This year, because of
the rigid and unreasonable demands of USFWS and NMFS for Upper Klamath
Lake levels and Klamath River downstream flows, that common sense
flexibility is gone.
USFWS and NMFS Biological Opinions that the USBoR is basing its
2001 Klamath Project Operating Plan on has received little or no peer
review. It also appears that what little peer review that was done has
been largely ignored by these agencies. A review for the Oregon Chapter
of the American Fisheries Society done by Douglas F. Markle, David
Simon, Michael S, Cooperman, and Mark Terwilliger of Oregon State
University's Department of Fisheries and Wildlife (February 5, 2001 and
March 6, 2001) made the following statements:
. . . The editorial problems are of such magnitude that
they severely influence this review. The misspelled words,
incomplete sentences, apparent word omissions, missing or
incomplete citations, repetitious statements, vagueness,
illogical conclusions, inconsistent and contradictory
statements (often back to back), factual inaccuracies, lack of
rigor, rampant speculation, format, content, and organizational
structure make it very difficult to evaluate this BO.
We urge, in the strongest possible way, that the Service
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) re-visit every single sentence
for importance, applicability, grammar, spelling, content and
internal consistency with other parts of the document. The
document is excessively long. The problems are not ``window
dressing'', rather they obscure the data and make it very
difficult to find validity in claims. This document has the
potential to have a severe negative impact on the Service's
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) public credibility. . .
. . . The analytical problem with the system is that the
lake level is a seasonally monotonous function of date, so that
sequential observations are serially auto-correlated and
variables of interest are cross-correlated. For example, low
lake level and low temperature do not co-occur because low lake
levels happen in late summer or fall and low temperature
happens in winter. An important consequence is that lake level
cannot be easily separated from cross-correlated physical
variables or from seasonal behavior patterns of the fish. Fish
responses that are temperature related cannot be easily
separated from lake level. A further consequence is that an
entire year's worth of observations become a statistical sample
of one. The BO does not seem to appreciate this fundamental
analytical problem.
The BO argues that lake elevation is related to water
quality and was responsible, in part, for fish kills such as
those observed in 1995, 1996, and 1997. The case for a fish
kill - lake level relationship rests on weak or inappropriate
data, such as the following:
Pg. 27. ``In contrast, suckers captured in 1994 -
1996 (years with better water quality and higher lake levels)
were substantially more robust''.
This is an instance where thin fish are used as evidence of
poor water quality when no such evidence is presented, not even
a correlation coefficient. Further on of the years, 1994, had
the lowest lake level on record, and directly challenges the
premise...
Pg. 74. ``Lower Lake elevations may increase AFA (a
type of blue-green algae) and worsen water quality.''
Again, the two lowest water years, 1992 and 1994, are not
explained. This discussion describes a complex, non-linear
system that either implicates intermediate lake levels or
suggests that almost any lake level can be associated with poor
water quality. The data implicate intermediate, not lower, lake
levels because 1.) historical data have been interpreted to
indicate that fish kills were common prior to Link River Dam,
2.) the pre-dam minimum elevation was 4139.93 and therefore all
historical fish kills took place at higher lake elevations, and
3) no die off has ever been documented when elevations were
below the historical minimum (pg.46). . .
. . . In summary, the argument for a fish kill - lake level
relationship is complex, but does not account for observation
that extremely low lake elevations in 1992 and 1994 did not
produce fish kills. Further, the BO suggest that 1995-1999, the
most heavily managed years in the lake's history, were higher
water years, yet fish kills occurred in three of the five
years. The data presented give little support for the
contention that low summer lake level is related to fish kills.
If anything the data support the notion that intermediate
summer levels are dangerous. . .
In light of the pervasive flaws in the Biological Opinions pointed
out in just one limited peer review, it is ludicrous to base such a far
reaching decision as the USBoR's 2001 Klamath Irrigation Operation Plan
on what is at the very least questionable work. If more exhaustive peer
review had been allowed and considered, how many more flaws would have
come to light? In the Endangered Species Act (ESA), Biological Opinions
are presented, as the best science has to offer. If my fellow County
Commissioners and I, as stewards of public resources, made decisions of
this magnitude based on such questionable information, we would not
long be County Commissioners. If American corporations and industries
made decisions of this magnitude based on such questionable
information, they would not long be in business. Why should federal
agencies, as stewards of public resources, be allowed to base decisions
of this magnitude on such questionable information?
The USBoR's decision to not deliver irrigation water to the Klamath
Irrigation Project is having huge negative consequences. The economic
loss from grain, alfalfa, pasture, livestock, and potato crops, plus
the increased feed cost for dairies is estimated in the hundreds of
million dollars. Livestock producers who have invested years and
countless dollars in breeding programs will suffer losses that will
take years to recover from. Even pastures that are not watered will be
negatively affected to the point that they will require replanting.
These dollars from the agriculture economy are paid in salaries and
spent to purchase farm supplies, fuel, equipment, vehicles, food and so
on; they are spent and re-spent here in the Upper Klamath Basin.
Hundreds of farm and ranch families are facing bankruptcy and the loss
of land that has been in their families for generations. Every
business, family, and individual in Klamath County is feeling the
impact.
There will also be significant loss of revenue for local government
services. Beside County Government services the repayment of three
public project construction bonds will be negatively impacted. Those
bonds are for the Klamath County Courthouse, the Klamath County
Government Center, and the Klamath County Fair Grounds Event Center
where this hearing is being held today. Also negatively impacted will
be the Klamath County Library Service District, two school districts, a
community college, four (4) cemetery districts, sixteen (16) fire
districts, five (5) park districts, seventeen (17) road districts, five
(5) vector control districts, a public transportation district, and the
911 emergency dispatch services.
Klamath County Assessor Reg LeQuieu has estimated that tens of
thousands of acres of irrigated farm land currently valued at from $622
to $146 per acre will be valued dry at only $28 per acre without
irrigation water. He has estimated the tax revenue loss at $640,000.
Eighty percent of the new revenue growth allowed under Oregon Property
Tax law will be eliminated.
Klamath County and the Upper Klamath Basin have not enjoyed the
economic prosperity of the 1990's. Economic impacts from loss of timber
jobs and the recession of the 1980's are still being felt. Klamath
County's current unemployment rate is over 10%. There are outstanding
ongoing efforts by Klamath County Economic Development Association
(KCEDA) and Team Klamath to diversify the Basin's economy. We are
trying to build a healthy diversified economy built on our historic
base industries of agriculture and forestry, while adding technology
and tourism.
The recent siting of the new manufacturing plant of Electro
Scientific Industries, Inc. (ESI) and Escend Software's research and
development facility are examples of successful business recruitment.
Dr. Martha Ann Dow and her team at Oregon Institute of Technology (OIT)
is a vital asset to Klamath County's economic future. The Running Y
Ranch Resort, the 2002 Centennial Celebration for Crater Lake National
Park, and other destinations in the area are increasing the tourism
industry's contribution to economic health. However, all these efforts
are for naught if we lose our agricultural economy base. This past
year, Collins Plywood closed resulting in the loss of 300 family wage
jobs, showing that our economy is still very fragile.
In 1907, at the Deep Waterway Convention in Memphis, Tennessee,
President Theodore Roosevelt said, ``The conservation of natural
resources is the fundamental problem. Unless we solve that problem it
will avail us little to solve all others.'' The people of Klamath
County and of the Upper Klamath Basin understand that the challenge
that President Roosevelt recognized in 1907 is the same challenge that
we face today. They have worked hard to be part of the solution.
There has been a great commitment by the people of the Upper
Klamath Basin to produce local, long term, balanced, common sense
solutions. Over the last several years, there have been many ongoing
local efforts to find solutions. The Klamath Adjudication and Alternate
Dispute Resolution (ADR) processes are ongoing projects of the Oregon
Water Resources Department. Both, however, in my opinion will simply
result in dividing up the drought.
Farmers, ranchers, Soil Conservation District, Watershed Councils,
Tribes, consumers and conservationist have worked together
cooperatively and collaboratively. They have restored riparian zones,
created over 20,000 acres of new wetlands enhanced existing wetlands,
and installed fish screens. They are doing these projects and more
because they are the right things to do, not because they are being
forced to. Studies done for the Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality show that these projects are all working and are contributing
to improved water quality in Upper Klamath Lake by lowering phosphorous
levels.
President Theodore Roosevelt once said, ``I have a perfect horror
of words that are not backed up by deeds''. He would find nothing to
cause him horror with the people of Klamath County and the Upper
Klamath Basin. He would only need to look at their accomplishments to
see that their words have been backed up by their deeds. But all these
cooperative and collaborative efforts were not given any credit in the
USFWS and NMFS Biological Opinions and in the USBoR's 2001 Klamath
Irrigation Project Operating Plan that resulted from those opinions.
In my opinion, future local efforts are all in danger of collapsing
because of the current heavy-handed management practices of the USBoR,
USFWS, and NMFS. The current management practices of these agencies
have created a huge breach of trust. They have also resulted in inner-
agency and inter-agency squabbles. As a result of the current
situation, I am concerned that the very citizens who have been
committed to finding solutions and who have worked the hardest to
implement those solutions are giving up on that process. And who could
blame them. The current management practices of these agencies threaten
to end agriculture in the Upper Klamath Basin. This is an end that we
can not allow to happen.
The United States Federal Government made promises for water in
treaties with Tribes in the 1860s. The United States Federal Government
made promises for water in homestead grants to returning veterans, war
heroes, the greatest generation, in the 1920s and 1940s. The United
States Federal Government made promises for water in the Endangered
Species Act to endangered species in the 1970s. The United States
Federal Government has not been able to keep its promises. Now the
United States Federal Government is making the irrigators of the
Klamath Irrigation Project, the people of Klamath County, and the
people of the Upper Klamath Basin pay all the cost of the government's
broken promises.
In passing the endangered Species Act legislation, the people's
elected federal representatives said that these species were important
enough to the people of the United States to pass a powerful law. The
Endangered Spices Act is the federal law for all the people of United
States. Therefore all the people of the United States should have to
shoulder the cost of implementing this law, not just those that make
the Upper Klamath Basin their home. The people of Klamath County and
the Upper Klamath Basin can not be asked to pay the entire cost of the
Endangered Species Act for the entire Klamath River watershed. All the
problems of water quality, quantity, and endangered species in the
Klamath River System, cannot be solved on the backs of the Klamath
Irrigation Project, the people of Klamath County, and the people of the
Upper Klamath Basin alone.
We want to work together with all the people of the Klamath River
from the headwaters to the Pacific Ocean, but the Klamath Irrigation
Project and the Klamath Basin's economy cannot bear the entire cost.
So, what are the solutions? Klamath Commissioners John Elliot, Al
Switzer, and my self, Modoc County Supervisor Nancy Huffman, Siskiyou
County Supervisor Joan Smith, Oregon State Senator Steve Harper, U.S.
Representatives Greg Walden, Wally Herger, and their staff's, U.S.
Senator Gordon Smith and his staff, have all been working tirelessly to
bring help to the people we have been elected to serve. We need your
help and we need it now. I believe that there are equally important
immediate and long-term actions that need to be taken.
Immediate Action
The $20 million dollar emergency federal package
contained in President Bush's supplemental budget must be passed
immediately and gotten to the affected people in the most expedient
manner possible and with a minimum amount of agency red-tape.
Federal funding, in addition to the package in President
Bush's supplemental budget, that is proportionate to the Federal
Government's responsibility for the current regulatory crisis must be
identified and be made available.
The current USFWS and NMFS biological opinions must be
opened to a peer review process that is done in good faith, in an open
public forum which allows for full participation by local stake
holders.
Local Federal Agency managers must be required to and
empowered to participate in good faith to develop and implement local
consensus-based and cooperative solutions without the interference from
heavy handed agency bureaucrats in region offices or Washington, D.C.
The Federal Government must acknowledge its
responsibility for historically promoting and encouraging the
development of agriculture in the Upper Klamath Basin through
homesteads and reclamation projects, and thus it has an obligation to
honor the agreements made with agriculture.
Long Term Action
A multi-year Federal economic safety net must be
developed for the Upper Klamath Basin, similar in concept to SB1608,
that would give time for long term solutions to be implemented.
Agriculture must be given a guaranteed quantity of water
in early spring (February-March) of each year that will allow decisions
on crop production and production financing to be based on.
The Federal Government must provide financial resources
that are proportionate to the size of the problem. The Klamath River
System is the third largest river system on the West Coast. The
financial resources currently being made available are only a fraction
of what is being spent on the restoration of the Columbia River System
and the Sacramento-San Joaquin River System.
All opportunities must be identified for additional water
storage in the Klamath River System and adequate funding must be
provided to construct the best projects in no more than five years,
with a guaranteed amount dedicated for irrigated agriculture.
All out-of-basin water transfers must be stopped and
other sources of water to replace water to those who have historically
received the out-of-basin transferred water need to be identified.
The Federal government must work legislatively to level
the international economic playing field for United States agriculture
to sell their products and to remedy the unfairness of current trade
agreements.
The problems and solutions are large and complex, and time has run
out. It is time for the Federal government to become part of the
solution, not just part of the problem. These are people's lives we are
talking about. There is no room for partisanship or political agendas
when the stakes are this high. Again, thank you for allowing me to
testify before you today. I am happy to answer any questions you might
have.
______
STATEMENT OF JOHN CRAWFORD
Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Committee. My name is John Crawford. I'm a Klamath Project
farmer. As part of my testimony today, I have the humbling
responsibility of representing Klamath Project agriculture,
including the veterans and the Hispanic members of our
community. Klamath Project irrigators are often accused by
environmental extremists of being highly subsidized and having
not paid our portion of the construction costs of the Klamath
Project. In fact we have repaid every penny of our obligation
to the Klamath Project, and the following statement will
provide insight as to past accomplishments of the agricultural
community.
Through the half century since the Klamath Project was
completed, the Federal Government has invested about $14.7
million in the construction of the Project. Federal tax
collections alone, since 1940, have reached a cumulative total
of about $95 million, or more than six times the project's
cost.
Two hundred thousand acres of fertile land have been
reclaimed from swamp and arid prairie. More than 1,600 farm
families and scores of merchants and tradesmen derive an
excellent livelihood from this reclamation project. About
44,000 acres of the 200,000 acres reclaimed were originally in
the public domain. These public lands have been dedicated to
the most worthy purpose of assisting our war veterans. I can
think of no finer program. Since 1922, settlement opportunities
have been provided to more than 600 veterans of World Wars I
and II.
Although the accomplishments in the Klamath Project area in
the past half century have been great, there is sill room for
expansion, and even greater accomplishments are in store for
this area in the future if the full development of the water
and land resource potential is effectively achieved.
``I believe that you will find this a very interesting
study and another example showing that expenditures for our
reclamation program constitute one of the nation's wisest
investments.''.
Those are the words of Clair Engle, the chairman of this
very committee, spoken on May 16th of 1957. That wise
investment has provided over six billion dollars in farm
products, based on the value of today's dollar.
Words cannot begin to describe the pain being experienced
in our communities. Farm families have lost income. Long-term
commodity supply contracts have been terminated. Debts will not
be paid. Dreams are being shattered. The loss is not only
economic. It is a loss of our identity. There is no separation
between our work and the rest of our lives. We are farmers and
ranchers.
Recently, I've seen Tom Hanks of ``Saving Private Ryan''
fame soliciting support for the World War II memorial in
Washington D.C. As a life member of the Veterans of Foreign
Wars, I fully support this effort, but believe there no better
place to recognize the admiration and respect earned by our
World War II veterans than here in the Klamath Basin. This can
be accomplished if our government honors its commitment to the
veterans who homesteaded the Tulelake area of the basin.
With the Chairman's permission, I would like to submit the
written testimony of over 20 of these veterans who homesteaded
in the Tulelake area.
Mr. Pombo. Without objection, it will be included in the
record.
[The information referred to is located at the end of this
hearing:]
Mr. Crawford. The vast majority of the basin's Hispanic
people are permanent residents of the area. These proud leaders
and valued members of our community are inexorably linked to
Basin agriculture. No water has equated to loss of jobs, and
some of the men have already been forced to leave the area in
search of work. Now that the school year has ended, this exodus
will continue and escalate. It is tragic that we may lose our
friends and neighbors that make up the Hispanic community.
How have we arrived at this deplorable and devastating
outcome that destroys our communities and provides no
recognizable benefit for any of the endangered species? This
outcome is the product of a corrupted scientific process and a
disproportionate focus on the Klamath Project.
Instead of having applicant status in both Section 7
consultations for suckers and Coho salmon as we held in the
development of the 1992 opinion for suckers, we have been
excluded from the salmon consultation and relegated to
commenting on the sucker biological opinion after the fact. The
Department of the Interior has ignored two different sucker
restoration plans developed by the Klamath Water Users
Association in their preparation of biological assessments and
opinions. They have ignored credible peer review, including
that of Oregon State, which has already been discussed. We
would like to formally request that applicant status of Project
irrigators be reinstated for both the section 7 consultations
for suckers and for Coho.
Members of Congress and stakeholders continually ask the
same questions, but honest answers never seem to materialize.
If all of the fish kills in Upper Klamath Lake have occurred at
high water levels, why is the average fish kill elevation the
same as that prescribed as the minimum level in the biological
opinion? If no fish kills have occurred at low levels, why is
the concern so heavily weighted that they may occur in the
future? If the only viable year class of suckers recruited in
the last 10 years, 1991, occurred in a low water elevation of
4138, why is that not recognized? If the healthiest sucker
population with the most year classes occurs in Clear Lake
where virtually no emergent vegetation exists, why does the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service insist that the relationship
between emergent vegetation and lake levels in Upper Klamath
Lake is so important?
If fish kills on the Klamath River, including Coho,
occurred in August of '94, May and June of 2000, and May of
2001, when releases were being substantially augmented with
water from Upper Klamath Lake and the temperature of that water
was toxic to fish, why does the National Marine Fisheries
Service insist that more water, regardless of its quality, is
better? Since fish returns, particularly Coho, were excellent
in 1995 and 1996, following the lowest flows since Link River
Dam was constructed, why don't the agencies acknowledge that
other factors may have more influence than flows in the main
stem Klamath below Iron Gate Dam?
The demand that the Klamath Project must shoulder all of
the responsibility for providing lake levels, river flows and
any other needs that the agencies can dream up goes well beyond
unfair and borders on the ridiculous. There are two other
Federal irrigation projects, thousands of acres above Upper
Klamath Lake, thousands of acres irrigated from the Shasta and
Scott rivers. The Federal Government does not have the courage
or creativity to deal with this inequity. The Klamath Project
has simply been chosen as an easy target.
The perception shared by the tribes and some environmental
groups that all of the water stored for irrigation, plus all of
the inflow for the year, is still not enough to protect
resources, even with no deliveries to agriculture and the
refuges, is completely counter-productive to attaining
agriculture's cooperation for any endeavor. The resentment that
this attitude has instilled in the community will result in
long-term harm to agriculture's support for restoration
projects and activities.
We have initiated or supported the creation of nearly
25,000 acres of wetlands that have changed from productive
agricultural lands in private ownership to Federal or
conservancy ownership. We have supported appropriations for the
refuges and collaborated with the California Waterfowl
Association and Ducks Unlimited to improve wetland habitats.
Unlike others, we have never demanded all the water and never
will. We support our fellow food producers in the commercial
fishing industry and have focused our restoration efforts on
improving water quality. We think that these improvements,
which have been well documented, provide the most positive
impact on the fisheries relied upon by the commercial fleet,
and also improve conditions for endangered suckers and the
trust resources of the downstream tribes as well.
It has been stated by Glen Spain of the Pacific Coast
Federation of Fisherman's Association that market conditions in
the Klamath Basin may make agriculture's future an effort in
futility. Like the fishing industry, we have fought through
tough times before and survived. We can prosper again, but only
with an adequate supply of water. The unfortunate truth for
both fishermen and farmers is that the cheapest meal I can
think of today consists of a big baked potato and a fillet of
pen-raised Chilean Coho available at Safeway in Klamath Falls
for $1.89 a pound.
The devastated condition of this basin not only includes a
$250 million loss of farm gate revenue and the risk to public
safety related to wind and soil erosion that continues to
occur, but the horrible degradation of 200,000 acres of habitat
for hundreds of species living in the Klamath Project. How can
we justify the elimination of this habitat in the name of
single species management up in Upper Klamath Lake when that
management will probably not benefit the endangered suckers?
If an adequate economic relief package is not forthcoming,
the long-term harm and damage may be so severe that the people
and resources of this community cannot survive. Existing
disaster and drought relief programs provided by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture cannot be modified or adapted to
provide for these circumstances. Economic relief must be
crafted to accommodate the tremendous need based on what has
occurred in this basin.
The California community wants to thank Governor Gray Davis
for taking quick, decisive action and providing immediate
relief in the form of five million dollars for the drilling of
wells to augment our non-existent allocation of water.
The primary concern that I have regarding this entire issue
is that I cannot identify a single action taken by the
Department of the Interior that will prevent us from being in
this identical situation next year. I don't believe that any
type of long-term solution has been addressed by the Federal
agencies. Thank you.
Mr. Pombo. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Crawford follows:]
STATEMENT OF JOHN CRAWFORD, KLAMATH PROJECT FARMER AND MEMBER OF
TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee:
My name is John Crawford and I am a Klamath Project farmer. I have
lived in the Klamath Basin my entire life. I am a member of the
Tulelake Irrigation District Board of Directors, past president of the
Klamath Water Users Association, member of the Board of Trustees of the
Nature Conservancy of Oregon, a member of the Upper Klamath Basin
Working Group and the Klamath Basin Ecosystem Foundation.
As part of my testimony today I have the humbling responsibility of
representing Klamath Project agriculture including the veterans and the
Hispanic members of our community. Klamath Project irrigators are often
accused by environmental extremists of being highly subsidized and
having not paid our portion of the construction costs of the Klamath
Project. In fact we have repaid every penny of our obligation to the
Klamath Project and the following statement will provide insight to
other accomplishments of the agricultural community:``Through the half
century since the Klamath Project was completed, the Federal Government
has invested about $14.7 million in construction of the project. During
that same period the project has produced crops having a gross value of
more than $350 million. During the last 10 years alone, project lands
have produced 67 million bushels of potatoes valued at $80 million, and
42 million bushels of barley valued at $62 million. Federal tax
collections alone since 1940 have reached a cumulative total of about
$95 million, or more than 6 times the project's cost.
Two hundred thousand acres of fertile land have been reclaimed from
swamp and arid prairie. More than 1,600 farm families and scores of
merchants and tradesmen derive an excellent livelihood from this
reclamation project. About 44,000 acres of the 200,000 acres reclaimed
were originally in the public domain. These public lands have been
dedicated to the most worthy purpose of assisting our war veterans. I
can think of no finer program. Since 1922 settlement opportunities have
been provided to more than 600 veterans of World Wars I and II.
Although the accomplishments in the Klamath project area in the
past half century have been great, there is still room for expansion,
and even greater accomplishments are in store for this area in the
future if full development of the water and land resource potential is
effectively achieved.
I believe that you will find this a very interesting study and
another example showing that expenditures for our reclamation program
constitute one of the nation's wisest investments.''
The above is an excerpt of the statement of Clair Engle, the
Chairman, to the members of the House Interior and Insular Affairs
Committee dated May 16, 1957.
That wise investment has provided over 6 billion dollars in farm
products based on the value of today's dollar.
Words cannot begin to describe the pain being experienced in our
communities. Farm families have lost income. Long-term commodity supply
contracts have been terminated. Debts will not be paid. Dreams are
being shattered. The loss is not only economic. It is a loss of our
identity. There is no separation between our work and the rest of our
lives. We are farmers and ranchers.
Recently, I have seen Tom Hanks of ``Saving Private Ryan'' fame
soliciting support for the World War II memorial in Washington D.C. As
a life member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars I fully support this
effort, but believe there is no better place to recognize the
admiration and respect earned by our World War II veterans than here in
the Klamath Basin. This can be accomplished if our government honors
its commitment to the veterans who homesteaded the Tulelake area of the
Basin.
The vast majority of the Basin's Hispanic people are permanent
residents of the area. These proud leaders and valued members of our
community are inexorably linked to Basin agriculture. No water has
equated to loss of jobs and some of the men have already been forced to
leave the area in search of work. Now that the school year has ended
this exodus will continue and escalate. It is tragic that we may lose
our friends and neighbors that make up the Hispanic community.
How have we arrived at this deplorable and devastating outcome that
destroys our communities and provides no recognizable benefit for any
of the endangered species? This outcome is the product of a corrupted
scientific process and a disproportionate focus on the Klamath Project.
Instead of having applicant status in both the Section 7
consultations for suckers and Coho salmon as we held in the development
of the 1992 opinion for suckers we have been excluded from the salmon
consultation and relegated to commenting on the sucker biological
opinion after the fact. The Department of Interior has ignored two
different sucker restoration plans developed by the Klamath Water Users
Association in their preparation of biological assessments and
opinions. They have ignored credible peer review including Oregon State
University's assessment of the sucker biological opinion that said the
opinion was comprised of ``illogical conclusions'', ``inconsistent and
contradictory statements'', ``factual inaccuracies and rampant
speculation''. The review also stated that the document had the
potential to severely damage the public credibility of U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USF&WS).
Members of Congress and stakeholders continually ask the same
questions, but honest answers never seem to materialize. If all the
fish kills in Upper Klamath Lake have occurred at high water levels why
is the average fish kill elevation the same as that prescribed as the
minimum level in the biological opinion. If no fish kills have occurred
at low levels why is the concern so heavily weighted that they may
occur in the future? If the only viable year class of suckers recruited
in the last ten years (1991) occurred in a low water year elevation
4138 why is that not recognized? If the healthiest sucker population
with the most year classes occurs in Clear Lake where virtually no
emergent vegetation exists why does the USF&WS insist that the
relationship between emergent vegetation and lake levels in Upper
Klamath Lake is so important? If fish kills on the Klamath River
(including Coho) occurred in August of 1994, May and June of 2000 and
May of 2001 when releases were being substantially augmented with water
from Upper Klamath Lake and the temperature of that water was toxic to
fish why does the National Marine Fisheries Service insist that more
water regardless of its quality is better? Since fish returns
(particularly Coho) were excellent in 1995 and 1996 following the
lowest flows since Link River Dam was constructed why won't the
agencies acknowledge that other factors may have more influence than
flows in the main stem Klamath below Iron Gate Dam?
The demand that the Klamath Project must shoulder all of the
responsibility for providing lake levels, river flows and any other
needs the agencies can dream up goes well beyond unfair and borders on
the ridiculous. There are two other federal irrigation projects,
thousands of acres above Upper Klamath Lake, thousands of acres
irrigated from the Shasta and Scott rivers. The federal government does
not have the courage or creativity to deal with this iniquity. It has
simply been chosen as easy target.
The perception shared by the tribes and some environmental groups
that all of the water stored for irrigation plus all of the inflow for
the year is still not enough to protect resources even with no
deliveries to agriculture and the refuges is completely counter
productive to attaining agriculture's cooperation for any endeavor. The
resentment that this attitude has instilled in the community will
result in long-term harm to agriculture's support for restoration
projects and activities. We have initiated or supported the creation of
nearly 25,000 acres of wetlands that have changed from productive
agricultural lands in private ownership to federal or conservancy
ownership. We have supported appropriations for the refuges and
collaborated with the California Waterfowl Association and Ducks
Unlimited to improve wetland habitats. Unlike others we have never
demanded all the water and never will. We support our fellow food
producers in the commercial fishing industry and have focused our
restoration efforts on improving water quality. We think that these
improvements, which have been well documented, provide the most
positive impact on the fisheries relied upon by the commercial fleet
and also improve conditions for endangered suckers and the trust
resources of the downstream tribes as well. It has been stated by Glen
Spain of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, that
market conditions in the Klamath Basin may make agriculture's future an
effort in futility. Like the fishing industry we have fought through
tough times before and survived. We can prosper again, but only with an
adequate supply of water. The unfortunate truth for both fisherman and
farmers is that the cheapest meal I can think of today consists of a
big baked potato and a fillet of pen raised Chilean ``Coho'' available
at Safeway in Klamath Falls for $1.89 per pound.
The devastated condition of this Basin not only includes a $250
million loss of farm gate revenue and the risk of public safety related
to wind and soil erosion that continues to occur, but the horrible
degradation of 200,000 acres of habitat for hundreds of species living
in the Klamath Project. How can we justify the elimination of this
habitat in the name of single species management in Upper Klamath Lake
when that management will probably not benefit the endangered suckers.
If an adequate economic relief package is not forthcoming the long-
term harm and damage may be so severe that the people of this community
cannot survive. Existing disaster and drought relief programs provided
by the U.S. Department of Agriculture can probably not be modified or
adapted to provide for these circumstances. Economic relief must be
crafted to accommodate the tremendous need based on what has occurred
in this Basin.
The California community wants to thank Governor Gray Davis for
taking quick, decisive action and providing immediate relief in the
form of 5 million dollars for the drilling of wells to augment our non-
existent allocation of water.
The primary concern that I have regarding this entire issue is that
I cannot identify a single action taken by the Department of Interior
that will prevent us from being in this identical situation next year.
I don't believe that any type of long-term solution has been addressed
by the federal agencies.
______
Mr. Pombo. Ms. Molder.
STATEMENT OF SHARRON MOLDER
Ms. Molder. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank
you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Sharron
Molder. I'm the Principal of Tulelake High School, and I depend
on farming for my daily existence just as you do.
I want to thank you on behalf of all the students, parents,
teachers, and staff members of the Tulelake Basin School
District and our neighboring schools located within the Klamath
Basin for coming to Klamath Falls to learn more about the
crisis we are now facing. In fact, with no objection, I would
like to invite all current and former students from Tulelake,
Merrill and Malin to please stand up so you can see the people
I represent here today. We are not a small group.
I have been asked to give my opinion on what caused the
current water crisis. If you come to Tulelake High School and
walk through the foyer where a tradition of graduating classes
have been displayed since 1934, you will understand. The
veterans of World War I and World War II who came to farm in
the Klamath Project believed that a written promise for water
forever made by the government that sent them to war, and
signed by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Herbert Hoover or Ulysses
S. Grant, was meant to last longer than 50 years. These are the
people who created the backbone of this community. Out of 135
families, today in the Tulelake School District, 18 children at
the high school are third generation, 18 are fourth generation
and two are from fifth generation farming families.
What caused this crisis? Greed and hidden agendas by
environmental zealots who are not much different than the
carpetbaggers who rampaged the South after the Civil War
devastated our communities. Indifference to social and economic
conditions has begun to destroy not only our rural communities,
but also 430 native species of wildlife as well.
We don't just raise potatoes, horseradish and onions. We
grow kids. The valedictorian for the class of 2001, Brianna
Byrne, is a member of a local family who has farmed here for a
century. At a hearing before the California State Assembly,
Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee in May, Brianna stated,
``How can I and other members of my chapter of Future Farmers
feel any sense of security in pursuing agriculture as a career
when the government of the strongest nation on earth takes away
the core of our history and community based on unproven and
speculative science?''
The Tulelake community has tried to repair the situation by
communicating the news of this devastating crisis through the
media and a massive letter writing campaign to all government
representatives. I'd like to share excerpts of some journal
writings by students at Tulelake High School in hopes that you
will have some insight into the people that are affected by
this callous decision accepted as necessary by some branches of
our government. Dozens of testimonies make a clear statement
that our young people are losing there faith in government, and
I believe that should concern you, Mr. Chairman and Committee
members.
Our students wrote, ``The citizens of the area are looked
upon as pawns of their own government--the American government.
The government totally turned their backs on the people of this
Basin. They took away their livelihood. There once was a strong
belief in this community for the American government, but that
has now been destroyed.''
Mr. Chairman, I ask that you please include this
information in the official record.
Mr. Pombo. Without objection.
[The information referred to has been retained in the
Committee's official files:]
Ms. Molder. The Tulelake School District provides education
for children from preschool through 12th grade. As of March,
2001, the student enrollment in the district was 574; 55
percent of our student population is Hispanic, approximately 80
percent of these students qualify under Federal guidelines as
economically disadvantaged and therefore receive free or
reduced lunches and other benefits. Based on a poll preparing
the district's operating plan and budget for 2001/2002, we
could lose approximately 200 students, 30 to 40 percent of our
student population, and approximately one million dollars in
lost revenue. I know a lot about school administration, but I
don't know how to administrate a school with no children.
Our schools are recognized by the State of California as
high performance schools. Our technology is second to none in
Northern California. We are a very successful school district.
Our success is particularly notable when you consider that many
of our students come from homes that are at or below the
poverty level, and Spanish is the primary language spoken in
the homes. A government official in Sacramento told me that
instead of destroying our schools, the Federal agencies should
be up here studying them.
Many of the students' recent writings and actions indicate
even more significant adverse impacts to the school community.
Our recent 4th quarter grade reports show a significant
increase in D's and F's. This time frame parallels the news of
the water crisis. These are students who emotionally gave up.
We expect our SAT 9 scores to drop district-wide.
Many of the families in our schools have participated for
years in the successful agricultural business community, and
are now unemployed or are employers who have not only been
forced to lay off long-term employees, but face the prospect of
financial ruin themselves. The emotional pain and stress felt
by the parents is recognized and transmitted to the students.
As hope for a rapid solution fell, referrals and problems
increased. I am concerned that facing a summer with no jobs for
high school students, problems will continue to increase. We
usually process about 100 student work permits, and we have
processed six.
Modoc and Siskiyou Counties have been declared a ``special
disaster area.'' A Local Assistance Center has been set up.
However, some of our community members are undocumented
immigrants who will not be eligible for assistance. They have
put down roots. Some are third-generation now. But without
financial aid, they must move on. Others who will need our
services but will not accept them are senior citizens in need,
but too proud to accept a government handout.
It is troubling to hear from people who don't live here,
but who suggest that we should all just accept a government
buyout and move on. Unfortunately, discrimination is still
prevalent in our society, as these remarks sadly show. Our
schools will reopen in August, but who will still be here? Our
summer school enrollment has dropped from 220 students last
year to 170 this year. Our staff is frustrated and deeply hurt
by the possibility that our efforts to build an excellent
learning community are at risk because of the loss of
irrigation water to the farms that support this school
district. We still have children in this Basin to raise and
educate.
I share the words of Ross Macy who said, ``As an FFA
officer, I have been taught the importance of farming and
leadership. I have ambitions to gain the highest honor that the
FFA has to award, the American Farmer Degree, and to accomplish
this in my home town and in my high school. However, because of
this destructive decision, I may not be able to reach this
goal, and neither will future generations.'' Above all, the
greatest country in the world needs to have the greatest
government in the world so that a government ``of the people,
by the people and for the people shall not perish from this
earth.'' Abraham Lincoln.
My daughter Jennifer is a sophomore at Cal Poly, San Luis
Obispo, majoring in production agriculture, a 1999 graduate of
Tulelake High School and a member of FFA. In October we
traveled to Kentucky where she received her American Farmer
Degree from the largest youth organization in American. I pray
that she will not be the last. How can this problem be
prevented in the future?
Our government in an emergency is reactive, not proactive.
As Thomas Jefferson said, ``It is more honorable to repair a
wrong than to persist in it.'' You could still open the gates
and turn on the water. Some say it is too late to turn on the
water this year, but as long as it can help any person or any
species in the Basin, it is not too late. We teach our
children, if you make a mistake you admit it, correct it and
move on. Congress should also financially reimburse those
businesses and workers who have suffered because of the loss of
water supplies. The science that led to these decisions must be
reviewed. Economic impact studies should be conducted before
decisions are made. It is the people in this Basin who are
endangered and worth saving.
To close, I choose the words of sophomore, Lupita Aguilar:
``We need to find an answer to all of this. Please find a way
in which both fish, farmers and ranchers get water. I'm sure
there is a solution because there is one to everything. We just
have to work together and find the one that will benefit all
sides.'' Thank you.
Mr. Pombo. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Molder follows:]
STATEMENT OF SHARRON MOLDER, PRINCIPAL, TULELAKE HIGH SCHOOL, TULELAKE
BASIN JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, TULELAKE, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today. My name is Sharron Molder. I am the
principal of Tulelake High School and I depend on farming for my daily
existence, just as you do.
I want to thank you on behalf of the students, parents, teachers,
and staff members of the Tulelake Basin School District and our
neighboring schools located within the Klamath Basin, for coming to
Klamath Falls to learn more about the tragedy unfolding before us.
I have been asked to give my opinion on what caused the current
water crisis. If you came to Tulelake High School and walked through
the foyer where a tradition of graduating classes have been displayed
since 1934, you would know the answer. The Veterans of WWI and WWII who
came to farm in the Klamath Project, created by the Bureau of
Reclamation believed that a written promise for water forever, made by
the government that sent them to war, and signed by Franklin D.
Roosevelt, Herbert Hoover, or Ulysses S. Grant was meant to last longer
than 50 years. These are the people who created the backbone of this
community. Their pictures, on display from 1934 to the present honor
the generations that followed these brave families. Who is affected by
the loss of water in the Tulelake Basin? Out of 135 families in the
high school we have 18 families with third generation children, 18 who
are fourth generation and two who are fifth generation farming
families. Some of these same veterans now face a severe loss in income
because their land cannot be leased for farming providing retirement
income. These proud Americans never saw the crisis coming. What caused
this crisis? Greed and hidden agendas by environmental zealots who are
not much different than the carpetbaggers who rampaged the south after
the civil war devastated our communities. Indifference to social and
economic conditions has begun to destroy not only our rural communities
but also 430 native species of wildlife as well.
My daughter, Jennifer wants to be a farmer. She is a sophomore at
Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, majoring in Production Agriculture, a 1999
graduate of Tulelake High School and a member of FFA. She has earned
her American FFA degree, the highest national honor in the Future
Farmers
Organization, still the largest youth organization in America. I
share with you excerpts from the FFA Creed written by E.M. Tiffany
I believe in the future of agriculture. I believe that American
agriculture can and will hold true to the best traditions of our
national life and that I can exert an influence in my home and
community which will stand solid for my part in that inspiring task.
Jennifer is one of Tulelake's children. We don't just raise up
potatoes, horseradish and onions. We also grow kids. Another student,
our valedictorian for the class of 2001, Brianna Byrne, is on her way
to Santa Clara University. She is a member of a Klamath Basin family,
in farming for a century. At a hearing before the California State
Assembly, Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee on May 22, 2001 Brianna
stated ``How can I and the other members of my chapter of Future
Farmers feel any sense of security in pursuing agriculture as a career
when the government of the strongest nation on earth takes away the
core of our history and community based upon unproven and speculative
science?''
The Tulelake community has tried to repair the situation by
communicating the news of this devastating crisis through the print
media, television and a massive letter writing campaign to our
government representatives. A sophomore took photographs during a
sandstorm, when the dirt blew so hard you couldn't see the end of your
car on the highway, a common occurrence these days. Students and staff
prepared a reception at Tulelake High School for Congressman Wally
Herger, with mere 24 hours notice. The previous day the high school
took busses to the rally at The Event Center in Klamath Falls to hear
the governor of Oregon address the crowd of 6000. Columbia Plywood in
Oregon gave the high school 30 sheets of plywood to advertise our
plight along highway 139 to passing motorists. The students painted
messages on both sides: ``Give us our slice of the pie'', ``In
preschool we were taught to share'', ``Save our ecosystem, fish,
rancher, and farmer'' and ``Call 911! Some Sucker stole our water!''
But still, the tap is dry. I liken the feeling to the ``rolling power
blackouts'' that areas of California have been experiencing. Imagine
that the lights are switched off, but they do not go back on in an
hour, or a day. You do not know if the switch will ever go back on,
ever. So it is with our irrigation water.
The Tulelake community has tried to repair the situation by
communicating the news of this devastating crisis through the media and
a massive letter writing campaign to our government representatives.
I'd like to share excerpts of some journal writings by students at
Tulelake High School in hopes that you will have some insight into the
real people that are affected by this speculative science accepted as
truth by some branches of our government. Dozens of statements make a
clear statement that our young people are losing their faith in
government and I believe that should concern you Mr. Chairman and
committee members.
Ross: The citizens of the area are looked upon as pawns to their
own government, and not just any government, but the American
government. I feel as if the government believes that some fish in a
river are more important than the livelihoods of thousands. Is this how
the American government was set up? Absolutely not. It just goes to
show how unimportant the government believes the small farmer is. We do
all we can to produce the food the world needs, maintain the
environment, and sustain our own lives. There is no farmer in the world
that has to put up with more regulations and strict standards than the
American small farmer. However, we still hold on, believing that these
regulations are helping to produce a superior product, and we are
helping to give the world the food it needs. And then the government
takes it all away. The government has set a standard, and now little
bits of land can be taken away throughout the entire United States, and
soon we will be abolishing the American small farmer all together.
Wes: On Friday, the 6th of April, our government decided that they
were not going to give any water, as in none at all, to the farmers of
the Klamath Basin. They decided that they were going to let all the
water run down river just because there might be a possibility that the
fish population would deplete. There was no evidence guaranteeing that
the fish population would go down. They still decided that the lives of
fish were more important than the lives of countless farmers. The
government totally turned their backs on the people of this Basin. They
took away something that was truly important to the people here; they
took away their livelihood. Our government, at the turn of the century,
invited homesteaders to come and settle here and start new lives. Now,
that very same government is taking away what they once had supported.
The farmers of this area use only two percent of the water in Klamath
Lake. They only want 6 inches of the lake water so that they can
provide food for their families and thousands of other families in the
US. Everything that goes on in Tulelake is in one way or another linked
to agriculture. My dad works for a fertilizer corporation whose
business comes from the farmers. Every friend that I have here is also
linked to farming. To most of them farming is all they know, its what
they have done for their whole lives, its what they have taught their
children to do. What are they going to do when they are suddenly out of
a job? All because the Government believes that the lives of fish are
more important than the lives of your people. What kind of Government
is that?
Angela: Our FFA chapter earns most of its money by our school farm.
Without water we will not be able to farm this summer and we are unsure
how we will be able to pay for chapter contests and educational
conferences for next year. The saddest thing to think about is that my
FFA jacket maybe useless next year because there doesn't seem to be a
future for the farmers in this area.
Alejandra: The water crisis means a lot to me because of my
parents. They don't have a good education to get a different job, so
they can only work out in the fields or in the packing sheds.
Amanda: What about the businesses, the schools, the churches, the
youth groups, school sports, and also the wildlife? What do the farmers
and ranchers do now? Move from their homes and take their children out
of the schools where they grew up with all their classmates and built
strong relationships? Our towns will become ghost towns because there
is no work. Tulelake, Merrill, and Malin are based on farming and when
that gets taken away the towns become nothing. All the money the
farmers and workers put into their houses and businesses will have all
gone to waste for the sake of Sucker Fish! To me, this seems
outrageous.
Jose Antonio: Our community revolves around agriculture. Many
families have started moving, looking for jobs. The farmers don't have
the money to have the workers work for them. I have been really worried
that my family will want to move. I'm sixteen years old and I've lived
in Tulelake for eleven years. All my friends have known me for most of
my life and I don't want to be separated from them. I'm asking anybody
that reads this or hears this to help us.
Laura: The water decision in this basin is a tragedy. So many
families will be leaving and so many friends. It is very strange that
we are having a recession in the economy and we are putting people out
of jobs. Isn't it supposed to be the other way around?
Jerry: When people would eliminate people over fish, there is
something wrong. If people would rather see a sucker fish prosper, than
see a whole community survive, something is erroneous. This issue is
more than being able to stay in Tulelake, it is the fact that people
can get away with catastrophic devastation to smaller communities, for
unimaginable wants. If it starts here, it won't stop. Other communities
will be struck with this, If we don't get any water and the protection
agencies win, then they will have the power to do it over and over
again.
Juan: The water crisis is a very big problem at this point in my
life. I have many other problems and this is one that has to be
resolved fast. Please make our suffering end this month.
Wes: There isn't much work so there isn't much money coming in.
Times are very rough. It is hard for our family to pay the bills each
month. My mom and dad are stressed out all the time. What's worse is
that there is nothing I can do about it.
Agustin: My parents don't want to move because they like this
peaceful community and good schools. My father is going to move away
and send us money so we won't have to leave here. He will return when
the situation is better.
Amanda: I worry about moving and leaving my small school. Small
schools are special because you get to know other students real well
and most of us have relationships with our teachers.
Matt: Turning off the water has taken away my dream to go to
college and play basketball. I don't know now how I can pay for it.
Rebecca: As human beings we should try everything in our power to
sustain wildlife, but at what cost? In Tulelake, by refusing water to
the basin's farmers there is the idea that a fish's life is worth more
then many farmers and their families'' lives. This is a ridiculous
idea. There isn't any person who would sacrifice the life of themselves
or their children for the life of a fish. So why are farmers in
Tulelake being asked to do so? These farmers have made their livelihood
out of farming. They have built on the American Dream, the American
Dream to produce and flourish. The dream that with every drop of sweat
that falls and with every trickle of blood spilled, at the end of the
day they can be proud of their toil. This crisis does not only affect
farmers and the Tulelake Basin. By supporting the fish's life, you are
supporting the basin's business degradation. There once was a strong
belief in this community for the American Government; but that has now
been destroyed. Please help us to regain some of that belief, and
support the Tulelake Farmers.
Cecilia: Immigrants once came to this country to escape this type
of tyrannical government and gave their lives for the freedoms we all
enjoy. Why now does the government have the right to tell us how we are
to make our living and where we are to live?
Our students feel betrayed. We all feel betrayed.
The Tulelake School District provides education for children from
preschool through 12th grade. As of March 2001, the student enrollment
in the District was 574. Approximately 80% of the said students qualify
under federal guidelines as economically disadvantaged and, therefore,
receive free or reduced lunches and other benefits. As of said date,
approximately 55% of our student population was Hispanic. We are
currently involved in preparing the District's operating plan and
budget for the 2001-2002 school year. In order to determine the impact
of the cutoff of water on our school population we began polling the
students in our schools. Based on our poll, we could lose approximately
200 students, 30 - 40% of our total student population by the beginning
of the next school year. The estimated loss of revenue will be
approximately 1 million dollars.
Our schools are recognized by the state of California as High
Performing Schools. Our schools are recognized by the state of
California as High Performing Schools. Tulelake Basin Elementary School
raised their API from 545 to 659, an increase of 114 points. Tulelake
High School, already a high performing school, raised our API 53
points, the second largest increase in the north state. This phenomenal
growth far exceeded the accountability targets set by the state of
California. Our technology is second to none in Northern California.
Our student to computer ratio is 1:2. We have a video-conferencing lab
for students and community members to take courses from College of the
Siskiyous. Next fall we will begin a yearlong course for Cisco
Networking Certification as well as a semester course in A+
Certification as part of our technology path. We are part of the
University of California College Prep Initiative, offering 7 online AP
courses and 4 honors courses next year. We are also expanding AVID to
three grades, 8th, 9th and 10th to increase opportunities for college
path education to more students. We have been a part of the KRIS
Project (Klamath Resource Information System ) collecting water quality
data from tributaries to Klamath Lake. We understand the problem. What
we do not understand is being excluded from the solution. We also have
a working school farm which supports our agricultural program offering
hands on experience to future farmers. We cannot farm either this year
without water. We cannot water our football fields, soccer fields or
our parks. A governmental official in Sacramento told me that instead
of destroying our schools you should be up here studying them!
Many of the students'' recent writings and actions indicate even
more significant adverse impacts to the school community. Based on my
years of experience in education I recognize and understand the
emotional and behavioral impacts of stress on the school population.
Our recent 4th quarter grade reports show a significant increase in D's
and F's. This time frame parallels the news of the water crisis. There
are students who emotionally gave up. We expect our SAT 9 scores to
drop District wide. It was very hard to motivate many of our students
to focus beyond the crisis. The children in our schools are well aware
of the financial and emotional health of their families. Many of the
families in our schools have participated for years in the successful
agricultural business community. Many of the parents of our students
are now unemployed or are employers who have not only been forced to
lay off long-term employees, but face the prospect of financial ruin
themselves. The emotional pain and stress felt by the parents is
recognized and transmitted to the students. As hope for a rapid
solution fell, referrals and problems increased. I began to deal with
behaviors I had not witnessed in three years. We are concerned that
facing a summer with no jobs for high school students, the problems
could continue to increase. We usually process about 100 student work
permits, mostly for field workers. We have processed six.
California Governor Gray Davis signed a bill declaring Modoc and
Siskiyou counties within the Klamath Reclamation Project a ``special
disaster area''. Two million dollars will come to our non-profit,
Tulelake Community Partnership to set up a Local Assistance Center. We
hope it is soon enough and direct enough to help all of our people.
Some of our community members are undocumented immigrants, former
migrant workers, who will not be eligible. They have put down roots;
some are third generation now, but without assistance they must move
on. Others who will need our services but will not accept them are
senior citizens, too proud to accept ``a government handout''. Mr.
Wendall Wood commented that the government can write a check to our
farmers but not to a bald eagle. Mr. Wood needs to remember who signs
the check.
The schools will open in late August, but who will still be here?
How do we plan? Our summer school enrollment has dropped from 220 last
year to 170 this year K--8. Our staff is frustrated and deeply hurt by
the possibility that our efforts to build an excellent learning
community are at risk of destruction because of the loss of irrigation
water to the farms that support this school district. We are committed
to keeping our certificated and classified staffs intact. We are a very
tenacious and proud community and we will find a way to maintain our
way of life for the children we have yet to raise and educate.
I share the words of Ross Macy : ``I am an officer in the Future
Farmers of America. This organization has taught me the importance of
farming, and of leadership. I have ambitions to gain the highest honor
that the FFA has to award, the American Farmer Degree and to accomplish
this in my hometown, and in my own high school. However, because of
this destructive decision I might not be able to reach this goal, and
neither will future generations. This is terrible. Above all, the
greatest country in the world needs to have the greatest government in
the world. ``So that a government of the people, by the people, and FOR
the people, shall not perish from the earth.'' Abraham Lincoln.
Farmers are truly the Keepers of the Earth. If the ESA is not
amended there will always be a lawsuit on the horizon. There was a
combination of factors that came together during this drought year.
Unfortunately, the land itself, which sustains this agricultural
community, became a commodity.
How can the problem be prevented in the future? Our government in
an emergency is reactive not proactive. As Thomas Jefferson said, ``It
is more honorable to repair a wrong than to persist in it.'' You could
still open the gates and turn on the water. Some say it is too late to
turn water on this year but as long as it can help any person, or any
species in the Basin, it is not too late. We teach our children if you
make a mistake you admit it, correct it and move on. Congress should
also financially reimburse those businesses and workers who have
suffered because of the loss of water supplies. The science that led to
these decisions must be reviewed. Economic impact studies need to be
conducted prior to the impact, as is required by your laws.
It is the people in this Basin who are endangered and worth saving.
To close, I choose the words of sophomore, Lupita Aguilar : ``We need
to find an answer to all this. Please find a way in which both fish,
farmers, and ranchers get water. I'm sure there is a solution because
there is one to everything. We just have to work together and find the
right one that will benefit all sides.''
Thank you.
______
Mr. Pombo. Mr. Raybould.
STATEMENT OF DELL RAYBOULD
Mr. Raybould. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity of coming to Oregon to testify before this
Committee. My name is Dell Raybould and I am from Rexburg,
Idaho. I am here today representing a number of water, farming
and agricultural interests in the State of Idaho, including the
Committee of Nine, which is the governing board of Water
District Number 1 in the State of Idaho, The Idaho Water Users
Association, and the Idaho Farm Bureau Federation.
I've been a farmer and a businessman in eastern Idaho for
over 50 years. I have served in water management as the
Director of Canal Companies, a private reservoir company, and
an irrigation district. I am also a current member of the Idaho
State House of Representatives, in which I serve on the
Resources and Conservation Committee.
I believe that there is a basic lack of understanding and
respect regarding the commitment that the Federal Government
made to encourage settlers to establish agriculture in the arid
West. The Federal Government has a contractual as well as a
moral obligation to protect this essential industry, which the
Federal Government itself fostered and encouraged.
Mr. Chairman, there are three points that I would like to
make today. First, the Federal Government should never allow
the constitutional protections of this nation to be ignored or
made subservient to actions of Congress. The issue here is
fundamentally a property rights issue and the constitutional
guarantee that the government will never take private property
without just compensation. Secondly, the Federal Government
needs to adopt and maintain a consistent policy west-wide
regarding the acquisition and use of water for the Endangered
Species Act purposes. And, third, sound science must guide any
decision to use water for the Endangered Species Act purposes.
Flow targets must be demonstrated by credible, peer reviewed
scientific evidence, not models or untested theories.
The issue of whether and how water should be acquired for
the Endangered Species Act purposes is not a new one for us. We
are very familiar with it in the Upper Snake River Basin in
Idaho. During 1994, Senator Larry Craig secured a written
pledge, signed by the Commissioner of the Bureau of
Reclamation, that water for Endangered Species Act purposes
would only be acquired from willing sellers and within state
law providing for water leases in the Upper Snake River Basin,
and that there would be no taking of water.
The willing seller within State law and with the lease
provisions policy announced in 1994 remains the case today in
Idaho. With the willing seller leases and state law policy so
firmly entrenched in the Upper Snake River Basin, the question
must be asked, what happened in the Klamath Basin? Why was
water, held under contract, taken from the irrigators? Is there
no consistent policy regarding the acquisition of water for ESA
purposes? Apparently not. This needs to change. We believe that
the right to own private property is one of the fundamental and
defining characteristics of this Republic. It would indeed be
troubling if the erosion of private property rights is not as
troubling to this Committee as it is to us.
The water users of the Klamath Basin must be compensated
for their loss. I applaud the Bush administration for including
$20 million in disaster assistance for the Klamath Basin in its
supplemental appropriation request. I understand that other
financial assistance is also being arranged. While this will
certainly aid those in need, this money should be recognized
for what it is: a Band-Aid to temporarily alleviate the pain of
a much larger wound.
Reclamation project benefits established almost a century
ago should not been brushed aside in the name of the Endangered
Species Act. These projects have been paid for by the water
users, and whole communities have grown up around the projects
as a result of the promises made by the Federal Government. It
is my experience that the willing seller, lease, and state law
policy have worked well in the Upper Snake River Basin. I
believe it could work in the Klamath Basin and other parts of
the arid West. Mr. Chairman and Committee Members, I therefore
request that you help see that it is adopted.
In conclusion, I find the entire episode in the Columbia
(sic) Basin this year to be appalling. Time honored contracts
between water users in the United States have been thrown aside
in the name of the ESA and junk science. For this, the local
economy and a way of life have been sacrificed. Mr. Chairman,
today is the day. Now is the time to amend the Endangered
Species Act by passing legislation to exempt irritation water
from Endangered Species Act jurisdiction. We encourage you to
do what you can to see that order and sanity are restored in
the Klamath Basin. If there is anything we can do to help, we
will. Mr. Chairman, I again appreciate the opportunity to
testify, and would welcome any questions that you may have.
Thank you.
Mr. Pombo. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Raybould follows:]
STATEMENT OF DELL RAYBOULD, REPRESENTING THE COMMITTEE OF NINE, WATER
DISTRICT 1, STATE OF IDAHO, THE IDAHO WATER USERS ASSOCIATION, INC.,
AND THE IDAHO FARM BUREAU FEDERATION
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, my name is Dell
Raybould, from Rexburg, Idaho. I'm here today representing a number of
water, farming and agricultural interests in the State of Idaho,
including the Committee of Nine, which is the governing board of Water
District 1 in the State of Idaho, the Idaho Water Users Association,
and the Idaho Farm Bureau Federation.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you regarding the
situation here in the Klamath Basin and across the West. In particular,
I would like to acknowledge my Congressman, Mike Simpson, as well as
Representative Butch Otter, for their role in providing me with the
opportunity to testify.
I have been a farmer and a businessman in Eastern Idaho for 53
years. I have served in water management as the director of canal
companies, a private reservoir company, and an irrigation district. I
am also a current member of the Idaho State House of Representatives,
in which I serve on the Resources and Conservation Committee.
This hearing is important not just for the people of the Klamath
Basin, but also for those people living in Idaho and throughout the
West that are dependent upon irrigated agriculture.
There is a basic lack of understanding and respect regarding the
role that irrigation has played in the settlement of the West and the
commitments that the federal government made to encourage settlers to
bring the deserts of the arid West into production.
Agriculture and ranching is still the most important industry in
the West and the federal government has a contractual, as well as a
moral, obligation to protect this essential industry which the federal
government itself fostered and encouraged through direct Congressional
action.
Mr. Chairman, there are three general points that I would like to
make today:
(1) The federal government should never allow the constitutional
protections of this nation to be ignored or made subservient to actions
of Congress. The issue here is fundamentally a property rights issue
and the constitutional guarantee that the government will never take
private property without just compensation, and even then, only when
there are not alternatives.
(2) The federal government needs to adopt and maintain a consistent
policy westwide regarding the acquisition and use of water for
Endangered Species Act purposes. Such acquisitions should be from
willing sellers only and the water should be used consistent with state
law. Water should not be taken from irrigators against their will or
used in a way that is contrary to state law.
(3) Sound science must guide any decision to use water for
Endangered Species Act purposes. The need for minimum reservoir pools
or downstream flow targets must be demonstrated by credible, peer
reviewed scientific evidence, not models or untested theories. Known
factors of mortality such as harvest, predators, and ocean conditions
must receive renewed focus.
We are here today because more than 1,500 farmers and ranchers in
the Klamath Basin have had their water taken from them when they need
it most - during a drought - in the name of the Endangered Species Act.
At least ninety percent of the 200,000 acres of farmland under the
Klamath Project will be without water this year. Not because of a
drought, but because of the federal government's implementation of the
Endangered Species Act. It is a wrong-headed policy that has resulted
in this catastrophe and one that needs to be changed.
The issue of whether, and how, water should be acquired for
Endangered Species Act purposes is not a new one. We are very familiar
with it in the Upper Snake River Basin in Idaho.
In response to the listing of Snake River salmon under the ESA in
1991 and 1992, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) requested
that the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation provide up to 427,000 acre feet of
water from the Upper Snake River Basin for the purpose of assisting in
the downstream migration of the salmon.
NMFS has required the delivery of water from Idaho for flow
augmentation in Biological Opinions issued during 1995, 1998, 1999 and,
most recently, on May 2, 2001.
During 1993, the Pacific Northwest Regional Director of the Bureau
of Reclamation, John Keys, was provided with written guidance from Dan
Beard, the Commissioner of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, regarding
the acquisition of water by the Bureau to aid in the recovery of
threatened and endangered salmon.
The July 19, 1993 memorandum from Dan Beard is attached to my
written testimony.
In his memorandum, Commissioner Dan Beard concluded that there were
four options ``available and legally authorized'' to secure water for
flow augmentation. They were: (1) releasing water stored but not under
contract; (2) releasing water covered by existing spaceholder
contracts; (3) participating in rental water banks to acquire water;
and (4) buying back already committed space in the reservoirs.
It was option number 2 on this list - ``releasing water covered by
existing spaceholder contracts''--that raised the fundamental issue of
whether the federal government would respect or ignore the United
States Constitution. More specifically, the question was whether water
would be acquired on a willing seller-willing buyer basis, or whether
water would be taken by the federal government without regard to
private property rights and the contractual obligations of the Bureau.
Through his memo, Commissioner Beard signaled the intent of the
Clinton Administration to take water away from irrigators.
Commissioner Beard's memo was met with heavy criticism by the
entire western water community, and especially by Idaho interests. As
just one example, Beard was peppered with questions at the National
Water Resources Association's annual conference in San Diego during the
fall of 1993.
During 1994, on the eve of NMFS adopting a new Biological Opinion
that would govern the flow augmentation program, Idaho's Congressional
delegation, led by Senator Larry Craig, secured a written pledge,
signed by Commissioner Dan Beard and Rolland Schmitten, Assistant
Administrator for Fisheries, NMFS, Department of Commerce, that water
for ESA purposes would only be acquired from willing sellers in the
Upper Snake River Basin and that there would be no taking of water. A
copy of this April 1, 1994 letter addressed to Senator Craig and a
related press release from Senator Craig's office, dated April 4, 1994,
are attached to my testimony. The Bureau's Regional Director, John
Keys, was also instrumental in forging the willing seller policy of the
federal government.
The willing seller policy announced in 1994, coupled with deference
to state law, was subsequently reflected in the Biological Assessments
and Biological Opinions issued by the Bureau and NMFS. This remains the
case today.
With the ``willing seller'' and ``state law'' policy so firmly
entrenched in the Upper Snake River Basin, the question must be asked:
What happened in the Klamath Basin? Why was water held under contract
taken from irrigators? Is there no consistent policy even within the
Snake/Columbia Basin regarding the acquisition of water for ESA
purposes? Apparently not. This needs to change.
We believe that the right to own private property is one of the
fundamental and defining characteristics of this republic. It would
indeed be troubling if the erosion of private property rights is not as
troubling to this Committee as it is to us.
In the short term, the water users of the Klamath Basin must be
compensated for their losses. Their livelihoods have been taken by the
federal government and must be returned to them, in tact. The
Endangered Species Act is an obligation of all of the people of the
United States - not just those that reside in this basin. It is a
matter of basic fairness that just compensation be provided from the
U.S. Treasury for the losses that have been sustained.
The recent Court of Federal Claims decision in Tulare Lake Basin
Water Storage District v. United States (April 30, 2001) requires NMFS
and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to compensate water users for
reduced water deliveries that resulted from ESA compliance in the
Central Valley of California. So, too, should the water users of the
Klamath Basin be compensated for water shortages caused by the federal
government.
It has been reported that the economic losses in the area this year
are likely to exceed $200 million. I applaud the Bush Administration
for including $20 million in disaster assistance for the Klamath Basin
in its Supplemental Appropriations request to Congress, as urged by
Senator Gordon Smith and Representative Greg Walden. I understand that
other financial assistance is also being arranged. While this will
certainly aid those in need, this money should be recognized for what
it is: a band-aid to temporarily alleviate the pain of a much larger
wound.
To fix the problem for the long term, the Bush Administration must
take the existing willing seller/state law policy in the Upper Snake
River Basin and apply it westwide.
Reclamation project benefits, established almost a century ago,
should not be brushed aside in the name of the Endangered Species Act.
These projects have been paid for by water users and whole communities
have grown up around the projects as a result of the promises made by
the federal government.
The United States should not take this water from the farmers and
ranchers of the Klamath Basin. If the United States desires water for
ESA purposes, it should be required to purchase the water from willing
sellers in the basin. The use of the water must also be consistent with
state law.
It is my experience that this federal policy has worked well in the
Upper Snake River Basin. I believe it could work in the Klamath Basin
and other parts of the arid west. Mr. Chairman and Committee Members, I
therefore request that you help see that it is adopted.
Of course, before any water is purchased, there must first be a
demonstrated, scientifically-based need for the water.
Water users in Idaho have relentlessly challenged the scientific
basis for NMFS' flow augmentation program. A key part of this program
is the establishment of downstream flow targets. We challenge the flow
targets as being inconsistent with actual hydrologic data maintained
for the past 80 years.
Similar questions must be asked in the Klamath Basin regarding the
downstream flow targets for the coho salmon, as well as the minimum
pool levels established for the suckers. Are these thresholds based on
observed data, or are they based on computer models and unproven
theories?
Have the studies relied upon by the federal agencies been
adequately peer reviewed by credible scientists? Have biological
studies done by independent scientists been disregarded by the federal
agencies?
The answers to these and other tough scientific questions - and not
politics--should dictate whether, and how much, water is required to
meet the needs of the species. Credible, peer reviewed data, and the
consideration of all available scientific information is a must.
Decisions to take water from irrigators should not be guided by junk
science.
In the Upper Snake River Basin, water users and the State of Idaho
have been able to debunk the myth that flow augmentation will recover
the salmon. Other factors are at play which threaten the fish. I
understand that ocean conditions are improving and, if so, this should
significantly increase salmon runs. Predators and harvest are also
major sources of mortality - ones that can and should be controlled.
These factors must be taken into account when looking at the Klamath
Basin.
In conclusion, I find the entire episode in the Klamath Basin this
year to be appalling. And I am not alone in my assessment. Irrigators
in Idaho and throughout the West are keenly aware of the plight here in
the Klamath Basin. Time-honored contracts between water users and the
United States have been thrown aside in the name of the ESA and junk
science. For this, the local economy and a way of life have been
sacrificed.
We encourage you to do what you can to see that order and sanity
are restored in the Klamath Basin. If there is anything we can do to
help, we will.
Mr. Chairman, again I appreciate the opportunity to testify and I
would welcome any questions that you may have.
______
[Attachments to Mr. Raybould's statement follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3135.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3135.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3135.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3135.061
Mr. Pombo. Mr. Vogel.
STATEMENT OF DAVID VOGEL
Mr. Vogel. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank
you for the opportunity to be here to testify. My name is David
Vogel. I'm here to provide you with important information
concerning the science, or more aptly stated, the lack of
science behind the artificially created regulatory crisis that
has been imposed in the Klamath Basin, and to recommend
solutions to this major problem. I'm a fishery scientist with
26 years of experience. I have authored many technical reports,
including restoration of Klamath Basin fishery resources. I
have performed research on Coho salmon and the endangered
suckers as well as many other fish species throughout the
western United States.
Mr. Chairman, I offer your Committee several reasons why
this regulatory crisis did not have to occur, and how it can be
avoided in the future. My written testimony provides more
details. I will simply summarize the main points here.
My first point pertains to how the decision making process
went awry. In my entire professional career of nearly three
decades, I have never been involved in a process that was as
closed, segregated, and as unjust as we now have in the Klamath
Basin. The constructive science-based processes I have
experienced elsewhere used an honest and open dialogue.
Hypotheses are developed and then tested against empirical
evidence. Such are the accepted standards of science, but they
have not been applied here.
My second point pertains to the distortion of facts and the
lack of science associated with the suckers and Coho salmon.
The two sucker species exhibit far greater numbers over a much
broader geographic range, and with greater reproduction than
reported by the agency more than a decade ago. These facts call
into serious question if the fish really are endangered. This
year's crisis was caused by a demand for high lake levels, and
is a major step backwards for practical natural resource
management. Forcing higher than normal lake levels is likely to
be detrimental, not beneficial for the suckers.
As you can see from Figure 1 of my testimony, huge fish
kills occurred when the lake was near average or above average
levels, but not at low levels. In fact one of the worst fish
kills on record occurred during 1971 when the lake was nearly
full. This is not a professional opinion, but is a fact
extensively documented, yet ignored by the Fish and Wildlife
Service.
The National Marine Fisheries Service added to the
regulatory crisis by demanding higher than historical flow
rates from Iron Gate Dam. As you can see from Figure 2 in my
testimony, and the poster to my left, numerically and
proportionally, few Coho are present in the mainstem river
channel in the area most influenced by the Klamath Project.
Instead, NMFS chose to focus on the Klamath Project in the
Upper Basin to rectify for the failures in the tributaries of
the Lower Basin where most Coho reside. This misguided
scientifically deficient approach will not succeed. In short,
scientific bases for the agency's actions are lacking. Further
scrutiny will reveal these deficiencies. Tragically, for the
Upper Basin and for the fish, warm water is being dumped in the
wrong place, at the wrong time, and for all the wrong reasons.
The purported biological benefits to the fish will not been
realized.
My last point is that there are solutions to avoid such
problems in the future. There are enormous opportunities to do
good things for ecosystem restoration. There are numerous on
the ground actions that could be undertaken to improve the
existing situation and provide greater flexibility and balance
for resource management. It's time to take a new approach. To
this end, the water users have adopted an unprecedented,
proactive strategy for restoration. They have promoted actions
ranging from improving fish access to the Sprague River, to
physical habitat and water quality improvements. The major
impediments to taking action appear to be those individuals
afraid of taking calculated risks, and those unwilling to seek
a balanced approach to natural resource management. I submit
that these attitudes will lead to continual conflict and
controversy, and they will not solve the problems.
Mistakes made by these two agencies can be prevented
through a proper peer review, much like Sue Ellen Wooldridge
mentioned. However, this peer review should be performed
outside of the Departments of Interior and Commerce to avoid
the problems encountered this year. Data must be examined with
clear scientific objectivity, using widely accepted scientific
principles. To be objective, agency policies and positions do
not belong in the scientific process. Good science will lead to
good policies. And if the agencies are willing, there is a
great opportunity to accomplish restoration goals without doing
the kind of harm that is being experienced now. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Vogel follows:]
STATEMENT OF DAVID A. VOGEL, PRESIDENT, NATURAL RESOURCE SCIENTISTS,
INC.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify at this important hearing. My name is David
Vogel. I am a fisheries scientist who has worked in this discipline for
the past 26 years. I earned a Master of Science degree in Natural
Resources (Fisheries) from the University of Michigan in 1979 and a
Bachelor of Science degree in Biology from Bowling Green State
University in 1974. I previously worked in the Fishery Research and
Fishery Resources Divisions of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) for 14 years and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
for one year. During my tenure with the federal government, I received
numerous superior and outstanding achievement awards and commendations,
including Fisheries Management Biologist of the Year Award for six
western states. For the last 10 years I have worked as a consulting
fisheries scientist on a variety of projects on behalf of federal,
state, and county governments, Indian tribes, and numerous other public
and private groups. During the past decade, I have advised the Klamath
Water Users Association (KWUA) on Klamath River basin fishery resource
issues. I was the principal author of the 1993 ``Initial Ecosystem
Restoration Plan for the Upper Klamath River Basin'' and was one of the
primary contributing authors to the Upper Basin Amendment to the
Klamath River fishery restoration program. I was a principal
contributor of information for the 1992 Biological Assessment on Long-
Term Operations of the Klamath Project. More recently, I was a
contributor to technical portions of the March 2001 document,
``Protecting the Beneficial Uses of Waters of Upper Klamath Lake: A
Plan to Accelerate Recovery of the Lost River and Shortnose Suckers''.
This plan was also authored by Dr. Alex Horne and I have attached his
March 21, 2001 testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on Water and
Power. I have performed research projects on coho salmon and the
endangered suckers, as well as many other species.
Today, I am providing your Committee with important information
concerning the science, or more aptly stated, lack of rigorous science,
behind the artificially created regulatory crisis that has been imposed
on the Upper Klamath basin. These topics relate to the sucker fish,
which the USFWS has focused on to regulate higher-than-normal lake
elevations in Upper Klamath Lake, and coho salmon, which NMFS has
focused on to demand higher-than-normal flows below Iron Gate Dam on
the Klamath River. And lastly, I am providing your Committee with
recommendations to avoid the regulatory crisis that has been created in
the Klamath Basin.
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS
In my entire professional career, I have never been involved in a
decision-making process that was as closed, segregated, and poor as we
now have in the Klamath basin. The constructive science-based processes
I have been involved in elsewhere have involved an honest and open
dialogue among people having scientific expertise. Hypotheses are
developed, then rigorously tested against empirical evidence.
None of those elements of good science characterize the decision-
making process for the Klamath Project. At one time, several years ago,
the agencies would interact with all interests who had expertise or a
stake in the decisions. Recently, my role has been to receive completed
analyses (usually without supporting data) and mail in comments. Often,
the timeline is such that it is virtually impossible to comment and
certainly impossible for the agencies to consider the comments
objectively and meaningfully. The overriding sense I have is that the
goal is to dismiss what we have to offer. A scientist that I work with
has had the experience of being invited to a technical meeting, then
literally turned away. Additionally, we have been invited to attend
recent meetings related to downstream flow studies, but our presence
was requested at the end of the process, after key assumptions had been
developed.
I provide examples below of the kinds of information that have not,
in my opinion, received objective consideration or open discussion. I
also include alternative actions and recommendations.
KLAMATH BASIN SUCKERS
Endangered Species Status
Disturbingly, I have learned from an extensive review of the
relevant Administrative Record that the information used by the USFWS
to list the two sucker species as endangered in 1988 under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) is now very much in question. The USFWS so
selectively reported the available information that it can only be
considered a distorted view of information available to the agency at
that time. The dominant reason that the USFWS listed the species was an
apparent precipitous decline in both populations in the mid-1980s and
the lack of successful reproduction (recruitment) for 18 years.
Documents selectively used by the Service to support the listing
portrayed an alarmist tone indicating that the species were on the
brink of extinction. Because of information in the Administrative
Record and scientific data developed since the listing, major questions
are now posed calling into question the integrity of the original
listing decision.
Due to extensive research performed on the Lost River and shortnose
sucker populations in recent years, relative population abundance
estimates are available for both species. Although there are
differences in the manner by which each estimate was computed and some
estimates have broad confidence intervals, the numbers represent the
best available information that was used by the USFWS to list and
monitor the species. A comparison of estimates developed prior to and
after the listing demonstrates a remarkable change in the species''
status (Table 1). Recent data demonstrates that the sucker populations
exceeded the original estimates used to justify listings by an order of
magnitude.
It is now evident that either:
1) The estimates of the sucker populations in the 1980s were in
error and did not, in fact, demonstrate a precipitous decline (i.e.,
the populations were much larger than assumed), or
2) The estimates of the sucker populations in the 1980s were
reasonably accurate and the suckers have demonstrated an enormous boom
in the period since the listing and no longer exhibit ``endangered''
status.
Furthermore, in contrast to the lack of recruitment described in
1988, it is now very evident that the Upper Klamath Lake sucker
populations have experienced substantial recruitment in recent years
and also exhibit recruitment every year. Only three years after the
sucker listing, it also became apparent that the assumptions concerning
the status of shortnose suckers and Lost River suckers in the Lost
River/Clear Lake watershed were in error. Surveys performed just after
the sucker listing found substantial populations of suckers in Clear
Lake (reported as ``common'') exhibiting a biologically desirable
diverse age distribution. Within California, the USFWS surveyors
considered populations of both species as ``relatively abundant,
particularly shortnose, and exist in mixed age populations, indicating
successful reproduction''. Recent population estimates for suckers in
the Lost River/Clear Lake watershed indicate their populations are
substantial, and that hybridization is no longer considered as
``rampant'' as portrayed by the USFWS in 1988. Tens of thousands of
shortnose suckers, exhibiting good recruitment are now known to exist
in Gerber Reservoir. In 1994 the Clear Lake populations of Lost River
suckers and shortnose suckers were estimated at 22,000 and 70,000,
respectively, with both populations increasing in recent years
exhibiting good recruitment and a diverse age distribution (Buettner
1999). Unlike the information provided by the USFWS in the 1988 ESA
listing, it is now obvious that the species' habitats were sufficiently
good to provide suitable conditions for these populations.
Additionally, the geographic range in which the suckers are found in
the watershed is now known to be much larger than believed at the time
of listing. The shortnose populations in the lower Klamath River
reservoirs (J.C. Boyle, Copco, and Iron Gate), previously believed to
be small or essentially non-existent at the time of the listing, are
more abundant and widespread than assumed in 1988 (Markle et al. 1999).
In summary, although the species had obviously declined from their
historic population levels in the early to mid-1900s, the surmised
status of the species was not as severe as assumed in the mid- to late-
1980s. The two fish species presently exhibit far greater numbers, over
a much larger geographic range, and with greater recruitment than
assumed more than a decade ago. ``Remnant'' populations postulated in
1988 are now known to be abundant. ``Severe'' hybridization among the
species assumed in 1988 is now known not to be as problematic. In the
mid-1990s, Upper Klamath Lake sucker populations were found to exist on
an order of magnitude greater than believed in the mid-1980s. And it is
now clear that widespread recruitment of both species regularly occurs.
This all leads to an important, albeit an awkward, question for the
USFWS and is one that the agency cannot, or will not, answer. Which
assumption is correct: that posed by the agency in 1988 or that of the
present day? The species were either inappropriately listed as
endangered because of incorrect or incomplete information or the
species have rebounded to such a great extent that the fish no longer
warrant the ``endangered'' status.
Upper Klamath Lake Elevations
I believe the USFWS's recent Biological Opinion on the Operations
of the Klamath Project has artificially created a regulatory crisis
that did not have to occur. This circumstance was caused by the USFWS's
focus on Upper Klamath Lake elevations and is a major step in the wrong
direction for practical natural resource management. The USFWS
rationale for imposing high reservoir levels ranges from keeping the
levels high early in the season to allow sucker spawning access to one
small lakeshore spring, to keeping the lake high for presumed water
quality improvements. This measure of artificially maintaining higher-
than-historical lake elevations is likely to be detrimental, not
beneficial, for sucker populations. The data do not show a relationship
between lake elevations and sucker populations, and to maintain higher-
than-normal lake elevations can promote fish kills in water bodies such
as Upper Klamath Lake.
During the mid-1990s, I predicted that fish kills could occur if
the Upper Klamath Lake elevations were maintained at higher-than-
historical levels. Subsequently, those fish kills did occur. The USFWS
recent Biological Opinion dismissed or ignored the biological lessons
from fish kills that occurred in 1971, 1986, 1995, 1996, and 1997 and,
instead, selectively reported only information to support the agency's
concept of higher lake levels. All the empirical evidence and material
demonstrate that huge fish kills have occurred when Upper Klamath Lake
was near average or above average elevations, but not at low elevations
(Figure 1). This is not an opinion but a fact extensively documented in
the Administrative Record and subsequently ignored by the USFWS.
A good indicator that Upper Klamath Lake elevations do not create a
``population-limiting factor'' for the suckers is a comparison of
historical seasonal lake elevations with sucker year class strength
that may or may not result from those lake elevations. Sucker year
class strengths for some years are now available because suckers killed
during die-offs in 1995, 1996, and 1997 were examined to determine the
age of the fish. This allows a determination of the year the fish were
hatched and, because sufficient numbers of fish were collected, the
relative ``strength'' of one year class compared to other years. Using
this new analysis of the best available scientific information, it is
evident the sucker populations do not experience a population-limiting
condition from lower lake elevations as incorrectly postulated by the
USFWS. In fact, one of the strongest year classes of suckers occurred
during a drought year in 1991 when lake levels were lower than average.
These data demonstrate that there are no clear relationships between
Upper Klamath Lake elevations and sucker year-class strength.
Additionally, the data now demonstrate that the two species did not
suffer ``total year-class failures'' during the drought years in the
late 1980s and early 1990s as was commonly speculated at that time. It
is particularly noteworthy that the strong 1991 class of suckers
experienced extremely low lake elevations during the severe drought of
1992 but nevertheless remained the dominant year class observed in
1995, 1996, and 1997. Also, based on the age structure of suckers
determined from the 1997 fish kill, it was readily apparent that many
older-aged suckers were in the population; from the early 1990s until
1997, it had been surmised that the age structure of the sucker
populations were almost entirely younger fish. This new evidence
indicates that environmental conditions resulting from the drought,
including low lake elevations, did not have the adverse impacts on the
sucker populations assumed by the USFWS. The USFWS Biological Opinion
notably ignored extremely relevant scientific data and information that
was contrary to the agency's premise in the Biological Opinion. The
USFWS failed to point out empirical evidence the agency could have
provided in the Biological Opinion which demonstrates that Upper
Klamath Lake levels lower than demanded in the Biological Opinion will
not harm (and may actually benefit) the sucker species.
KLAMATH COHO SALMON
In my opinion, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
significantly and inappropriately added to the regulatory crisis in the
Klamath Basin by calling for higher-than-normal releases from Iron Gate
Dam under the auspices of protecting the coho salmon, a ``threatened''
species, from extinction.
Primary Factors Affecting Coho are in the Tributaries, Not the Mainstem
Coho salmon, as a species, prefer smaller tributary habitats, as
compared to larger mainstem river habitats. This extremely important
biological fact was not incorporated into the rationale NMFS used to
assess Klamath Project effects on coho. Fry and juvenile coho normally
occupy small shallow streams where there are more structurally complex
habitats (e.g., woody debris) than are found in larger, mainstream
river systems; this fact is amply described in the scientific
literature. NMFS ignored the fact that proportionally and numerically
only small numbers of fry use the reach most affected by the Klamath
Project as compared to the entire basin. NMFS has notably failed to
reconcile this critical piece of biologically relevant information.
NMFS avoided using an excellent source of information that would
demonstrate this fact. A 1985 U.S. Department of Interior document
entitled: ``Klamath River Basin: Fisheries Resource Plan'' thoroughly
describes and graphically shows the distribution of coho in the Klamath
Basin. That voluminous, peer-reviewed document clearly demonstrates
that the upper Klamath River, in proportion to the entire Klamath River
basin, is a geographically minor area of coho presence. This fact is
evident from the attached Figure 2 adapted from the Klamath River Basin
Restoration Plan. Instead of acknowledging this indisputable
information, NMFS has singularly focused on demanding dramatically
increased, higher-than-historical flows from Iron Gate Dam to
``protect'' coho from extinction. In so doing, NMFS has inappropriately
suggested that coho habitats should somehow be re-created in the large
river channel downstream of Iron Gate Dam to serve as a surrogate for
the lost or degraded habitats in Klamath basin tributaries. This
misguided, scientifically deficient approach is unlikely to succeed.
I thoroughly reviewed thousands of pages of documents in detail to
determine whether the available scientific data and information suggest
that the recent historical flow regime in the mainstem Klamath River
below Iron Gate has been a significant factor affecting Klamath River
fishery resources. These documents included scientific peer-reviewed
literature, state and federal agency documents and reports, and
investigations encompassing many decades of research on the Klamath
River. This extensive review revealed that numerous factors other than
the recent historical mainstem flow regime at Iron Gate Dam are
overwhelmingly documented to have affected Klamath River fishery
resources. There are many other documented factors that have affected
salmon runs in the Klamath River; I compiled a comprehensive listing of
those factors in March 1997 and provided that list to NMFS. None of the
documents I have reviewed provided any supporting scientific
information or data suggesting that the historical mainstem flow regime
at Iron Gate Dam is a significant factor adversely affecting coho
salmon. To the contrary, the available information provides compelling
evidence that other factors are far more important in affecting fish
populations than the recent historical Iron Gate Dam flow regime.
It is particularly noteworthy that the multi-million dollar, multi-
agency Long-Range Plan for restoring Klamath River anadromous fish (the
principal document guiding salmon restoration in the basin) addresses
the issue of Iron Gate Dam releases and potential effects on salmonids
in an almost passing manner (Klamath River Basin Fisheries Task Force
1991). Nearly the entire discussion in the Long-Range Plan on the topic
of salmon production focuses on the tributaries in the lower Basin.
This is instructive because, despite all the efforts and research
accomplished to date on the Klamath River, no entity has developed any
scientific data to support the premise that specific Iron Gate releases
over the past several decades has been a significant factor limiting
Klamath River salmonids.
Probably the strongest indicator demonstrating that the recent
historical Iron Gate Dam flow regime is not a primary factor affecting
lower Klamath River fish is the response of the fish populations. There
are no apparent cause-and-effect relationships between historical flow
levels at Iron Gate Dam and resulting production of coho salmon.
Clearly, there are other well documented factors that have an influence
on the Klamath River salmon runs than the flow regime alone (e.g.,
harvest, hatchery production, tributary habitats).
The following are highly relevant facts ignored by NMFS in the
agency's Biological Opinion:
Fry rearing habitat in the upper mainstem Klamath River
is not as quantitatively or qualitatively important to the species as
is rearing habitat in the Klamath River tributaries.
Numerically and proportionally, very small numbers of
coho fry rear in the mainstem downstream of Iron Gate Dam in the reach
most influenced by the Klamath Project.
The indirect effects of variable Iron Gate flow on adult
coho populations in the Klamath basin is minuscule when compared to
other direct factors such as incidental ocean harvest and other harvest
of adult fish.
NMFS relied on a closed process to formulate the agency's
recommendations for Klamath River instream flows. Individuals involved
with this process purposefully excluded scientific experts that could
have provided meaningful input to the process. This exclusionary
process is contrary to scientific and procedural processes employed
elsewhere in the United States, particularly in California.
In summary, sound scientific bases for the NMFS Biological Opinion
are lacking. NMFS relied on an incorrectly applied and incomplete
computer modeling exercise to support the agency's conclusions of the
effects of the Klamath Project operations on coho. A close examination
of the NMFS Biological Opinion demonstrates that it does not
empirically describe how Klamath Project operations affect coho
populations in the Klamath River basin. Instead, the agency's action
resulted in too much warm water dumped in the wrong place at the wrong
time and for all the wrong reasons. The purported biological benefits
to coho salmon will not be realized.
THE NEED FOR ALTERNATIVES USING A PRO-ACTIVE/ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
APPROACH
Implement Meaningful Restoration Actions
New data and analyses indicate that regulatory measures and some
research implemented over the past decade, although perhaps well
intended, misdirected resources away from other more beneficial
actions. Also, unfortunately, to the extent recovery or restoration
efforts have been undertaken over the past 13 years since the listing,
they have not been effective. The USFWS has contended that maintaining
high reservoir elevations is the only feasible short-term measure that
can be implemented to benefit the sucker populations; this is
incorrect. Alternatives are available to benefit the species/ecosystem
and have been presented to the agency. These alternatives could have
prevented the crisis we are in today.
There are fundamental changes that have occurred in Upper Klamath
Lake that cannot be ignored. As an example, the fact that non-native
fish were introduced into the lake and are now proliferating is a
change that is absolute. Such changes have permanently altered the
ecosystem. Despite the emotional rhetoric one may hear about ``Nature
healing herself'', there is no turning back to a so-called ``pristine''
ecosystem. These non-native fish prey on and compete with suckers and
will never be extirpated from the lake. However, there are numerous on-
the-ground actions that could be undertaken to improve the existing
situation and provide greater flexibility and balance for resource
management. The Upper Klamath Basin is in a situation where millions of
dollars have been spent on ``ecosystem restoration'' (primarily land
acquisition) under the auspices of sucker recovery; unfortunately, the
site-specific linkages to sucker recovery are highly debatable and
unclear. These benefits have not been forthcoming. It is time to take a
new approach.
Several recovery projects first identified in the early 1990s hold
promise for increasing the sucker populations. To this end, the KWUA
recently developed a document entitled ``Protecting the Beneficial Uses
of Waters of Upper Klamath Lake: A Plan to Accelerate Recovery of the
Lost River and Shortnose Suckers'' (Plan) to promote timely
implementation of biologically innovative action-, and results-oriented
restoration projects. This Plan was presented to the Senate
Subcommittee on Water and Power in March 2001. Some of the projects in
the Plan are embodied in the 1993 USFWS Sucker Recovery Plan, but have
not been pursued. The Plan focuses on implementation of specific
actions to accelerate the recovery of the endangered suckers while
minimizing conflicts among competing uses for common resources. This
Plan's use of cooperative efforts between local interests and those
individuals and groups sharing common goals is considered preferable to
traditional fragmented plans which result in tragic conflicts for
limited resources we are seeing in the basin today. The Plan recommends
actions such as improving access of suckers in the Sprague River to
physical and water quality improvement projects in Upper Klamath Lake.
As with the suckers in the Upper Klamath Basin, there are viable
alternatives and opportunities to increase coho populations in the
Lower Klamath Basin, particularly in the tributaries. However, until
NMFS changes its singular and misdirected focus on higher-than-
historical flows from Iron Gate Dam, restoration opportunities using
the agency's approach are unlikely to succeed. Unfortunately, whatever
the existing lower basin programs may have accomplished to date,
fishery restoration does not appear to be one of them. Although many
millions of dollars have been spent on the lower basin programs,
benefits to fish have not been evident. A new strategy of embracing a
more holistic watershed approach and cooperative partnerships in the
tributaries, instead of the traditional adversarial approach is needed.
Implement Independent Peer Review
Many of the mistakes made by the USFWS and NMFS during this year
could have been avoided through a proper peer review of the agencies'
actions. It is imperative that the peer review not be a facade of
``like-minded'' individuals or agencies promoting or protecting their
policies or positions. To prevent the flawed process that occurred this
year, it will be necessary to ensure that a peer review be performed by
individuals without a vested interest in the suckers and coho remaining
listed species under the ESA; to do otherwise undermines the integrity
of the scientific process. For example, it is clearly inappropriate to
have so-called peer review by some stakeholders demanding water rights,
including high lake levels. Likewise, researchers dependent on the ESA
controversy for funding may have a clear conflict with objective
review. Individuals that would use the threatened or endangered status
as ``leverage'' to promote their positions should also be excluded from
the process. Additionally, the peer review should be a ``blind'' review
process to allow reviewers to be anonymous; this will ensure that
``peer pressure'', instead of peer review, does not occur. The peer
review of the agencies' Biological Opinions should be performed outside
the Departments of Interior and Commerce to avoid the problems we have
observed in the Klamath basin crisis. Data must be examined with clear,
scientific objectivity using widely accepted scientific principles. To
be objective, agency policies and positions do not belong in this
scientific process. Good science will lead to good policy. And, if the
agencies are willing to do so, there is a great opportunity to
accomplish restoration goals without doing the kind of harm that is
being experienced now.
REFERENCES
Buettner, M. 1999. Status of Lost River and shortnose suckers. U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation. Presentation at the 1999 Klamath Basin Watershed
Restoration and Research Conference.
CH2M Hill. 1985. Klamath River Basin fisheries resource plan. For
U.S. Department of the Interior.
Kier, William M., Associates. 1991. Long range plan for the Klamath
River Basin conservation area fishery restoration program. The Klamath
River Basin Fisheries Task Force.
Markle, D., L. Grober-Dunsmoor, B. Hayes, and J. Kelly. 1999.
Comparisons of habitats and fish communities between Upper Klamath Lake
and lower Klamath reservoirs. Abstract in The Third Klamath Basin
Watershed Restoration and Research Conference. March 1999.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. Final Rule: Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered Status for
the Shortnose Sucker and Lost River Sucker. 53 FR 27130-01.
______
Mr. Pombo. Thank you. I'd like to begin this round of
questioning with Mr. Hastings.
Mr. Hastings. Thank you for your consideration, Mr.
Chairman. I appreciate that. I appreciate all of you coming
here today and taking your time to testify in front of this
Committee.
Mr. West, let me start with you, or Commissioner West, I
should say, because I have the greatest admiration for local
elected officials.
Mr. West. Thank you.
Mr. Hastings. In fact, I think your job is really a lot
harder than ours. I say it in this context; there's no politics
in a pothole--just fix it. And so you're in a situation now--a
very difficult situation of trying to balance all the needs
that arise from this decision not made by you. You're familiar
with the Oregon Natural Resources Counsel proposal. I guess
that we'll hear this later on, because I was reading it in the
prepared testimony that is coming later on, about the notion to
buy up this land from willing sellers, and so forth. Tell me if
there is any impact on you, and if so, what is that impact on
this county.
Mr. West. Thank you, Congressman. First, I would ask the
question, what is a willing seller? If I, as a property owner,
through no fault of my own, have had all the value taken away
from my property, and someone now offers me an unusually large
sum of money for my property, am I a willing seller or am I a
hostage? The county that I represent is over 57 percent
publicly owned. I'm not sure we can afford anymore publicly
owned land. You gentlemen are all from western states. You
realize that in reality PILT, Payment in Lieu of Taxes, is
really a misnomer. The actual funding that comes through
Payment in Lieu of Taxes is only a fraction of the tax revenue
that would be paid if those lands were privately held.
In the State of Oregon it's very simple. State government
runs on income tax, county governments run on property tax. So
any additional loss to our tax base would continue to have
devastating effects on Klamath County, so I question the
premise of willing seller, and I am concerned about the
additional impacts to the county tax base.
Mr. Hastings. Okay, Thank you very much, Mr. West.
Mr. West. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hastings. Representative Raybould--I guess that's the
correct way to say it. In your testimony, you talked about the
agreement that Senator Craig had reached with the Bureau of
Reclamation and National Marine Fisheries back, according to
this, in 1994. Have they lived up to the terms of that
agreement?
Mr. Raybould. Yes. In Idaho we have statutes that allow
irrigation districts to establish rental pools, and the rental
pools that are established allow an irrigator, if he has excess
storage water in any given year, to contribute that water to
the rental pool, and then he is paid for it out of the rental
pool. The Rental Pool Committee then rents that water to other
irrigators for other needs for water, out of the pool, but
agriculture has first priority on any water that is consigned
to the rental pool, so that puts agriculture first. When all of
agriculture's requests are satisfied, then power interests, or
in the case of the Bureau of Reclamation, they can purchase
water from the rental pool. This is a 1-year deal. I don't
mean, in any sense of the word, to indicated that Idaho farmers
are selling their water rights or selling their land--only this
lease of water. And it comes under the willing buyer/willing
seller doctrine. That has worked very well up until this year.
This year we're in extreme drought. There is very little water
in the rental pool.
The Endangered Species Act is not going to get water for
flow augmentation from Idaho farmers this year. The biological
opinion that has come out is still requesting 427,000 acre feet
of water from the Upper Snake. It isn't there. We are right now
jockeying to see how that's going to work out, but at this
point in time they have lived up to their commitment to not
take water other than from our rental pool, from a willing
consignor, a willing seller.
Mr. Hastings. Thank you very much.
Mr. Vogel, as a scientist, you made a number of points in
your written testimony. What I'd like to ask you--because you
have heard us, and you'll probably hear us later on--all of us
on this panel are concerned about good science and so forth.
Could you give us an idea, from your perspective, what we
should be incorporating into the amendments that need to be
made to the Endangered Species Act as it relates to good
science? How would we go about that, from a legislative
standpoint, to accomplish what we all want to do?
Mr. Vogel. Sure, thank you. Actually, I do know quite a bit
about the Endangered Species Act. I worked for 15 years
previously for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the
National Marine Fisheries Service. That was more than a decade
ago. So I have a lot of background experience working for the
agency in terms of how the Act is administered. In fact when I
was in the Fish and Wildlife Service I was involved with some
listings of fish in California.
First of all, probably one of the most important things is
to point out that it's extremely easy to get a species listed.
And I'll be real blunt--a child could do it. It's that easy. I
have kids. I've even thought about having them do it as a test
case, if it didn't result in harm to people, like we have right
now. The problem is it's almost impossible to get a species
delisted. There is not a real good mechanism within the ESA to
figure out how to do it, and it's very, very tough. I've
struggled with it, tried to figure out how agencies can do it,
and it's almost impossible. So clearly, there has to be a very
clear articulation on procedure to make it as easy to delist as
it is to list.
The other is that the act does not allow the ability to
take calculated risks, for the lack of a better phrase. It
doesn't allow for any mistakes. There are a lot of very
practical ways in resource management where you can do good
things for fish and wildlife, but the Act doesn't provide that
flexibility or creativity. That has to be written into the Act,
because there's a lot of good things that landowners, as an
example, can do good things for the fish and wildlife habitats.
They're not allowed to do it right now, the way the act was
written.
The other thing we talked about was peer review. There's a
very clear mechanism I think for peer review. It's being very
grossly abused right now. It's not really peer review. I call
it peer pressure biology, in that if you don't agree with the
agencies' policies and position, you're chastised because
you're not abiding by what they believe. It has to be a blind
peer review process. And by that, I mean, the author does not
know who's critiquing his work, and the person critiquing the
work doesn't know who wrote the work. That's true peer review,
and the act doesn't allow for that.
The last is accountability of civil servants. I was a civil
servant for 15 years. I took it very, very seriously and I was
very proud to say I was a civil servant. And I had a handbook
that identified exactly what it means to be held accountable as
a government employee. Something got lost, I'd say in the last
decade, that eliminated that personal accountability of
employees that would abuse the act. I'll be real blunt. Some of
these Federal biologists have become intoxicated by the power
provided by the Endangered Species Act, and that has to be
eliminated.
Mr. Hastings. Thank you very much, Mr. Vogel. And, Mr.
Chairman, thank you for your consideration. I appreciate it.
Mr. Pombo. Mr. Herger.
Mr. Herger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Vogel, I want to thank you. I want to thank each of
you. And as you pointed out, you've actually spent time working
with the, quote, Fish and Wildlife.
Mr. Vogel. Yes.
Mr. Herger. And with NMFS. I understand, 14 years with Fish
and Wildlife and a year with NMFS. And I want to thank you for
your very strong and stirring testimony of just how serious
this problem is. I was just wondering, you have also--and
you're a biologist; is that correct?
Mr. Vogel. Yes.
Mr. Herger. A scientist. And you've reviewed the biological
opinions.
Mr. Vogel. Yes, both of them.
Mr. Herger. And could you indicate to us if you've seen any
instances that these opinions were driven not by on the ground
science, but perhaps--perhaps driven by political decision-
makers who wanted to reach a predetermined outcome.
Mr. Vogel. Yes. I don't have a quick answer for that,
unfortunately, because it's so embodied within many, many
meetings that were held in secret over many months in this last
year. There was a lot of evidence of data that was ignored,
that was contrary to the positions of the agencies. We know
what that data is. We know where they ignored it. We know how
they misapplied the data that they did have. But there was a
very closed process we saw this last year. I'll point out that
almost 10 years ago we had a very open dialogue, a very
constructive dialogue with the agencies. They put their data on
the table. We put our data on the table. We'd have honest,
frank debate about it. Sometimes heads got knocked, and so
forth, but at least we all talked about it. It was open, it was
honest, and it was very efficient. And it worked well during
the drought years, in '92 and '94, as an example. And we got
through this crisis using that type of open scientific
dialogue.
This last year, the door was slammed shut, and that was one
of the biggest problems we encountered this year is that we
could never get to the point of contributing what we believed
was very valuable information that could have avoided this
regulatory crisis. That, in itself, can never be allowed to
happen again. That door needs to be opened once again to allow
the scientific scrutiny to occur on all the data.
Mr. Herger. Thank you, Mr. Vogel. So in other words, you
have a concern--I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it
would appear that you have a strong concern that the decision
that finally came down that allowed the farmers of the Klamath
Basin basically to get zero water, perhaps could have had a
predetermined political outcome that--.
Mr. Vogel. Yes.
Mr. Herger. --could have been avoided had we had all the
data, all the scientific data explored and considered.
Mr. Vogel. Absolutely.
Mr. Herger. Thank you very much.
And just as a follow-up to what Mr. Vogel was saying, Mr.
Crawford, you were involved in the last administration, I
understand, during the '92, '94 drought that Mr. Vogel spoke
of. And I understand that during that time that the water users
were afforded what was called applicant status, which enabled
them to be a participant in the process of developing the
biological opinions. But then under the 8 years of the Clinton/
Gore administration that status was taken away. Are you able to
explain that process to us, and can you explain how and why you
lost that applicant status?
Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Congressman. Absolutely. In
1992 we had such a severe lack of information regarding the
suckers that what very little was known was so very important
in making a good decision that would be--result in a biological
opinion that we could live with. We were at the table and our
information was considered, as was everybody else's information
considered. It was weighted carefully as the best available
science, and we ended up with a biological opinion for suckers
in 1992 that allowed us the flexibility to get through those
serious drought years of 1992 and 1994.
Unfortunately, as the process changed through
administrative mandate and enforcement and policy regarding the
Endangered Species Act, biological opinions that were
forthcoming after--or more importantly, in 1995 the Klamath
Project went to annual operations plans that superceded those
biological opinions. Lake levels were established on an annual
basis, in 1995 and in 1996 and in 1997, that far exceeded the
levels identified in the '92 opinion. There were no fish kills
in '92 and none in '94, but there were substantial fish kills
that occurred in '95, '96 and '97 under those annual operating
plans that held Upper Klamath Lake at the highest level it had
been held since Link River Dam was built.
That's an example of how removal of our applicant status as
irrigators in the Klamath Project has harmed, not only our
ability to exist as an irrigation community, but the
livelihoods of the suckers are very well at risk because of
that same action. And the same applies on the river. We have
been completely excluded from Dr. Hardy's process and from
having the ability to have input to that process, and we are
formally asking that our applicant status for that section 7
consultation be reinstated.
Mr. Herger. Thank you very much, Mr. Crawford. Mr.
Chairman, and without objection, if this Committee could
request from the Interior Department about the applicant status
and why it was lost, and why the Department--and whether the
Department would commit to restoring it.
Mr. Pombo. Without objection, that will be added to the
list of questions for the Interior Department.
Mr. Herger. Thank you very much.
Mr. Pombo. Mr. Simpson.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We never know where
you're going to go next.
Mr. Pombo. You're right.
Mr. Simpson. I appreciate that.
Representative Raybould, I appreciate you coming over here
all the way from Idaho. I know it's a long drive, 50 miles, or
40 miles; but it's a very long drive, and I want to thank you
for coming over to show that these people are not alone in this
issue, that the people of Idaho care about what's going on here
and the impacts that the potential outcome could have on the
rest of the West.
You mentioned the 427,000 acre feet that the legislature
has appropriated on a willing seller/willing buyer basis over
the last several years in order for flow augmentation for
salmon. Do we have any results on the effects of flow
augmentation as they pertain to the effectiveness of returning
salmon and flushing salmon.
Mr. Raybould. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Simpson.
The legislature authorized 427,000 acre feet to be taken out of
the State of Idaho under the idea that water had to be used
within the State on its way out. The only way to do that was
with power production. It's against state law to remove water
from outside the state without it being put to beneficial use
in the State.
This was done on a test basis. I believe you were in the
legislature when the initial legislation was passed to do this.
It was to be on a test basis and the National Marine Fisheries
was to report back to the State of Idaho on the results of this
test, whether flow augmentation did any good or not. We have
yet to receive a report from National Marine Fisheries. There
are theories that have been debunked in the past two or 3 years
in as much as more salmon are coming back now, with less flow
augmentation, than there were before.
It is obvious to us that ocean conditions, the lowering of
the sea surface temperature in the ocean, has had may more to
do with salmon recovery than any meager thing that we could do
with a few hundred--a thousand acre feet of water, when you
figure that 20 or 30 million acre feet of water flow down the
Snake and the Columbia each year. So, yes, we believe, through
the studies that our Department of Water Resources has done,
flow augmentation has done absolutely nothing to help recover
salmon.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. And again, thank you for coming
over here. I appreciate it very much.
Mr. Crawford, let me ask you, is there any idea, of the $20
million in emergency founding, how is that going to be spent to
help agriculture? Do you have any plans for how it's going to
be divided up? Is it going to go solely to agricultural
producers? Could you give me some idea? And let me tell you,
first, that I do believe that that will be approved by
Congress, because it was in the President's request, and I
applaud him for that, and I believe--you know, not knowing
exactly what Congress will ever do, I do believe that it will
probably be approved. But do we have a plan for how it's going
to be spent?
Mr. Crawford. Certainly, not only the water users and basic
community are struggling with that very issue, but I think that
the Congress is going to end up struggling with it as well. I
think, as was stated before, that that $20 million is very
greatly appreciated, but it's a very small Band-Aid on very
large wound. The $250 million annual hit for this year, that I
identified, is a very real thing. So if we try to get that
money--the 20 million--on the ground to producers, and we try
to share that with the farm workers in the community, we try to
share that with the businesses that have suffered because of
the taking that has occurred, it is going to be a very
difficult task to distribute what is such a minute percentage
of the hurt experienced here this year.
Mr. Simpson. Well, I appreciate that. It seems like, if
you're looking at the 250 million--I've heard 250 million or
350 million dollar economic impact that this could have on this
community. And we're talking, what, 10 percent or less than 10
percent--8 percent of the total impact being in this emergency
appropriation? Everybody sees the impact that this is having on
the farmer that's not going to be able to plant a crop or
anything else like that.
A lot of people don't understand that in communities like
this, when the farming industry is not doing well, neither is
the farmer doing well, neither is the auto mechanic or the auto
salesman or the dentist or the doctor or anyone else doing very
well. I always told people in my dental practice that I could
tell what the price of potatoes were every year by going back
and looking at my appointment book, and you can do that. People
don't understand how this impacts not just the farmer, but
every business in the community, and as Ms. Molder said, how it
impacts every school in this district and how it is going to
impact the children in this district. The impacts go far beyond
just the individual that isn't able to plant a crop out there,
so I appreciate the testimony of all of you and look forward to
working with you, because this is a band-aid to a solution that
needs to be addressed.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pombo. Mr. Gibbons.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to all of you
again, welcome. I'm very impressed with your testimony here
today and your open and candid remarks about the problems that
this has created. I think one of the things that I've learned
here just from listening to you is that anytime there's a
decision to be made by the Federal Government on issues like
endangered species, what we need to do is put a few farmers and
ranchers on the Fish and Wildlife Service to make that decision
for us.
Mr. West, I was tremendously impressed with your comments
about the economic safety net needed throughout that and the
early decision to be made with water delivery rates so that you
can make some crop decisions in planting. Those are very
important as well. With regard to counties and the part you
made about, when you remove property from the tax base. Believe
me, I come from a state that has the highest percentage of its
state boundary and geography owned and regulated by the Federal
Government. In fact several of our counties are 10,000, 12,000
square miles, 98 percent owned by the Federal Government. And
you're right. PILT comes no where near being able to support
their infrastructure, their schools, their highways, hospitals,
law enforcement throughout the county, when you have a county
that size.
What I want to talk to you about is, if you lose 40 percent
of your population, as projected by the implication of this
Endangered Species Act on the sucker fish, what are some of the
numbers that you see in terms of your ability to provide
services to families, to seniors, hospital care? Has your
county looked at those numbers and made any determination at
this point whether you're going to have to close facilities and
reduce activity, reduce services? Has your county looked at
those yet.
Mr. West. Mr. Chairman and Congressman Gibbons, we are very
definitely impacted by this and have just concluded our annual
budget process, and in that budget process we saw requests that
we did fund for an additional $45,000 for the Swell Water
Conservation District, an additional $50,000 for senior
citizens' food programs, and I'm very pleased to say and proud
that the elected officials of Klamath County stood together and
turned down our cost of living rates, and that money,
approximately $19,000, is being put into a special fund to help
us meet some of the additional costs that we're facing because
of this regulatory disaster. And we're already seeing an
increase on the need for those services.
If I might just quickly read a couple of sentences from the
director of our Mental Health Department to one of my
colleagues. ``Men and women accustomed to hardship, who have
worked and fought their way through all the challenges nature
and the economy have handed them for generations, cannot help
themselves now. Their children are watching their friends
disappear abruptly from their classrooms, and seeing their
parents' dread, fear and outrage. Nightmares, anxiety and
depression are new experiences that are taxing already
overwhelmed family coping skills.''
In our county Mental Health Department, pre-commitment
investigation is up 67 percent, crisis services are up 64
percent, mental health medical services are up 32 percent.
That's for March, April and May, when compared directly against
last year, so we are seeing an increase in needs. Obviously,
you gentlemen participated with the food coming in which was so
generously donated by businesses. So there's a huge demand on
our food bank, and we're going to see more and more increases
in demands for county services. We did not enjoy the benefits
of the economic recovery in the 1990's here, and our
unemployment is still over 10 percent.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you.
And I want to address Mr. Crawford here for a minute, if I
may. Mr. Crawford, picking up from what my colleague in
Washington, Representative Hastings, asked earlier about the
proposal to buy--from the Oregon Natural Resource Council, to
buy farmland--I hope you're familiar with that in this brief
question here. So if a farmer were to sell, what would be the
tax implications? What would be the long range implications? Is
it a plan that has met with reality, or is it just a short term
fix for this problem?
Mr. Crawford. Mr. Chairman and Congressman Gibbons, I'm
going to use some strong words regarding that proposed action.
And I am going to define some impacts from the perspectives of
the people who fully intend to stay in this Basin, in that
farming is their future and the future of their children. There
are three basic flaws with the idea that any conservancy group
is going to go out and buy willing seller farmland, and
particularly in the Tulelake area. They're proposing to spend
about $100 million to accomplish that. The rights of those
private land owners to sell to anyone they choose are the kind
of rights that I hold as dear as anyone else as long as there
are no impacts on their neighbors, or in this case, on the
National Wildlife Refuge that is present there.
They're talking about eliminating commercial farming on
15,000 acres of Federal lease land as a part of this proposal.
Therefore, this proposal is predicated on a lie. The net loss
of 15,000 acres of prime farm land to the irrigation district
that supplies the water, and to the farmers who depend on the
income from those acres, is just as important as any other
aspect of that acquisition. When any conservancy group is
reimbursed at $110 million for the land that they paid for from
willing sellers, whether it--they've contended that it's going
into some sort of a farming trust to be administered by the
irrigation district or the Growers Association. The truth is
they are going to be reimbursed at 110 percent for their
expenditure. At that point in time, the only way that it is
legal to make that happen is for that land to go into the hands
of the Federal Government. It would be a net loss of whatever
acres--$110 million--from what the Federal Government can buy.
The other problem is their vision for that 15,000 acres of
wildlife refuge. They envision it as a created and maintained
wetland or as a storage facility to provide water for other
areas of the refuge. Today that land has a 1905 irritation
water right. If they are to create and maintain a wetland, it's
going to be a 1928 reserve right, because that's when the
refuge was created, so the water will not be available to
accomplish that goal. If water is to be stored there as part of
a storage project, they're going to have to get a right from
the State of California to store water, dated 2001, and that
water has to belong initially to the State of Oregon, so that
stored water will be junior to any other water use in the
entire Klamath Basin and will not be served in any year. That
will be the net result of what's been proposed.
Mr. Gibbons. Now, Mr. Chairman, if I may make just one
final question here. I know my time is up, but I did want to go
to Mr. Crawford, because this is an important part.
Mr. Crawford, you and your farmers in their association as
water users have been paying, as you stated in your testimony,
for the diversionary works to get that water to them. Let me
ask you a question right now, and you can help answer this for
us and the Federal Government. If you are not getting your
water, are you being relieved of your obligation to pay for the
O and M on that works?
Mr. Crawford. Not only are we not being relieved of the
responsibility of paying for that water--not that water; that O
and M on the facilities that deliver that water--but there are
21 irrigation districts represented within the Klamath Project,
and what is the faith of those folks that are going to be
called upon next year, if we can rectify this disaster? We have
to have the infrastructure and the people prepared to deliver
that same water next year, so we recognize our obligation to
pay for that. Unfortunately, we have to recognize some income
to see that that happens and that in the future, the facilities
that we need are there, are manned, and the services that they
supply are available to us as irrigators.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pombo. Mr. Walden.
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congressman Gibbons, I
appreciate your raising that issue. I have before me the O and
M costs to the reserve works here, and have already talked to
the Department of Interior about that very point. Why should
you have to pay for something you're not going to get? And
that's the point here, and we need to do something about that.
Mr. Crawford, later, in the next panel, we'll hear from a
number of people who have some rather strong comments to make,
as we've heard from other members of this panel and others that
have strong comments. But I want to ask you a question, because
of the testimony that I've read from Mr. Kerr, where he makes
some comments that are pretty strong. And you're representing
the farmers, so I want to ask you. One of the things he writes
is, ``Locally, potatoes are being raised more for the
government subsidies than the market.''
Could you explain to me any subsidies you're aware of being
paid to potato growers in this market?
Mr. Crawford. Congressman Walden, first of all potatoes
happen to be a nonprogram crop through the FSA program.
Mr. Walden. I'm aware of that.
Mr. Crawford. The idea that potato farmers are being
heavily subsidized--and I think a portion of what Mr. Kerr
refers to is the production of potatoes, onions, sugar beets,
on that 15,000 acres of leased land that has been referred to--
and not only are those crops on those acres not subsidized, but
the Kiekel Act in 1964 said that those acres would be comprised
of 75 percent cereal grain production for the benefit of
waterfowl. And that Kiekel Act has never--we have never
approached the 25 percent that is allowed to be in row crop
since the Kiekel Act was written so--.
Mr. Walden. So you're following the law.
Mr. Crawford. We're following the law. We are following
everything.
Mr. Walden. --which mandates what you grow there. He goes
on to say, ``Klamath Basin farming is in trouble, but in
reality the Endangered Species Act is the least of their
problems.'' Do you happen to concur with that?
Mr. Crawford. You know, I referred earlier to the cheap
meal of a baked potato and a Chilean pen-raised Coho. The
unfortunate reality for this Spring is that we're seeing a
potential turn-around in the fresh market potato industry. And
I think everybody realizes that this may indeed be the first
year in a very long cycle of troublesome markets for fresh
market potatoes. We have no fresh market potatoes planted out
there on these farms and ranches who have gone through this
long siege of poor market conditions, so we will not be able to
take advantage of the changes in those trends this year to make
ourselves whole again. The potato industry is very cyclical and
always has been, and if we lose the opportunity to produce this
year, we may never recover, and that is based solely on the
idea that, for whatever reason, we have a zero allocation of
water.
Mr. Walden. He also says it's marginal farmland. Do you
agree with that or not ?
Mr. Crawford. You know, when we go in to prove up yields in
the FSA, it's amazing the productivity that occurs in this
Klamath Basin. It is the most suited area in the world for the
production of potatoes. Cool nights and warm days are what some
of our row crops thrive on. Our grain yields are unparalleled,
unparalleled anyplace else in this country, and good practice
of rotational crops is what makes that all a viable thing.
Mr. Walden. I asked you those questions for a very
important purpose, because we get testimony like this that then
becomes part of the official record, that sometimes people have
no opportunity to rebut, and it becomes believed and the truth.
And I have real trouble accepting that, so I appreciate your
comments on that.
Mr. Crawford. Congressman, I might also say that this
hundred million dollars that's been proposed to buy private
lands and turn them into public lands, it is the contention of
the irrigators that that hundred million dollars could instead
be used to implement a sub-rotation program on the lease lands
down there, or to do a myriad of restoration work that would
provide benefit for all of the environmental resources as well
as agriculture in the Klamath Basin.
Mr. Walden. I'll tell you, Mr. Crawford, if I could get a
hundred million dollars, that's where I'd put it after I took
care of the economic disaster here, and that's what we ought to
get, and that's what this Federal Government ought to deliver.
We ought to go to work to get more water in this basin, storage
available for agriculture and for fish, but to satisfy both
needs. If there's an extra hundred million floating around in
Washington, we're going to put our hands on it, but it's going
to be for a more productive purpose.
Mr. Vogel, I'd like to ask you a question.
Mr. Vogel. Yes.
Mr. Walden. You've reviewed these biological opinions. You
probably heard my reference to Mr. Markel's e-mail of Thursday,
June 14th, where he said ``maybe their sound science might have
come to a different conclusion.'' What do you see as the
biggest scientific flaw in the biological opinions?
Mr. Vogel. In both opinions?
Mr. Walden. You take either one or both.
Mr. Vogel. Okay. Well, there's no question it's the single
minded approach that more water is always better for fish.
There's a mind set there that cannot be shaken. It happened
somewhere. I'm not sure what it is. And I get chastised for
even suggesting that anything less than the maximum possible
flows or the maximum possible lake levels will be good for
fish. We've seen it demonstrated. We've heard it over and over.
Very high lake levels-- we've seen it in the past--they kill
fish. Low lake levels are not killing fish.
The same with the Klamath River. They treat Upper Klamath
Lake as though it's the Shasta Reservoir. They have this
concept that there's this enormous, four and a half million
acre reservoir with very cold, clear water, and somehow it's
going to save all the problems of the Lower Klamath River
Basin, and it will not work. Upper Klamath Lake is very warm,
very eutrophic and very shallow, and it's about 60 miles from
there down to Iron Gate Dam. They're dumping more water today
to try to mitigate for the failures of habitat restoration
programs in the tributaries, and that really has to be shaken
loose. I mean, the further scrutiny of this peer review will
reveal those deficiencies.
Mr. Walden. Do you believe that the habitat improvement is
what's needed most? If you could do one thing--if we could do
one thing, two things, what would it be that would get to the
heart of these problems we're facing today?
Mr. Vogel. There's absolutely no question. The number one
thing is we've got to start some projects--on the ground
projects. I've never seen a place anywhere in the western
United States where people will not allow on the ground
projects to be initiated. They're saying, ``No, don't do
anything. Let nature heal herself. Just simply buy up the land,
get all the water, and somehow, through mechanisms we don't
understand, everything will be okay.'' And it will not occur.
There's no turning back the clock to make a pristine ecosystem.
Those days are gone. The idea is to come up with practical,
real-world, on the ground projects to begin restoration
activities.
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. Vogel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pombo. Mr. Simpson.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Walden pointed out how sometimes
statements become part of the record and then people start
quoting them, and I just wanted to make sure that Mr. Crawford,
when he was bragging about potato production here and he said
this is the greatest place to grow potatoes in the world, what
he meant was-- I'm coming from Idaho and I do have to put this
in the record is that, what he meant to say is this is almost
the greatest place in the world to grow potatoes.
Mr. Hastings. Mr. Chairman, could I lend my voice to
talking about the quality of the potatoes grown in the Columbia
Basin Project as being maybe something that would compete with
this area.
Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Chairman, I also want to add that Nevada's
Winemucca potatoes to that same item.
Mr. Pombo. Well, all I'll say is that since I am chairing
this hearing and I happen to represent the San Joaquin Valley
of California, we're going to come to a conclusion about the
best place to raise potatoes.
Mr. Vogel, there's something that you just said about a
pristine environment, and I think that--and I don't want
anybody to get the wrong idea about what your comment meant.
It's my understanding that in this so-called pristine
environment, that the Klamath Lake was a much shallower lake
than it is today, and yet the fish survived in that setting.
How was that possible?
Mr. Vogel. Well, it's possible because we're talking about
sucker fish, in all honesty, there's this image that people are
inappropriately portraying, that sucker fish are like salmon or
they're like trout, and they're not. They thrive very well in
muddy water, muddy conditions, shallow water. You see them all
over the watershed now. We see them in habitats where these
fish were never believed to be known. In fact I know ranchers
and farmers right in this Basin that know they have suckers on
their property, and there's no way in the world they're going
to tell anybody about it, for obvious reasons. So this is not
a--this isn't rocket science. It's very, very straightforward,
very simple. And the Fish and Wildlife Service is trying to ram
a square peg into a round hole with these lake level issues,
and we have to shake them away from that mind set.
Mr. Pombo. Well, you heard before, on the previous panel
and on this panel--a lot has been talked about in terms of
science and how we come to the conclusions that we do. And as a
former civil servant yourself, I think it's important that the
agencies, the outside groups, no matter what side of the issue
they're on, come up with the best science that they are able to
develop, and all of that to be presented to the agency to make
their decision based upon science.
And currently, the way the system works, that doesn't
happen, because I have heard complaints from those in the
environmental community that their science has not been
listened to. I have heard people from agriculture and building
industries saying that the science that they put together was
not listened to. And if we are ever going to have science that
we can depend on, the entire system has to be changed from
where we currently are. But I think that it's important that
you and everybody else realize of this, that people being
here--you know, a hundred plus years of people farming in this
valley has changed the environment, and unless you are going to
go in and remove any sign of human activity, including any dam,
any person, any school, any city--just take it all out--and
then somehow think that it's going to return to what it was
before, it's not going to happen. So the solution has to be,
how do you have a balance between protecting fish and wildlife
and the people who live here, and how do the people that live
here become part of the solution instead of those who pay the
price, and I think that that's the solution that we have to
come to.
I want to thank this panel and invite our third panel to
come up. The Committee is going to take a very, very short
break. But I do invite our third panel to take their seats, and
we will be back very shortly.
[Recess.]
Mr. Pombo. I'm going to call the hearing back to order. We
have our third panel here.
STATEMENTS OF ALLEN FOREMAN, CHAIRMAN OF THE KLAMATH TRIBES;
TROY FLETCHER, YUROK TRIBE; FRANKLIN M. BISHOP, PRESIDENT AND
CEO, INTERMOUNTAIN FARM CREDIT; ANDY KERR, SENIOR COUNSELOR,
OREGON NATURAL RESOURCES COUNCIL; DAVE SOLEM, MANAGER, KLAMATH
IRRIGATION DISTRICT
Mr. Pombo. I'm going to start with Mr. Foreman, if you're
ready to begin.
STATEMENT OF ALLEN FOREMAN
Mr. Foreman. Congressmen, member of the Committee, I
appreciate the opportunity to present the Klamath Tribe's views
on the water problems in the Klamath Basin. Most of what has
been said here today, thus far, I agree with. The tribes have
been saying the same thing for years. We have suffered from the
empty promises of the government also.
I appear before you today representing not only a
constituent base, but also as a leader of a sovereign nation, a
nation that's recognized by the United States. I'm here not
merely as another interest group or an interested party. I
would like to remind the Committee that the United States has a
legal and moral obligation to preserve and protect the trust
responsibility to the tribes. The Constitution of the United
States refers to its treaties as the supreme law of the land.
It is in this context that I direct my remarks to you, on a
government-to-government basis.
Our livelihoods are also as important as any others in the
basin. The land and the other resources that we depend upon has
been lost. Restoration is a necessary part of the solution in
the basin. In order to understand the problems, it's important
to understand its historical roots.
From the beginning of time, we owned all of the land in the
Upper Klamath Basin and all of its resources, including the
water. As a result of the Treaty of 1864, the tribes gave up 20
million acres of land, but still retained ownership of the
remaining land an its resources. In the 1950's the land was
lost due to a flawed termination policy, which President Nixon
later declared to be immoral. We still retained the resources,
including the water. The courts have upheld that those rights
exist today, and I know of no agreed upon document in existence
today that changes that fact.
Later, when the Government invited the farmers and the
veterans of World Wars I and II to move into the Basin and
suggested that the water would be available, the Government did
not take into consideration or tell the farmers about the
tribal water rights. The Link River Dam was put into place,
that actually lowered the Klamath Lake from its historical
levels. This began to diminish our resources.
To further compound the problem, for nearly a century the
U.S. Has allowed the State of Oregon to issue water permits
without regard for Tribal water rights, and until recently,
without regard for the natural health of the rivers, lakes and
marshes, causing virtually all of the Basin's streams to be
listed on the 303 list as having severe water quality problems,
and a further decline to our treaty resources.
The Government's own agencies--the Forest Service, the
National Parks, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service--claim the
same water, again without regard to the Tribal water rights or
the tribe's needs. Today the problems are a cumulative result
of nearly a century of extended promises for the available
water.
Recently, the tribes have been victims of unwarranted and
unjustified attacks on both our public imagine and our
character. Unfortunately, there have been personal attacks as
well. The most grievous of these are the attacks on our
children in the public schools, many of whom live and attend
schools within the farming communities.
With the water shortage this year, it's hard for anyone to
think about a future when the present looks so hopeless. We
know that livelihoods are at risk in the farming community. I
want to make one thing perfectly clear. It is not now, nor has
it ever been, in the interest of the Klamath Tribes to shut
down or destroy agriculture in the Klamath Basin.
It's both incorrect and unfair to blame the Tribes for the
current water shortage. The real problem is that demand for
water in the Klamath Basin has been allowed to exceed the
supply. I hope that everyone can understand why the Tribes
continue to defend our water rights in the same way everyone
else in the Basin seeks to reinforce their own rights and
claims. I would like to remind you that over use of the water
has already severely damaged the livelihoods of our own
families.
We also believe that the Federal Government has a
responsibility to the farm families who, like the Klamath
Tribes, now depend on a water system that is simply not capable
of meeting the current demands. We, as a people who have for
years felt the pain of being unable to meet the demands and
needs of our families and communities, do not want to see our
friends and neighbors in the agricultural community suffer.
Sharing the benefits of nature's bounty is one thing, but now
we must also share the adversity caused by decades of over-
allocation and ineffective resource management. Today, we all
need to focus on the present problem. The Tribes have been a
leader in the search for an effective solution to the water
problems.
Concerning the biological opinion, if a peer review is
going to happen, which appears to be likely, it should review
both the science that supports the withdrawal from the natural
system as well as the science that supports keeping the water
in the system, should be reviewed equally. First, we believe
that the biological opinion incorporates the best available
science. Second, we're concerned about the objectivity of any
review simply because many influential people have already
committed to a negative position. A review would involve a
great deal of time and resources on a matter that the courts
have already reviewed.
Doing away with or revising the Endangered Species Act or
the biological opinion simply will not change the Tribal trust
responsibilities, nor will it fix the problems that exist
today. What will work? The current situation is correctable
with strong, even-handed and focused leadership to get beyond
the squabbles among agencies, between water interests and
between the U.S. And the State of Oregon.
The goal must be restoring and sustaining a healthy and
functioning ecosystem to support multiple uses. The Upper Basin
watershed currently cannot provide a reliable foundation for
either the Tribe or the agricultural community. Correcting this
will allow the Tribes and agriculture to become stable and
healthy. We need to reduce demand on the system through a
program that fairly rewards the agricultural community for
retiring land, so the remaining lands can be farmed with a
certainty. This will stabilize the future for agriculture in
the Basin. Next, a sustainable livelihood for the Tribal
community must be part of the equation. This depends on the
restoration of the Tribe's ownership of their homelands, which
contains a significant portion of the watershed. We will then
be able to restore the health of the forests, streams and
springs that nurture our water supply, and restore our much
needed subsistence base.
The basin will not regain its health by treating the
symptoms while avoiding the causes of the water shortage. We
need to restore nature's productive capacity in the Klamath
Basin, like the Creator intended, otherwise we'll be facing
problems just like this one for years to come. Those of us who
must face the consequences of those empty promises cannot build
a future by turning on each other. The fisheries, the farming
communities, the Klamath Tribe's culture and economy are all at
risk. We need high level Federal policy makers to provide the
leadership so that all of us who live in the Klamath Basin can
work together on a lasting solution, not an inadequate quick
fix. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pombo. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Foreman follows:]
STATEMENT OF ALLEN FOREMAN, CHAIRMAN, THE KLAMATH TRIBES OF OREGON
Congressmen, members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity
to present the Tribes views on the water problems in the Klamath Basin.
I appear before you here today representing not only a constituent
base but also as a leader of a sovereign nation, recognized by the
United States,. I am not here merely as another interest group or an
interested party. I would like to remind you that the United States has
a legal and moral obligation to preserve and protect their trust
responsibility to us. The constitution of the United States refers to
its treaties as the supreme law of the land. It is in this context that
I direct my remarks to you, on a government-to-government basis.
In order to understand this problem appropriately it is important
to understand its historical roots.
*From the beginning of time we owned all the land in the Klamath
Basin and all of it's resources, including the water.
*As a result of the Treaty of 1864, the Tribes have given up twenty
million acres of land but still retained ownership of the remaining
land and its' resources. In the 1950's the land was lost due to a
flawed termination policy, which President Nixon later declared to be
immoral, we still retained the resources including the water. The
courts have upheld that those rights exist today. I know of no agreed
upon document in existence today that changes that fact.
*Later when the government invited farmers and veterans of world
wars I and II, to move into the Basin and suggested that water would be
available, the government did not tell the farmers about Tribal water
rights. The Link River Dam was put into place that actually lowered the
Klamath Lake from its historical levels. This began to diminish our
resources.
*To further compound the problem for nearly a century the U.S. has
allowed the State of Oregon to issue water permits without regard for
Tribal water rights, and until recently, without regard for the natural
health of the rivers, lakes and marshes. Causing a further decline to
those Treaty resources.
*The governments own agencies, the Forest Service, National Park,
and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife claim the same water, again without
regard to the Tribes water rights or needs.
Today's problems are a cumulative result of nearly a century of
extended promises to others for our water.
Recently the Tribes have been the victims of unwarranted and
unjustified attacks on both our public image and our character.
Unfortunately there have been personal attacks as well. The most
grievous of these is the attacks on our children in the public school
system, many of whom live and attend schools within the farming
communities.
With the water shortage this year it is hard for anyone to think
about the future when the present looks hopeless. We know that
livelihoods are at risk in the farming community. I want to make one
thing perfectly clear, it is not now, nor has it ever been, the intent
of the Tribes to shut down or destroy agriculture in the Klamath Basin.
It is both incorrect and unfair to blame the Tribes for the current
water shortage. The real problem is that the demand for water in the
Klamath Basin has been allowed to exceed the supply. I hope that
everyone can understand why the Tribes continue to defend our water
rights, in the same way everyone else in the Basin seeks to reinforce
their own rights and claims.
We also believe the federal government has a responsibility to the
farm families who, like the Klamath Tribes, now depend on a water
system that is simply not capable of meeting current demands. We as a
people, who for years have felt the pain of being unable to meet the
needs of our families and communities, do not want to see our friends
and neighbors in the agriculture community suffer.
Sharing the benefits of nature's bounty is one thing but now we
must also share the adversity caused by decades of over allocation and
ineffective resource management.
Today we all need to focus on the present problem. The Tribes have
been a leader in the search for an effective solution to the water
problems.
The following is a list of things that we know that will and will
not work:
Will not work:
Concerning the BO.
1. We believe that the current BO is the best available science.
2. A review is unnecessary because the courts have already ruled
upholding the science.
3. We are concerned about the objectivity of any review simply
because many influential people have already committed to a negative
position.
4. A review would involve a great deal of time and resources.
Doing away with or revising the ESA and BO simply will not change
the Tribal trust responsibility nor will this fix the problems that
exist today.
What will work:
The current situation is correctable with strong, even-handed and
focused leadership, to get beyond the squabbles among agencies, between
water interests, and between the US and the Sate of Oregon.
*The goal must be restoring and sustaining a health and functioning
ecosystem to support multiple uses. The upper basin watershed currently
cannot provide a reliable foundation for either the tribal or the
agricultural communities, correcting this will allow the Tribes and
agriculture to become stable and healthy.
*We need to reduce demand on the system through a program that
fairly rewards the agricultural community for retiring land, so the
remaining lands can be farmed with certainty. This will stabilize the
future for agriculture in the Basin.
*A sustainable livelihood for the tribal community depends on the
restoration of the Tribes' ownership of our homelands, which contains a
significant portion of the watershed so that we can restore the health
of the forest, streams, and springs that nurture our water supply, and
so that we will be able to restore our much needed subsistence base.
The Basin will not regain its health by treating symptoms while
avoiding the causes of our water shortage. We need to restore nature's
productive capacity in the Klamath Basin. Otherwise we will be facing
problems like this one for years to come.
Those of us who must face the consequences of those empty promises
cannot build a future by turning on each other. The fisheries, the
farming communities, the Klamath Tribes culture and economy are all at
risk.
We need high-level Federal policy makers to provide leadership so
that all of us who live in the Klamath Basin can work together on a
lasting solution, not an inadequate quick fix.
______
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The current situation in the Klamath Basin offers a unique
opportunity to develop a policy showing that economic and environmental
concerns can be productively balanced, and that the honor of the U.S.
can be upheld in its dealings with both indigenous peoples and its
other citizens. The situation is not some sort of obscure scientific
controversy, but rather a problem of community instability on three
fronts. These fronts are interdependent, so any real solution to Basin
problems must address all three, or the problems will persist.
The Klamath Tribes currently lack crucial elements
required for their societal and community stability; as this is
corrected the Tribes will become a stabilizing element in the Basin.
The agricultural community is undergoing economic
difficulty and uncertainty in water supplies that make it unstable; as
this is corrected that community will become a stabilizing element in
the Basin.
The Upper Basin watershed is in a devastated condition
and cannot provide a reliable foundation for either the tribal or the
agricultural communities; correcting this will allow the Tribes and
agriculture to become stable and healthy.
The situation is correctable with strong, even-handed and focused
leadership by the Administration to get beyond the squabbles among
agencies, between water interests, and between the United States and
the State of Oregon which have characterized the situation in recent
years. In this document the Klamath Tribes discuss three fundamental
problems and offer the broad outlines of a prescription for solutions.
Ecosystem repair: Basin rivers, lakes, wetlands and forests are
degraded to the point that the health and stability of all Basin
communities are undermined. Large-scale restoration oriented toward
long-term ecosystem functions can solve this problem. Research into
agricultural improvements will enhance prosperity of agricultural
operations, an essential component of achieving necessary restoration
on private lands.
Solving over-appropriation: Federal and state promises have created
a demand for water that exceeds what Nature provides. Administration
leadership is needed to lay the foundation for restoring the balance.
Returning the tribal homeland: A sustainable livelihood for the
tribal community depends on the Tribes' recovery of certain lands now
in federal ownership. These lands were taken from the Tribes as part of
the now discredited Termination policy; the Administration can further
the process of their return.
The Basin is at a critical juncture. It can be the centerpiece of a
federal policy balancing nature and the economy, or it can be left to
descend into decades of divisive litigation and strife.
______
A STRATEGIC APPROACH TO ACHIEVING ECONOMIC AND ECOLOGICAL HEALTH IN THE
KLAMATH BASIN
THE KLAMATH TRIBES - JUNE, 2001
The events of 2001 in the Klamath Basin are the inevitable
consequence of long-standing, unresolved conflicts. With all Klamath
Basin residents suffering economic hardship brought on by decades of
the federal and state governments' mismanagement of the region's water
resources, only leadership from the highest levels of the United States
government can restore a sustainable economy based on rationally
managed natural resources. The Klamath Tribes have been and will be
here always, so we have been intimately involved in all of the issues
that must be addressed to achieve stability and prosperity for the
Basin as a whole.
The Klamath Tribes are uniquely positioned to play a central role
in resolving Basin problems to the benefit of all, and we are very
serious about doing so. Therefore, instead of focusing on past hurts
and inequities, we are focused on the future, on finding solutions that
can work for everyone. In this spirit, we offer the following outline
of our strategic approach to achieving economic and ecological health
in the Klamath Basin. Our intent here is not to provide a greatly
detailed strategy, but rather to facilitate a basic understanding of
the problems driving the present conflicts and crises, and then to
offer the key elements of viable long-term solutions.
We believe that our strategy provides a strong foundation for the
development of an effective U.S. policy which can resonate throughout
the nation, and perhaps the world. We envision a policy showing that
economic and environmental concerns can be productively balanced, and
that the honor of the U.S. can be upheld in its dealings with both
indigenous peoples and its other citizens. While we firmly believe that
successful policy can be built on the foundations we offer here, we are
not naive about the challenges involved. Strong, even-handed,
responsive leadership from the highest levels of the U.S. government
will be the pivotal element in determining the success or failure of
efforts to bring health and stability to the Klamath Basin.
Background and Description of Problems
It is our intent to approach the issues at hand in a positive,
solution-oriented manner. However, it is crucial for policy-makers to
understand the perspective from which the Klamath Tribes approach the
present situation, so we must briefly detail some history. Social and
ecological problems experienced here in the Klamath Basin are complex
and have a 140+ year history. We refrain here from providing great
detail, focusing instead upon the fundamental problems, which have
brought us to the present situation; problems which must be resolved to
achieve health and stability. We stand ready and able to provide
detailed explanations and analyses of any component, and will await
requests for further information to do so.
In the Treaty of 1864, the Klamath Tribes reserved hunting,
fishing, and gathering rights on 2.2 million acres of land, essentially
encompassing the entire Upper Klamath River Basin above Upper Klamath
Lake. Over time, reservation boundaries were resurveyed and changed
until in 1954 the reservation was reduced to 1.1 million acres. The
Termination Act of 1954 led to the loss of federally recognized tribal
status as well as the conversion of a major portion of our ancestral
lands into the Winema and Fremont National Forests. Termination
precipitated a time of severe economic and social devastation from
which we are struggling to recover. In 1986 the US acknowledged the
failure of the termination era policies by restoring our federally
recognized tribal status. While this step restored some capability and
authority to influence resource management, it was not accompanied by
the return of our ancestral lands, and so was insufficient to overcome
the legacy of devastation wrought on the landscape during the
termination era.
It is vital to understand that the Klamath, Modoc, and Yahooskin
peoples have been on this land for hundreds of generations, thousands
of years before the ancestors of the American pioneers had any idea
that the North American continent even existed. When we go out into the
land, we can literally feel the permanent presence of our people
throughout history, a sense of belonging that cannot really be
described or fully understood by outsiders. Our land was taken from us
in stages from 1864 to 1954, until we were left with none. Since 1864
we watched as enormous changes were made across the landscape; we
watched Upper Klamath Lake turn into a cesspool, the streams and rivers
degraded, the marshes plowed under, the salmon disappear, the sucker
fishery plummet, the deer herds decline to all-time lows, sacred places
trampled and pillaged, and the forests completely changed in character.
Many decades of industrial forestry, agricultural development, and
other changes led to a complete transformation of our landscape, and
resulted in the decimation of natural resources vitally important to
the spiritual, cultural and economic livelihoods of the tribal
community. Radical changes in forest structure and composition
contributed to tremendous declines in our mule deer herds. Places
sacred to our people have been trampled and pillaged. Road development
has cris-crossed our ancestral lands with an amazingly dense road
network. What little old growth forest remains occurs in small isolated
patches.
Over the past century, the most beneficial use of water was
considered to be taking water away from fisheries in order to create
more irrigated agriculture. Accordingly, vast tracts of wetlands and
even lakes were diked, drained, and transformed to farmland.
Floodplains of our major river systems were developed as well,
resulting in extensive loss of important riparian ecosystems and the
commensurate impairment of floodplain function. Profound changes in the
geomorphology (that is, the shape and physical characteristics) of our
rivers degraded both fish habitat and water quality. Diversions of
water from our rivers annually draw them far below natural base flows.
Diversions of water from Upper Klamath Lake cause annual lake level
fluctuations far in excess of the natural condition. Cumulative effects
of these and other transformations of the watershed contributed greatly
to the hypereutrophication of Upper Klamath Lake, impairing water
quality so severely that some of the toughest and most abundant fish
species, the suckers, have been pushed to the brink of extinction.
Effects of these terrible conditions are felt by everyone, causing
problems for other fisheries and water users far downstream of Upper
Klamath Lake.
The direct consequences of this severely degraded watershed are
being felt by all in the present water crisis. As all parties battle
over who gets how much water, the fundamental problems which underlie
the entire situation are not being addressed. Everyone living here can
fight about water quantity forever, and no matter who wins or loses the
terrible problems we face will remain, until we properly address the
central problem of extreme ecosystem degradation. A healthy Basin
economy depends on being able to squarely address ecosystem restoration
at an appropriate scale. Unless we do this, we simply doom ourselves to
continued instability, strife, and economic depression.
So far we have described the devastated condition of both our
ecosystem and the tribal economy, but another important piece of the
puzzle remains, the health and stability of the agricultural economy.
The recent shutoff of irrigation water to part of the Klamath Project
has obviously hurt that portion of the agricultural economy. Such
events further de-stabilize the basin, resulting in extreme
polarization of the very groups which must come together to achieve
long-term solutions. Agriculture needs something which it does not
have: a stable water supply. Instability of the agricultural water
supply results from decreased wetland and floodplain storage as well as
from ESA-related regulatory actions, both of which originate from
impaired ecosystem functions, and from uncontrolled development of
water demand which now far exceeds the supply Nature provides.
In the present crisis we are watching our agricultural neighbors
experience in part what has happened to the Tribes over and over:
promises ignored, trust betrayed, severe personal economic damage,
terrible pain, anguish, fear, and anger with no productive outlet. We
do not revel in their misery, and did not try to engineer their demise.
However, we cannot let their agony and anger obscure the pathway to
successful resolution of our problems. We want what is best for all
Klamath Basin residents, a healthy ecosystem with stable and prosperous
economies for all. Thus the crucial question is this: can we devise an
effective strategy to restore health and stability to the Klamath Basin
ecosystems as well as to the Tribal and agricultural economies? We
firmly believe that the answer is yes, a successful approach can be
devised, and that the success or failure of such a strategy rests in
the willingness of the highest levels of the US government to engage
the situation with strong leadership, wise policy, and adequate
resources.
The Pathway to Stability: Three Key Elements
A central theme of these problems is instability, which will
persist until the foundational problems we face are addressed at the
appropriate basin-wide spatial scale and a long-term temporal scale. We
are not facing some sort of scientific controversy here, but rather a
problem of extreme social instability. The instability occurs on three
fronts, each of which must be addressed by real solutions.
As long as the Klamath Tribes lack crucial elements to
regain stability, our social and economic pain will be a destabilizing
element in the Basin.
As long as the agricultural community undergoes the
uncertainty and economic difficulties it has been experiencing, it will
be a destabilizing element in the Basin.
As long as the watershed in the Upper Basin remains in
its present devastated condition, there is no possibility that either
the Tribes or agriculture will become stable and healthy.
Critical ecosystem functions must be restored, recognized, and
valued by all. Agriculture must own their land and have an assured
water supply. The Klamath Tribes must own our land, manage it to meet
our needs and the needs of our neighbors in the Klamath Basin, and have
an assured water supply. A sustained and prosperous society in the
Upper Klamath Basin cannot be achieved without adequately addressing
these three foundational elements.
ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION
Four main components require restoration in the Upper Klamath Basin
ecosystem: rivers, lakes, wetlands, and forests. The Klamath Tribes
have been researching and managing these ecosystems for a long time,
and we have concluded that repair of the following structural and
functional components is crucial to regain ecological health in the
Basin. It is critical to consider the scale of both the problems and
their solutions. Ecological problems in the Upper Basin have been 100+
years in the making and occur across a large portion of this watershed.
To be successful we must recognize that repairing this Basin will take
time; a century of abuse cannot be erased in a moment. We can guarantee
failure by approaching restoration with a small-scale, short-term mind
set, expecting that a few years of restoration actions will immediately
realize benefits sufficient to free up water supplies and allow a quick
return to the status quo. Alternatively, we can guarantee success by
recognizing the landscape scale of restoration needs, and by focusing
our goals on the long-term benefits to restoring critical ecosystem
functions.
Rivers and streams need to be re-shaped, re-positioned, and adequately
watered.
Early on, riparian communities were removed, which destabilized the
riverbanks, causing rivers to widen, straighten, and incise into their
floodplains, lowering the local water tables and drying out the
floodplains. As a result of these structural changes, nutrients are no
longer stored appropriately either in the river channel or in the
riparian ecosystem. Instead, nutrients free-flow down the river
systems, which greatly contributes to the eutrophication of our lakes.
Like nutrients, water is no longer stored appropriately in wetlands and
floodplains, so summer base-flows are reduced, and then are further
reduced by water withdrawals. All of these effects are reflected in the
greatly impaired physical habitat and water quality conditions we now
have in our rivers.
Our rivers need to be narrower, deeper, more sinuous, and they need
to be placed back into the proper contact with their floodplains.
Dense, diverse riparian systems need to once again flourish along our
river corridors, and sufficient water must remain in the rivers to
maintain healthy aquatic life and healthy riparian plant communities.
We firmly believe that landowners will see benefits from these
improvements as their fields and pastures in the flood plains are
reconnected with the water table. They will embrace, not resist, these
improvements once the benefits are demonstrated. A program of
substantial pilot projects to illustrate these benefits would be an
appropriate next step.
Implementing these restoration actions from the top down in the
Basin watershed makes a lot of sense. As the watershed above Upper
Klamath Lake heals, summer inflows to the lake will increase and
nutrient inflows will decrease, with obvious benefits to all beneficial
uses downstream from the lake.
The Upper Klamath Lake system needs a more natural hydrology, with
functional tributaries and peripheral marshes.
Just as Upper Klamath Lake has been a focal point of the present
water controversy, it remains a vital ecosystem component because it
provides the main habitat for endangered suckers, the main water source
for the Klamath River where threatened salmon dwell, and the primary
irrigation storage for the Klamath Project. Competition among these
uses has been greatly intensified by the terrible water quality
problems in Upper Klamath Lake, so solutions to the water quality
problems have been and must continue to be a centerpiece for management
in the Basin.
Two major components need to be addressed in Lake management and
restoration. First, annual draw-down of the Upper Klamath Lake system
far in excess of natural levels must stop. Both water quality and
physical habitat for fish are impaired by the extreme fluctuations in
lake elevation, which have occurred annually since 1921. Second,
peripheral wetlands need to be reconnected to the lakes, providing fish
habitat and water quality benefits. Major projects are already underway
at the Wood River Ranch (BLM) and the Lower Williamson River Delta
Preserve (TNC), and have already provided significant benefits. Both
projects are located on major lake tributaries that are crucial
locations for the restoration of appropriate morphology and
connectivity between the rivers, their delta wetlands, and the lakes.
In addition, marshes are becoming re-established on the Agency Lake
Ranch (BOR), and options for its management are being developed. More
opportunities exist for major wetland restoration around the edges of
the Upper Klamath Lake system.
Upper basin wetlands need to be restored.
Large, unique wetlands exist in the Upper Basin, and they are in
need of extensive restoration. The Klamath Marsh (FWS) and the Sycan
Marsh (TNC) are huge wetlands that are vitally important components of
the rivers on which they occur. Both were extensively drained and
modified for grazing uses, and require large-scale actions to restore
their many important ecosystem functions. Of particular importance is
the restoration of their hydrology, which has far-reaching influences
on both the marshes themselves and flows in the downstream river
systems. They also both perform important functions for the river
systems upstream, exerting profound geomorphological influences on the
river channels and providing important habitat for large, migratory
fish like Redband trout and the threatened bull trout. The many
ecological benefits realized by restoring these unique wetlands are too
numerous to list here. Suffice it to say that in these critical areas
the restoration efforts already underway, which are greatly limited by
funding, need to be redoubled.
Forests need to be re-structured.
Many decades of industrial forestry have radically altered the
forests in the Basin. Forests, which once were structurally complex
with trees of diverse species and ages, have been transformed into
young stands with low species diversity. These simple forest types now
dominate the landscape, which profoundly affects many things. Mature
forest stands are rare and occur in isolated patches, and animals
relying on them have suffered steep declines. Mule deer herds are at
all time lows, due in large part to the poor habitat provided by these
simplified forests. Road networks are amazingly dense, a legacy of
intensive harvest activities. Hydrological functions of the forest
lands have been altered in complex ways not fully understood, but which
likely affect the timing and magnitude of spring runoff and influence
the perennial nature of many small streams. We need to embark on a
long-term approach to restore complex forest types across the landscape
through careful, selective harvest and other innovative forestry
practices.
Agricultural research and enhancement.
Agricultural lands occupy large portions of our most sensitive
landscapes--floodplains and historic wetlands. As such they represent
crucial components of our present-day ecosystems. It is very important
that farmers and ranchers be supported by significant research into
appropriate topics like water conveyance and application efficiencies,
innovative crop selection and marketing strategies, and innovative
grazing strategies. Much of the ecosystem restoration we all need must
happen on private lands, and we believe the best way to make it happen
is to help agriculture to prosper. Marginal operations cannot afford to
be interested in restoration--prosperous operations can. Solid research
can point the way to more profitable agricultural strategies. However,
applying the results of such research will likely involve
infrastructure changes with which financial assistance will be needed.
It is imperative that changes to agricultural operations be facilitated
in ways that make operational changes and ecosystem restoration both
desirable and profitable for producers.
______
Solving Over-Appropriation Problems is Part of the Solution
Basin goals must include developing a sustainable agricultural
component of the Klamath Basin economy.
* We do not have that now. Now it is fragile, dependent on regular
government relief, and entangled in constant conflict with its
neighbors.
Some farmers try to describe (and demand of public officials) an ideal
that has never existed, i.e., uninterrupted water supply at
current demand levels.
* In fact, even the farmers do not really believe it is possible.
Project Irrigators (below Upper Klamath Lake) in Kandra v. U.S.
demand that the United States and the State of Oregon reduce Upper
Basin (above Upper Klamath Lake) irrigators' water use.
Upper Basin irrigators in the Klamath Basin Adjudication challenge
the validity of Project Irrigators' water rights and water use. And
vice versa Project Irrigators challenge the validity of Upper Basin
users' uses and rights.
It is unlikely that the congressional delegations can do the right
thing on this issue.
* Politically no elected official from Oregon feels safe in being
the first to say the real problem is over-commitment of limited
resources.
* But if the Administration puts the issue on the table, elected
officials and all other interests will have to respond. Everyone is
learning that what's being asked of them by the farmers is (a)
impossible to deliver and (b) not really believed by the farmers
themselves, i.e., each farming interest asks for its water to by
guaranteed while asserting that other farmers should be cut off. The
delegations know the status quo is unsustainable; they need to respond
to Administration leadership on the issue.
Demand reduction concepts should look Basin-wide, not just at the
Project. There is more bang for the buck the farther up the
watershed one looks.
* Water quality and temperature improvements higher in the system
have more far- reaching beneficial effects.
* Water savings higher in the system provide more management
options over a larger territory than similar savings lower in the
system.
______
Returning Tribal Lands Now in Federal Ownership and Control is Part of
the Solution
The Klamath Tribes managed the territory of their homeland on a
sustainable basis for thousands of years. We continue to have
significant property rights in the form of hunting, fishing and
gathering rights and the water rights to support these activities on
the former reservation. As a result we have, over the past thirty
years, been involved in and gathered significant information about the
management of these lands and the related wildlife and water needs. We
are intimately familiar with what the land needs in order to restore
the stability of the natural systems on which the Basin economies
depend.
Solutions to Basin ecosystem and economic problems should include
the return to Tribal ownership of approximately 690,000 acres of
certain lands now owned and managed by the federal government. The
following points should be kept in mind when considering this aspect of
resolving the current situation in the Klamath Basin.
The Tribes are the only government in the Basin that can
provide a long-term commitment to the management of these lands
consistent with an articulated set of management principles that will
NOT be subject to amendment by a successor administration. This is one
way to guarantee that these lands will be managed over the long term
consistent with watershed rehabilitation and restoration of watershed
capability.
The Tribes have a vision and proposal for how to
accomplish the restoration of the lands, the watershed, and the
wildlife habitat for generations to come.
A restored watershed will return appropriate hydrologic
functions to the Basin.
Restoration of riparian areas will improve water quality
and fish habitat, increase base flows, make flood plain agriculture
more productive, and improve lake and river conditions far downstream.
Returning out of Basin diversions that once naturally
flowed into the Klamath watershed would add 30 to 40 thousand acre-feet
to the system.
Using more efficient irrigation methods would reduce
substantial losses to the system.
Enforcement measures should be mandated to protect
legitimate water users. Currently there is little or no enforcement
against illegal use.
Major forest management changes are necessary to enhance
the damaged watershed.
Substantial reduction of both natural and artificial
pollutants would greatly improve water quality.
A serious reduction in out of stream demand above Klamath
Lake would greatly enhance the entire system.
Ground water augmentation is feasible only to the extent
that it is based on sound hydrological data and does not impair the
surface water supply.
The Tribes can commit to the delivery of the harvest of
timber to the local economy, thereby securing to the Basin economy a
reliable and sustainable economic base for that sector.
The lands were taken from the Tribes as a result of the
disastrously flawed and now discredited federal policy of Termination,
which the Tribes resisted unsuccessfully. Therefore the honor of the US
is manifest in the extent to which serious consideration is given to
return of the Tribes' homeland.
The Tribes' stability depends on our ability to obtain a
sustainable livelihood in the Basin. This, in turn, depends on our
having a land base whose management is keyed to tribal values and long-
term sustainability rather than to shifting federal priorities.
** Establishment of a subsistence base for the Tribes. We know
from the past that this land is capable of providing for the needs of
our people. The Tribes have a 100-year restoration plan to heal the
land, ``When we heal the land, we also heal the people''.
** Restore our full Tribal identity. ``Our culture is strongly
linked to the land. It is impossible to talk about one without the
other.''
** Provide employment and income opportunities for tribal members.
``We will protect our resource while generating a sound economy and
commerce. Most important is not to take more than the land can
endure.''
** Protect and preserve our spiritual sites and cultural
resources. ``Our people have been on this land from the beginning of
time, the spirit of our ancestors walk this land to this day.''
** The stability and economic well being of the Tribes is
beneficial for the entire community.
______
HISTORY, BACKGROUND AND STATISTICS
Klamath County, Oregon contains 6151 square miles on the California
border in south central Oregon. The county is located between the
foothills of the Cascade Range and the Great Basin desert. Klamath
County comprises approximately one-third of the area drained by the
254-mile long Klamath River, which empties into the Pacific Ocean. The
larger region known as the Klamath Basin, covers more than 10 million
acres including most of Klamath County, Oregon and portions of three
other Oregon counties and five counties in California.
This region once contained some 350,000 acres of lakes, freshwater
marshes, wet meadows, and seasonally flooded basins. Salmon once
traveled the length of the Klamath River into the Klamath Lake and its
tributaries, the Wood, Williamson, and the Sprague Rivers. Lakes and
streams in the upper basin also contained great populations of C'wam
and Qupto. These fish provided a major food source for the Klamath
Tribes. Early white explorers to the Klamath Basin were astounded by
the great concentrations of ducks, gees, swans, pelicans and other
birds. Early trappers in the area harvested beaver, otter and other
fur-bearing animals here.
Historically, the Klamath, Modoc and Yahooskin Band of the Snake
Indians lived in the major portion of the upper Klamath Basin as
separate Tribes. Today the three Tribes are recognized collectively as
The Klamath Tribes. Other Tribes residing in the lower portion of the
Klamath Basin include the Hoopa, Karuk, and Yurok.
Damming and diversions of rivers, and draining of wetlands in the
upper river basin have taken a large toll on the region's ecology and
wildlife. Over 75 percent of the Klamath Basin's wetlands have been
drained and converted to agriculture. Over logging and other factors
have also impacted the area's ecology dramatically, significantly
altering the hydrology and degrading the water quality. The C'wam and
Qupto are now listed as endangered species, and the Coho salmon are a
threatened species.
In the Treaty of 1864 the United States government on behalf of the
American people guaranteed the continuance of The Klamath Tribes' pre-
existing right to hunt, fish, gather and trap on the Tribes'
reservation, along with sufficient water to protect the resources
necessary to these activities. The Tribes in turn ceded in excess of 20
million acres of surrounding lands. These mutual promises are still in
force today.
In 1905 the United States government authorized the Bureau of
Reclamation's Klamath Project without regard to water that was
guaranteed to the Tribes in 1864. Later the United States government
allowed the State of Oregon to issue certificates for the same water on
the Oregon side of the basin, again without regard to the Tribes pre-
existing rights. Later the U.S. Park service and the USFWF were allowed
to claim the same water. As a result, there is a drastic over
allocation of the existing water supply.
The statistical background of the local community offers important
insights into the current situation and possible solutions.
The population of Klamath County has increased 26 percent
from 1970 to 63,185 people in1997. The most significant change is that
both the number and percent of Klamath County residents 65 years old
and older have doubled during that same time period.
Nearly two-thirds of the growth in personal income over
the last 28 years has come from non-labor sources: dividends, interest,
rent, and transfer payments (such as retirement and medical benefits).
Services surpassed manufacturing and government as the
largest source of earnings in the early 1990s. Health services comprise
about half of total service income.
Income from farming declined 93 percent (in real terms)
between 1969 and 1997 and represents two-tenths of one percent of total
personal income. Agricultural services accounted for six-tenths of one
percent of income in 1997, a decrease since 1969.
Total employment in Klamath County has increased 44
percent since 1969 to 32,065. The largest gain was an 82 percent
increase in the number of people who own their own business. Farm
employment declined one percent since 1969.
Income from state and local government jobs has increased
98 percent since 1969 to $106 million. State and local government now
represent nearly three-fourths of government sector income.
Source: US Department of Commerce. 1999. Regional Economic Information
System (REIS) 1969-1997
______
Mr. Pombo. Mr. Fletcher.
STATEMENT OF TROY FLETCHER
Mr. Fletcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Congressmen. My
name is Troy Fletcher. I'm a member and Executive Director of
the Yurok Tribe. The Yurok Reservation is located at the mouth
of the Klamath River and extends 44 miles upstream. Whatever
happens in the Klamath Basin, whether it's on the Trinity, the
Shasta, the Scott or in the Upper Klamath Basin, is of direct
interest to the Yurok Tribe. The Klamath Basin is a big basin.
It's 10,000 square miles, plus, and we have a large interest in
anything that happens, specifically directed toward fishery
interests.
I'd like to start by making a few points that briefly
summarize my written testimony. First off, I want to underscore
and stress the willingness, the desire of the Yurok Tribe to
continue to work toward resolution of the issues in the Basin.
These are difficult, large issues that will require the
dedication and the participation of a number of different
interests. For any of this to be productive--any of the
discussions to be productive, for any of the resolutions to be
meaningful, there needs to be an acknowledgment that our
interests are legitimate as well as the interests of others,
and we acknowledge the legitimate interests of all the parties
in the Basin that are dealing with this tough issue.
We understand what the constituents in the Klamath Project
are going through. The Yurok Tribe, as the Klamath Tribe has
mentioned, Chairman Allen mentioned, has been going through the
same thing for decades. It's an ongoing impact. Our fishery
resources have declined from, not only historic levels, but
even the levels that were there over the past few decades.
We're not only interested in Coho flows in the river, from our
perspective, it needs to not only focus on Coho salmon. There
are other issues out there.
When it comes to the discussion on ESA and the reform of
ESA, I'd like to stress, as Chairman Allen also stressed, that
there's Tribal trust issues right behind that. A lot of the
discussion that occurred this year, of course, was focused on
the Coho salmon or the endangered species in the lake, but
those other species also are part of the equation. They are
part of our discussions that we've had with the Department of
Interior, the National Fishery Service and others, and they've
been part of our ongoing concern.
I'd like to say a few words about the science. There was a
lot of discussion here about science. There's a lot of debate
about whose science is better than the other person's science.
And I too agree that if we're going to stress peer review, as
we should, then I believe sincerely that all parties need to be
at the table. There needs to be open, candid, frank, lively
debate over the science that goes into our decision making
processes, but it's got to go two ways.
And I do have to make a few comments on some of the
comments Mr. Vogel made earlier. I've been a member of the
Klamath River Task Force, or was a member of the Klamath River
Task Force up until last year. The Klamath River Task Force
started looking at these flow issues in '96 and '97. At that
time the Task Force Commission was scoping to look at the in-
stream flow issues in the Klamath Basin, and we stressed the
need to have a number of parties--all parties participate in
that discussion, even parties who weren't members to the Task
Force, like the groups on the Shasta and the Scott River,
attended those scoping meetings. Those scoping meetings were
the beginnings of the Hardy, phase two and phase one, flow
studies.
I, personally--and it's in the minutes of the Klamath Task
Force--have asked that the Klamath County representative and
their technical work group person, who happens to be Mr.
Vogel's partner, attend those meetings. We've stressed the need
at the technical work group for everybody to attend those
meetings. For financial or other considerations, that
participation wasn't there, and it was sorely needed, and now I
think you're seeing the result of a lack of participation.
There's questions being raised, there's issues that are
thrown out, there's criticisms of the science that we do have.
Some of that criticism, some of those issues I think could have
been addressed if people would fully participate to the best of
their abilities. And they should be there. They have to be
there. If they're not there then we're not going to have any
reasonable solutions, as I said earlier, so we're open to that
and we think it should happen.
I would also like to add that because of the breadth of the
scientific issues, they're not easy issues. There are times of
year, there are differences of opinion in the amounts of flow,
and there are all kinds of issues on the table. I think it
would be good to convene a several day workshop, a several day
forum, to fully go through the issues that are under debate in
the scientific realm. I think that would benefit everybody. It
would be good to see some of you there, and let's all get a
good understanding of what we're each talking about when we're
talking about science. After all, usually the proof in science
boils down to a courtroom, and we need to try to avoid that.
Let's try to get on the same page.
When it comes to solutions for the basin, we too believe
that there's just too much demand for the limited amount
supplied. We believe and we know that fish, the salmon species,
need more water. We also, though, hear what the Klamath Project
users are saying, and we agree that it's not fair to single out
the Klamath Project. The irrigators that are above the lake
need to be held accountable. The States of Oregon and
California need to be accountable. Irrigators in the Shasta and
the Scott River need to be accountable. This is going to be a
Basin wide issue. It's going to require Basin-wide solutions
and resolutions, and it's not fair to focus in on one group. We
fully think that that's a fair criticism. With that, thank you
for this opportunity.
Mr. Pombo. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fletcher follows:]
STATEMENT OF TROY FLETCHER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, YUROK TRIBE
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to provide
the perspective of the Yurok Tribe on the problems of water scarcity in
the Klamath Basin. I am the Executive Director of the Yurok Tribe, the
largest Indian tribe in California, with a population of approximately
4,000. We appreciate your interest in finding acceptable and permanent
solutions to the water crisis facing the Klamath Basin.
It is an unfortunate fact that today there is insufficient water
available in the Klamath Basin to satisfy the demands of irrigators,
tribes, and wildlife refuges. The Yurok Tribe feels the effect of these
shortages in an especially acute way. Our reservation is bisected by
the last 45 miles of the Klamath River as it makes its way to the
Pacific Ocean. Our people and our culture are tied to the Klamath River
in ways that are sometimes difficult for outsiders to understand. We
rely on the River for the anadromous fish it supplies for our food, for
the spiritual meaning that comes from ceremonies based on the River,
and for the ultimate cultural significance as Yurok people. As one of
our elders put it, the Klamath River is our identity as Yurok people.
This has been true since time immemorial.
The United States created our reservation in 1855 so that our
people would have a permanent place to practice a culture centered on
the Klamath River. We see that as a promise made to us that the United
States must honor today. This fact has led the Department of the
Interior, and many federal and state courts to conclude that we have
fishing rights that are protected by federal law. And, because a
fishing right without water would be largely meaningless, we also have
a right to adequate amounts of water to satisfy our fishing needs.
Although our water right has not been formally quantified by the
courts, law and morality require that federal agencies, such as the
Bureau of Reclamation, must operate their projects in ways that respect
our water and fishing rights.
The federal government has undertaken a trust responsibility for
the lands and resources of Indian tribes. The courts have ruled time
and again that the Bureau of Reclamation has a legally-enforceable
trust obligation to satisfy the fishing and water rights of the tribes
in the Klamath Basin, including the Yurok Tribe. We believe as well
that as a legal matter the tribes in the Klamath Basin should have the
first priority to scarce supplies of water.
We continue to be frustrated by the failure to resolve the water
problems in the Klamath Basin. In contrast to the farmers in the
Klamath Irrigation Project, who typically have received full contract
deliveries of water, the Yurok Tribe has rarely received sufficient
instream flows to support the restoration and maintenance of the
Tribe's fishery. The diversion of water by the Klamath Project for
irrigation is one of the primary reasons for the deteriorating
condition of our fishery. We understand that other factors contribute
as well, but the simple fact is that salmon and other anadromous fish
cannot survive without a natural streamflow of adequate amounts, depths
and velocities at critical times in the spawning and rearing cycles.
The Klamath River anadromous fishery is in deep trouble, with
population levels at historic lows. As you know, coho salmon are listed
as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. These actions show that
some species of the Klamath fishery are facing extinction. Spring
chinook and summer steelhead salmon populations are presently at levels
that represent a small fraction of their historic abundance. Eulachon
are nearly extirpated from the Basin, and anecdotal information shows
that lamprey and sturgeon populations are also declining. The decline
of our fishery has decimated our community, increasing unemployment,
destroying the social cohesion of our reservation and degrading our
cultural practices.
The failure to provide adequate instream flows has harmed and
continues to harm the Yurok Tribe. Our culture is degraded and our
economy suffers. Without the ability to rely and subsist on our
fishery, our people are forced to leave the reservation for employment.
Our unemployment rate therefore is very high. The Tribe's commercial
fishery, which operates only occasionally at minimal levels, is one of
the few economic enterprises we have. Last year, there was a fish kill
in the Klamath River of an estimated 100,000 to 300,000 juvenile
steelhead, chinook and coho salmon that will undoubtedly affect the
health of future fish runs. We need a viable, sustainable fishery to
support our people, and to have that, we need enough water in the
River. The impact on our people and our fishery will likely be
especially harsh this year, because of the extremely low amounts of
rainfall and snowpack in the Klamath Basin.
We have spent considerable sums of the Tribe's scarce money and
devoted enormous amounts of staff time to this problem, but we fear
that our voice is not being heard. The Tribe's Department of Fisheries,
the largest department of the Tribe, commits millions of dollars each
year to fish management, habitat restoration, law enforcement, and
fishery monitoring. Restoring the fishery is our highest priority. Yet
each year it seems that we bear a disproportionate share of the burden
that water shortages impose on all water users.
We see many challenges to progress toward resolving the water
crisis in the Klamath Basin. We appreciate the fact that there must be
a sound biological basis for planning and water management in the
Basin, particularly as to the water and habitat needs of salmon and
other fish. The Yurok Tribe for many years has been engaged in
developing that strong scientific basis. However, rather than join with
us to develop a consensus about the biological needs of the species,
the Klamath Project Irrigators have attacked each and every report on
the flow needs of anadromous fish as ``advocacy science.'' Similarly,
in the recent suit brought to overturn the BOR 2001 Annual Operations
Plan, the biological opinion of the National Marine Fisheries Service,
which determined the instream flows necessary to avoid jeopardy to coho
salmon, was attacked as arbitrary and capricious. The federal judge in
the case rejected this argument, finding that NMFS considered all of
the available facts and reached a reasonable and supportable
conclusion. We hear a constant refrain that our carefully designed
studies, conducted in conjunction with experts from other agencies, are
``junk science'' and that the needs of the fish are greatly
exaggerated. We categorically reject this characterization. These
unfounded attacks make cooperative efforts at long-term solutions
difficult. This is not the place to debate the merits of these
biological determinations, but we raise this to show our frustration
with the failure to develop cooperative relationships to work on this
problem. Our objective has been, and continues to be, to develop
credible, unbiased science to use when making important decisions about
scarce Klamath Basin water resources.
No one involved with the water problems in the Klamath Basin
believes that the annual operations plans of the Bureau of Reclamation
is the best way to manage the Project. The Yurok Tribe shares that
view, because of the chaotic nature of the decision-making process, the
rush to consult at the eleventh hour, and the uncertainty of not
knowing how much water will be available for our fishery. Some of these
problems could be alleviated if the work on the long-term environmental
impact statement were completed. We have urged completion of this
process for years and we renew our call to finish this work. We believe
this document could serve as the basis for a long-term operations plan
that would avoid the unsatisfactory process we go through every year.
We are willing to work with the tribal, state, local and federal
governments, as well as the citizens of the Klamath Basin, to develop
solutions that will engender support among all the interests in the
Klamath Basin. We are concerned, however, that solutions that may be
developed in the upper portion of the Basin are not always properly
assessed for their impact, whether adverse or beneficial, on the
instream flow requirements of the Yurok Tribe. From our perspective,
the key question to ask about all of these proposals is whether they
will result in sufficient water quality and quantity for downstream
uses on the Yurok Reservation and surrounding area. Solutions that make
up for deficiencies in deliveries to irrigators, but do not address the
health of the Klamath Basin ecosystem, including appropriate Klamath
River flows, are not real solutions to the problem. In other words, we
believe federal agencies and Congress need to take a basin-wide view of
the problem.
The Yurok Tribe is committed to joining with our neighbors in the
upper basin to find common ground and workable solutions. The Tribe is
fully participating in the mediation in the Kandra litigation ordered
by federal Judge Aiken. For many years, we have taken a leadership role
in finding solutions through our participation in various restoration
and water fora. We intend to continue those efforts. The fate of our
tribal people depends on the success of those efforts.
Let me outline a number of factors that we believe could help
overcome the current obstacles to long-term solutions to the water
crisis. First, blaming the legal requirements of the Endangered Species
Act and the federal tribal trust obligation for the current crisis is
not a constructive beginning point for finding common ground. The
courts have carefully and fairly applied the law in legal challenges
brought by the Project Irrigators, and proposals to radically change
this legal regime are not calculated to lead to mutually acceptable
solutions.
Second, any solution to the water crisis must be founded on the
principle that each stakeholder recognizes the legitimate interests of
others in obtaining water for their needs. The Yurok Tribe recognizes
that the Project Irrigators have legitimate needs, and we are
sympathetic to the economic suffering they have experienced this year.
In turn, we expect a corresponding recognition and respect for the
Tribe's legitimate needs for adequate instream flows.
Third, solutions must address the fact that the basin is
overappropriated. There is complete agreement that demand outstrips
supply in most years. Although we believe that supplies could
potentially be increased through groundwater development and other
measures, no solution will work in the long run unless agricultural
demand for water is reduced.
Finally, we believe that solutions to the current crisis must
include both short-term and long-term measures. The planning process
for the 2002 water year will begin soon, but we should be cognizant of
the fact that devising a better way to allocate scarce water supplies
on an annual basis leaves unanswered many of the important questions
about long-term solutions. The Yurok Tribe is interested in permanent
fishery and watershed restoration, which may take years to implement.
These long-term measures will contribute as much to permanent solutions
as proposals focused on the upcoming water year.
We appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. We would
be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you.
______
Mr. Pombo. Mr. Bishop.
STATEMENT OF FRANKLIN M. BISHOP
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Chairman and distinguished Committee, I'm
Franklin Bishop, President and CEO of Intermountain Federal
Land Credit Association and Production Credit Association. I
have served the associations as Joint-President for over 13
years. These two farm credit institutions are part of the
nationwide farm credit system which was established by Congress
in 1916 to provide a dependable source of credit to farmers and
ranchers across this great nation. We provide 800 loans for
$180 million to 550 farmers and ranchers in the seven
northeastern California counties in the State of Nevada.
Intermountain Federal Land Credit Association provides 49
loans to 35 borrowers for over seven million dollars in the
Tulelake Basin south of the Oregon border. We make and service
these loans from an office in Tulelake, and have local
representation on our Board of Directors by Jim Boyd, a potato
and grain farmer from Tulelake who has served on Intermountain
FLCA board for 13 years.
I am well acquainted with the agricultural and economic
conditions impacting the Klamath and Tulelake Basins. I have
never seen a situation in which the forces of mother nature
have combined with the Federal Government--in this case the
Bureau of Reclamation, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the
National Marine Fishery Service and the Endangered Species
Act--to create the perfect storm. Perhaps no one could see the
economic storm clouds and ensuing devastation that has been set
in motion by the recent drought conditions that limited water
supplies to levels that have been artificially set by
government agencies at elevations to ensure the survival of two
species of fish at the peril of three or four generations of
American family farmers.
I am here today to testify on behalf of the farm credit
system and the banking community as to the devastating
financial impact that lack of water will force upon some 1,500
farming and ranching families. Many of the farmers are already
financially stressed due to 6 years of below break-even potato
prices, the loss of sugar beets as a cash crop, and the low
prices received for grains and other rotational crops. All
lenders must evaluate each borrower's financial situation to
determine if continued financing is possible, or what
alternative plans and servicing actions are available to
provide financing on a responsible and sound basis, with
reasonable levels of risk.
Farm Credit System Associations, such as ours, have a
congressional mandate to provide financing on a sound basis
through times of financial stress when many other lenders are
no longer willing or able to take the risk associated with
riding out the storm. I am sure that all agricultural lenders
from this area are working to prevent a worst case scenario in
which borrowers are unable to make loan payments because they
had little or no farm income as a result of conditions beyond
their control, whether natural or man-made.
One of the tools to help avoid this worst case scenario is
the loan guaranty program provided by the Farm Service Agency
or FSA. Our associations have had a long and beneficial
relationship with FSA, spanning the last 13 years. We currently
have 60 loans for 5.7 million dollars outstanding guaranteed by
that agency. The guaranty program provides the credit
enhancements necessary to allow lenders to provide continued
financing or restructuring opportunities for farmers
experiencing financial stress. The program has been available
to lenders for over 20 years, providing a tremendous service to
farmers and ranchers across the Nation.
We understand, however, that FSA may condition loan
guarantees for restructured loans based on the Tulelake and
Klamath Basin farmers receiving full water allocations for
2002. Never before have the loan guarantees provided by FSA
been conditioned in this manner. We have no information that
tells us farmers will be unable to obtain water for the next
year's crop. We have to assume that we will get average snow
pack and that water will be available for farming operations
next year. FSA's own regulations tell the agency to assume
normal conditions when analyzing a loan. The agency cannot
assume a drought, and so it should not assume the Federal
Government will again withhold water from these farmers.
FSA guarantees are critical to helping Tulelake and Klamath
farm families and their communities survive. If lenders are
forced to discontinue financing and initiate foreclosure
proceedings, not only will farm families lose their homes and
livelihoods, but land values will plummet, farm machinery and
equipment values will be reduced to 25 cents on the dollar, and
area businesses will be ruined. The government can help lenders
stay with our customers by providing certainty to these farm
families, and soon.
Today, we do not know if the Federal Government will
provide direct assistance. We do not know if FSA will provide
loan guarantees. We need full cooperation and coordination from
all government agencies. Without these, lenders will likely be
unable to resume lending, even though water may be eventually
restored. In the worst case scenario where water from the
Bureau is not forthcoming next year and land owners are faced
with selling property, there will be no interested investors to
purchase the land, purchase the businesses or purchase the farm
and ranch assets that will be left behind.
Without the certainty of a return of economic stability to
the area, how can any plans be formulated by outside parties to
limit the destruction? Moreover, those farmers who may have
avoided much of the financial distress in their operations to
this point may be left without lenders, only to suffer the
longer term consequences of financial ruin because of a
``Cherynobl effect'' that precludes any interest in the area
from outside businesses.
Farmers who borrow money today may find that they have no
borrowing capacity tomorrow. It's just that simple. This is not
sensationalism, but rather a very realistic view of what can
and will happen if lenders are forced to leave the community.
Therefore, I am asking this Committee, all Congressional
Representatives and all Federal agencies, ensure that existing
programs be available as part of many, many tools that can be
used to avoid disaster and restore long-term economic viability
and stability to this vitally important agricultural community.
Having reviewed the causes and implications of the current
water crisis and what I believe can be done to repair the
situation, I'd like to express an opinion on what we can do to
prevent this problem from occurring in the future. In the
short-term, we urge the Federal Government, in conjunction with
local representatives of the agricultural and rural businesses
communities, to provide temporary economic assistance to
maintain the economic value and asset base of the community.
This will promote harmony and sustain a sense of well-being to
the Tulelake and Klamath communities.
We also urge Congress to establish policies for these types
of unanticipated emergency situations in the long-term. Changes
to the Endangered Species Act, for example, to avoid disastrous
impact and economic loss where conflicts of a monumental size
and nature such as this has occurred are in order. Compensation
for farmers and local businesses for losses sustained as a
consequence of no water resulting from the Endangered Species
Act, which the courts have ruled ``trump'' all other laws and
regulations and conflict what the Act itself, warrant full
consideration.
Finally, all Federal agencies should be directed to
cooperate in an effort to minimize economic and emotional
damage to the community, while maintaining viability, not only
in economic terms but in terms of the human spirit. Thank you
for allowing me to testify today.
Mr. Pombo. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bishop follows:]
STATEMENT OF FRANKLIN M. BISHOP, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
INTERMOUNTAIN FEDERAL LAND BANK ASSOCIATION, FLCA, INTERMOUNTAIN
PRODUCTION CREDIT ASSOCIATION
Good Morning.
I am Franklin M. Bishop, President and CEO of Intermountain Federal
Land Bank Association, FLCA and Intermountain Production Credit
Association. I have served the Associations as joint President for over
13 years. These two Farm Credit institutions are part of the nationwide
Farm Credit System which was established by Congress in 1916 to provide
a dependable source of long-term credit to farmers and ranchers.
Under the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended, the Farm Credit
System provides $85 billion dollars of loans to farmers and ranchers,
agricultural cooperatives, farm-related businesses, marketing and
processing facilities, and part-time farmers, as well as young,
beginning, small, and minority farmers and ranchers. For 85 years the
Farm Credit System has been mandated by Congress and the Farm Credit
System regulator, the Farm Credit Administration, to serve the short-,
intermediate-, and long-term needs of American farmers and their
cooperatives. The Farm Credit System accesses its funding through a
fiscal agent in New York by selling bonds on the New York money markets
through a series of brokerages. It enjoys the highest levels of
confidence by private, institutional, and the investing public.
The Farm Credit System is privately owned by its borrowers who are
required to own stock in the Farm Credit Institutions from which they
borrow to provide capitalization and participate in governance at the
local level. The Farm Credit System is a government sponsored
enterprise, serving a critically unique public policy role by providing
financing to America's farmers and ranchers at competitive interest
rates during good and bad times alike.
The Intermountain Farm Credit Associations provide nearly 800 loans
for $180 million to 550 farmers and ranchers in the seven northeastern
California counties and the state of Nevada. The Intermountain Federal
Land Credit Association provides 49 loans to 35 borrowers for $7.2
million in the Tulelake Basin south of the California/Oregon border. We
make and service these loans from an office in Tulelake, California,
and have local representation on our Board of Directors by Jim Boyd, a
potato and grain farmer from Tulelake who has served on the
Intermountain FLCA Board for 14 years.
I have worked in the Farm Credit System for over 26 years in
various capacities as a credit analyst, loan officer, field
representative, branch manager, regional supervisor, appraiser, vice
president of review and audit, senior vice president of credit, and
president-CEO and co-CEO of Intermountain FLCA and PCA headquartered in
Reno, Nevada, and Ag Credit of California FLCA and PCA, located in
Stockton, California.
I am well acquainted with the agricultural and economic conditions
impacting the Klamath and Tulelake Basins. I have never seen a
situation in which the forces of Mother Nature have combined with the
Federal Government, in this case, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Fish
and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the
Endangered Species Act to create the ``Perfect Storm''.
Perhaps no one could see the economic storm clouds and ensuing
devastation that has been set in motion by the recent drought
conditions that limited water supplies to levels that have been
artificially set by government agencies at elevations to ensure the
survival of two species of fish at the peril of two or three
generations of American family farmers.
The loss of approximately 210,000 acres of irrigated field and row
crop farm ground caused by the decision to ``shut-off'' water from the
Bureau of Reclamation to the Tulelake Irrigation District will result
in an economic calamity and financial ruin to farmers, ranchers, farm-
related businesses, community services, merchants, and many area
businesses that rely on the income generated from this highly
productive farming community to sustain their businesses.
There will be plenty of testimony as to the economic impacts at the
local, county and state levels here today, so I will not direct my
comments to that particular subject. I am here today to testify on
behalf of the Farm Credit System and the banking community as to the
devastating financial impact that lack of water will force upon
approximately 1,500 farming and ranching families.
Many of the farmers are already financially stressed due to six
years of below breakeven potato prices, the loss of sugar beets as a
cash crop, and the low prices received for grains and other rotational
crops. All lenders must evaluate each borrowers financial situation to
determine if continued financing is possible or what alternative plans
and servicing actions are available to provide financing on a
responsible and sound basis with reasonable levels of risk.
Farm Credit System Associations such as ours have a Congressional
mandate to provide financing on a sound basis through times of
financial stress when many other lenders are no longer willing or able
to take the risk associated with ``riding out the storm''. I am sure
that all agricultural lenders from this area are working to prevent a
``worst case'' scenario in which borrowers are unable to make loan
payments because they had little or no farm income as a result of
conditions beyond their control--whether natural or manmade.
One of the tools to help avoid this worst case scenario is the loan
guarantee program provided by the Farm Service Agency (FSA). Our
Associations have had a long and beneficial relationship with FSA
spanning the last thirteen years. We currently have 60 loans for $5.7
million outstanding guaranteed by FSA. The FSA loan guarantee program
provides the credit enhancements necessary to allow lenders to provide
continued financing or restructuring opportunities for farmers
experiencing financial stress. The guarantee program has been available
to lenders for twenty years, providing a tremendous service to farmers
and ranchers across the nation.
We understand, however, that FSA may condition loan guarantees for
restructured loans based on the Tulelake and Klamath Basin farmers
receiving full water allocations for 2002. Never before have the loan
guarantees provided by FSA been conditioned in this manner. We have no
information that tells us our farmers will be unable to obtain water
for the 2002 crop year. We have to assume that we will get average
rainfall and that water will be available for farming operations next
year. FSA's own regulations tell the agency to assume ``normal''
conditions when analyzing a loan. The agency cannot assume a drought,
and so it should not assume that the federal government will again
withhold water from these farmers.
FSA guarantees are critical to helping Tulelake and Klamath farm
families and their communities survive. We hope that Congress will
encourage all government agencies to cooperate in an effort to bring
about the needed loan restructures that can prevent widespread economic
disaster. Lenders and farmers alike need this guarantee program now to
ensure that they have every chance to develop plans for dealing with
this tragic situation over which they have had little to say.
If lenders are forced to discontinue financing and initiate
foreclosure proceedings, not only will farm families lose their homes
and livelihoods, but land values will plummet, farm machinery and
equipment values will be reduced to 25 cents on the dollar, and area
businesses will be ruined. The government can help lenders stay with
our customers by providing certainty to these farm families soon.
Today, we do not know if the federal government will provide direct
assistance. We do not know if FSA will provide loan guarantees. We need
full cooperation and coordination from all government agencies. Without
these, lenders likely will be unable to resume lending even though
water may eventually be restored. In the worst case scenario where
water from the Bureau is not forthcoming in 2002, and land owners are
faced with selling property, there will be no interested investors to
purchase the land, purchase the businesses, or purchase the farm and
ranch assets that will be left behind.
Without the certainty of a return of economic stability to the
area, how can any plans be formulated by outside parties to limit the
destruction? Moreover, those farmers who may have avoided much of the
financial distress in their operations to this point, may be left
without lenders, only to suffer the longer term consequences of
financial ruin because of a ``Chernobyl effect'' that precludes any
interest in the area from outside businesses.
Farmers who borrow money today may find that they have no borrowing
capacity tomorrow. It's that simple. This is not sensationalism, but
rather a very realistic view of what can and will happen if lenders are
forced to leave the community.
Therefore, I am asking that this committee, all congressional
representatives, and all federal agencies ensure that existing programs
be available as part of many, many tools that can be used to avoid
disaster and restore long-term economic viability and stability to this
vitally important agricultural community.
Having reviewed the causes and implications of the current water
crisis, and what I believe can be done to repair the situation, I'd
like to express an opinion on what we can do to prevent this problem
from occurring in the future. In the short-term, we urge the federal
government, in conjunction with local representatives of the
agricultural and rural business communities, to provide temporary
economic assistance to maintain the economic value and asset base of
the community. This will promote harmony and sustain the sense of well-
being to the Tulelake and Klamath communities.
We also urge Congress to establish policies for these types of
unanticipated emergency situations in the long-term. Changes to the
Endangered Species Act, for example, to avoid the disastrous impact and
economic loss where conflicts of a monumental size and nature such as
this has occurred are in order. Compensation for farmers and local
businesses for losses sustained as a consequence of no water resulting
from the Endangered Species Act which the courts have ruled ``trump''
all other laws and regulations in conflict with the Act itself, warrant
full consideration. Finally, all federal agencies should be directed to
cooperate in an effort to minimize economic and emotional damage to the
community, while maintaining viability, not only in economic terms, but
in terms of the human spirit.
Thank you for allowing me to testify today.
______
Mr. Pombo. Mr. Kerr.
STATEMENT OF ANDY KERR
Mr. Kerr. I am here today to suggest a different course
than the one of endless litigation and listings of endangered
species. Instead, I offer a proposal that was developed by
conservation and farming interests in the Klamath Basin. This
joint proposal balances farming and conservation. Specifically,
it would, 1) acquire land or interest in water from willing
sellers for fish and wildlife purposes or for the establishment
of replacement lease land so commercial farming can end on the
national wildlife refuges. 2) it would provide for the
acquisition from willing sellers to re-reclaim the lakes,
wetlands and streams for natural water storage and cleansing.
The third point is that it would ensure the Federal funding of
local governmental units as maintained. And fourth, it would
provide for economic transition assistance grants for local
governmental units.
It is proposed that in addition to the payment of fair
market value for the land, that a transition payment also be
made, both of which would total $4,000 per acre. To put this in
perspective, before the water was cut off in this severe
drought year by a combination of an act of God and an act of
Congress, such lands were worth perhaps $2,500 per acre. Prices
have plummeted since then; $4,000 an acre is 60 percent above
the former market value. Precedent exists for such
compensation. The Federal Government has bought down commercial
fishing fleets. It is considering paying tobacco farmers to get
out of tobacco farming.
The benefits to the remaining farmers in the basin of this
joint proposal would be immense. With the reduction of water
demand by reducing the amount of irrigated agriculture and the
concurrent increase of natural storage by the re-reclamation of
reclaimed and abused lands, irrigated water supplies will be
much more reliable, perhaps even enough to cope with a severe
drought.
Conservationists negotiated this proposal with local land
owners, most with roots that go back generations. They are
ready to sell their lands to the Federal Government, if for no
other reason than that there is no other buyer. Of course,
$4,000 an acre is not enough to compensate for the loss of a
lifestyle. However, it is enough for most to get clear of the
bank and have something left for retirement or for the kids'
college fund. This $4,000 per acre figure can be justified to
the taxpayers as a saving over the current system of farm
subsidies for these lands. Most importantly, it is the right
thing to do.
Many land owners would have sold out years ago, before the
water was cut off this year, had there been a market. Some are
old, others are tired of losing money, others are tired of the
uncertainty of farming. I'm sorry to have to note that these
willing sellers have been verbally abused and threatened for
their stance by some of their neighbors. One would have thought
that one of the most basic property rights is the right to sell
it.
This joint proposal is ecologically rational, economically
efficient, fiscally prudent, it is socially just, and it is
politically pragmatic. The conservation community would use all
of its powers of persuasion and political influence to see this
proposal or something like it enacted into law. There is only
one specter on the horizon that could diminish our capacity to
work for this joint proposal. It is if the conservation
community instead has to use its resources to yet again defeat
another attack on the Endangered Species Act. If that happens,
our ability to advocate for such a just proposal will be
diminished.
The Klamath Basin is the Everglades of the West. The
Federal and State governments have committed tens of billions
of dollars to restore the Everglades. It can find a billion for
the Klamath River Basin. We are not such a poor nation that we
must destroy species and ecosystems, nor are we rich enough
that we can afford to. We are a rich enough nation to fairly
compensate those who are adversely affected by changes in
government policies pertaining to Native American tribal
rights, the conservation of fish and wildlife, and the
globalization of trade. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify.
Mr. Pombo. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kerr follows:]
STATEMENT OF ANDY KERR, SENIOR COUNSELOR, OREGON NATURAL RESOURCES
COUNCIL
My name is Andy Kerr. I am Senior Counselor to the Oregon Natural
Resources Council. ONRC has been involved in conservation issues in the
Klamath River Basin for a quarter century. I have been involved as
long, serving as a field representative, conservation director,
executive director and now senior counselor.
I won't talk today about the causes of the water crisis, other than
to quote Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber:
LThe current water crisis in the Klamath Basin has been 150 years
in the making and serves as a reminder to us all that we are stretching
our natural resources beyond their limits. Even in a normal year, the
water in the Klamath Basin cannot meet the current, and growing,
demands for tribal, agricultural, industrial, municipal and fish and
wildlife needs.
Agriculture was in trouble long before the combination of record
drought and the Endangered Species Act came into play.
Implementation of the government's official biological opinions--on
Klamath Project operations and their affect on the federally listed
coho salmon, bald eagle, and two species of mullet--are projected to
result in water conflicts between agriculture and endangered species,
an average of six years out of ten. Not all years will be this bad with
had a snowpack less than one-quarter of average.
These biological opinions detail the minimum amount of water
necessary in the lake and the river to prevent the extinction of these
species. They do not specify the water levels and flows--and the water
quality--necessary to recover the species so the protections of the
Endangered Species Act are no longer necessary, let alone the level to
return salmon and mullet to healthy harvestable surpluses.
The State of Klamath Basin Agriculture
I do want to touch on the causes of the farm crisis in the Klamath
Basin. First, it's marginal as farmland. It's at 4,000-feet elevation
where frosts stay late and come early. Second, it's heavily subsidized
farming, more so than most other farmlands in this nation. Besides the
plethora of farm subsidy programs, both deliveries of the water and the
electricity to pump it are heavily subsidized by taxpayers and
ratepayers.
Currently project farmers are paying 0.6 cent/kilowatt hour. I'm
currently paying ten times that at my home and anticipate a rise in
October of around 50%. When the contract for electricity expires in
2006, project farmers electricity costs will increase by a factor of
ten to thirty.
The North American Free Trade Agreement, the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade and the World Trade Association have caused more
damage to Klamath Basin agriculture than the Endangered Species Act
ever could. Farming is in decline in the basin due to market
conditions--not a shortage of water, whether due to drought or the
Endangered Species Act. Processing plants for sugar beets and
horseradish have closed. Canadian potatoes, Chinese onions, and Mexican
sugar are flooding into this country. With Congress poised to approve
the Free Trade Agreement for the Americas, it will be NAFTA times two.
The globalization of trade may be beneficial to the nation's economy as
a whole, but it has been mostly disastrous to farming in the Klamath
Basin.
As it has been practiced in the Klamath Basin, farming is not
economically, let alone environmentally sustainable. Nationally, 48% of
farm income is coming from the federal taxpayers. Locally, potatoes are
being raised more for the government subsidies than the market. Klamath
Basin farming is in trouble; but in reality, the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) is the least of their problems.
The Wrong Path: Attacking the Endangered Species Act
Attacking the Endangered Species Act is a poor strategy for the
``give-me-water-or-give-me-death'' crowd. First, as noted previously,
it would be more on target to attack the North American Free Trade
Agreement.
Second, seeking to invoke the Endangered Species Committee (the so-
called ``God Squad'') is a bad idea. I was involved in the last time
the God Squad was invoked by George Bush the elder. It did not work out
well for either the timber industry or the Administration. In that
case, large amounts of old-growth logging profits were involved. In
this case, any ``profits'' are derived only from the result of massive
federal subsidies. In that case, it was ``timber jobs versus the
spotted owl.'' In this case, the political debate will be framed as
subsidized federal farmers raising crops at a price above market value,
versus commercial fishers, Native Americans, endangered Pacific salmon,
and the nation's national bird, the bald eagle. To win an exemption
from the Endangered Species Act, the God Squad would have to find that
the harmful activity economically imperative and no alternatives exist.
Our attorneys are salivating at the prospect of the invoking the God
Squad in this case.
Third, the God Squad cannot override tribal rights, the Clean Water
Act, the National Environmental Policy Act or other federal law.
Fourth, it would be a futile political effort to gut the Endangered
Species Act. It has been tried numerous times by opponents with a much
better set of legal and political facts than in this case.
Unfortunately, each time controversy arises about enforcement of the
Endangered Species Act; aggrieved parties always fancy themselves as
the ones who will be the ``poster children'' that succeed in gutting
the ESA. It has not yet worked.
Fourth, attacking the underlying science supporting the biological
opinions of the federal fish and wildlife agencies is probably flawed
strategy as well. Every Secretary of the Interior that I've known since
the Ford Administration has tried to substitute politics for science.
The ESA is crystal clear on that point. The Secretary must follow the
law by following the science. This is not a case is not bad science,
but of science taken badly.
Even assuming that farm prices are going to increase soon and that
magically the ESA was no longer an issue--exercises in irrational
exuberance--, the environmental issues of the basin do not go away.
Poor farming and other management practices have resulted in not only a
severe lack of water quantity for fish and wildlife, but atrocious
quality. In the late summer, the pH in parts of Upper Klamath Lake can
be comparable to that of dishwashing detergent. The water that returns
to the Klamath River is high in nitrogen and phospherous carried in
from fields ladened with pesticides. The need for enforcement of state
water quality rules under the federal Clean Water Act is undeniable.
The Right Path: Just Compensation
Having said this, I am here today to suggest a difference course
than the one of endless litigation and listings. Instead I offer a
proposal that was developed by conservation and farming interests in
the Klamath Basin. This joint-proposal balances farming and
conservation (see A Voluntary Demand Reduction and Resource Enhancement
Program for the USBR Klamath Project, attached). Specifically it would:
1. Acquire lands or interests in water from willing sellers for
fish and wildlife purposes, or for the establishment of replacement
lease lands, so commercial farming can end on the national wildlife
refuges.
2. Provide for the acquisition from willing sellers to re-reclaim
lake, wetlands and streams for natural water storage and cleansing.
3. Ensure that federal funding of local governmental units is
maintained.
4. Provide for economic transition assistance grants for local
governmental units.
It is proposed--in addition to the payment of fair market value for
the land'that a transition payment also be made, both of which would
total $4,000/acre. To put this in perspective, before the water was cut
off in this severe drought year by a combination of an Act of God and
an Act of Congress, such lands were worth perhaps $2,500/acre. Prices
have plummeted since then. $4,000/acre is 60% above the former market
value.
Precedent for such compensation exists. The federal government has
bought down commercial fishing fleets. It is considering paying tobacco
farmers to get out of tobacco farming.
The benefits to remaining farmers of this joint proposal would be
immense. With the reduction of water demand by reducing the amount of
irrigated agriculture and the concurrent increase of natural storage by
the re-reclamation of reclaimed and abused lands, irrigated water
supplies will be much more reliable than today--perhaps even enough to
cope with a severe drought year like this one.
Conservationists negotiated this proposal will local landowners;
most with roots that go back generations. They are ready to sell their
lands to the federal government; there is no other buyer).
Of course, $4,000/acre is not enough to compensate for the loss of
a lifestyle. However, it is enough for most to get clear of the bank
and have something left for retirement or for the kids college fund.
This $4,000/acre figure can be justified to taxpayers as a savings over
the current system of farm subsidies for these lands. More importantly,
it is the right thing to do.
Some of the landowners we worked with to negotiate this deal asked
to testify today, but were told the witness list was already full.
Others are afraid to speak up publicly about their desire to sell. Many
would have sold years ago if their had been any market. Some are old,
others are tired of losing money, others are tired of the uncertainty
of farming these days. I'm sorry to have to note that these willing
sellers have been verbally abused and threatened for their stance by
some of their neighbors. One would have thought that one of the most
basic of property rights is the right to sell it.
Conclusion
This joint proposal is ecologically rational, economically
efficient, fiscally prudent, socially just and politically pragmatic.
It has both the broad and deep support of the conservation community. I
believe it to be a breakthrough in the thinking of conservation
organizations. I hope that it will be a model to avoid or solve
conflicts elsewhere.
For it to be successful, this joint proposal must first gain the
open support of the landowners that wish to have the option to sell
their land. It is necessary for such landowners to ban together against
bullies who would deny them their property rights and their future.
My friend and Western writer, Terry Tempest Williams has stated
that environmentalists must be ``both fierce and compassionate--at
once.'' The Oregon Natural Resources Council is strongly committed to
this proposal with its:
just compensation for affected landowners;
commitment for community economic transition assistance;
and
maintaining federal contributions to the revenues of
local governmental units.
The conservation community will use all of our powers of persuasion
and political influence to see it enacted into law. There is only one
specter on the horizon that could diminish our capacity to work for
this joint proposal. If the conservation community has to instead use
its resources to defeat yet another attack on the Endangered Species
Act, our ability to advocate for this proposal will be diminished.
For this proposal to be enacted, it must pass Congress. It is up to
the Oregon and California congressional delegations to lead the way.
The conservation community sees the Klamath River Basin as the
``Everglades of the West''. (see The Klamath Basin's Wildlife
Abundance, attached). The federal and state governments have committed
tens of billions of dollars to restore the Everglades. It can find a
billion for the Klamath River Basin. The joint-proposal I am offering
today is an important component to conserve and restore this great
natural wonder and also provide economic justice to those affected by
changing government policies. (See Blueprint for Restoration of the
Klamath Basin, attached.)
We are not such a poor nation that we must destroy species and
ecosystems, nor are we so rich that we can afford to. We are a rich
enough nation to fairly compensate those who are adversely affected by
changes in government policies pertaining to Native American tribal
rights, the conservation of fish and wildlife, and the globalization of
trade. Thank you for this opportunity to testify.
______
A Voluntary Demand Reduction and Resource Enhancement Program for the
USBR Klamath Project
This proposal was jointly created by an ad hoc committee of
environmental, community, economic and landowner interests during a
series of meetings in the Klamath Basin.
Below are conceptual elements for a voluntary land and/or water use
sale program for landowners being served by the United States Bureau of
Reclamation's Klamath Project in Oregon and California. This proposal
would also provide for the voluntary acquisition of lands, water rights
and/or federal grazing privileges in the Klamath River Basin. Details
would be filled in during consideration of the proposal by Congress.
1. The federal government, through the USDA Farm Services Agency,
would offer to purchase irrigated farmland or a non-irrigation
conservation easement in the US Bureau of Reclamation's Klamath Project
from willing sellers at appraised value. For efficiency, individual
appraisal of each eligible parcel will not be required. Rather the US
Government would conduct statistically representative sample appraisals
and apply the results to all lands within the project area. A similar
process would be used to determine the value of the non-irrigation
conservation easement, using January 1, 2001 as a reference date.
a. Voluntary Land Sale. This voluntary land sale program would
apply to deeded acreage directly associated with irrigated farmlands in
the Klamath Irrigation Project. It would not include homes or other
buildings, improvements or equipment.
b. Voluntary Sale of Non-Irrigation Conservation Easement. The
easement would apply to irrigation of the land by any means, and not
limited to the use of project water. A landowner choosing to sell a
non-irrigation conservation easement would be compensated in the amount
of the difference between the market value of the land with a reliable
source of irrigation water and comparable land without irrigation
water.
2. The closing date opting into the voluntary sale program will be
90 days after enactment of the law. The USDA Farm Services Agency would
regularly publish information pertaining to participation in the
program, including publication in a local newspaper and on a web page.
Due to the potential interest in the voluntary sale program and limits
on the amounts of funds appropriated by Congress each year, it may be
necessary to implement the program over a several-year period. Priority
for acquisition would be based on dire financial need as determined by
criteria developed by the FSA. For the period between when
participating landowners opt into the program and the transaction is
completed, annual compensatory payments will be made to landowners to
not irrigate their lands.
3. The sellers of lands in this willing seller program outlined in
provision 1(a) will also receive an economic transition payment in the
amount of $4,000/acre minus the appraised value of the land. The
transition payment would only be available for those farmlands that are
thereafter used in a manner that precludes their future eligibility for
all United States Department of Agriculture programs, now in effect or
later established, except for those lands specified under provision
6(a).
4. Landowners eligible for this program must have been the owner of
record on January 1, 2001. The eligibility date is necessary to
preclude lending institutions or speculators from benefitting from the
recent financial misfortunes of others.
5. Those parcels of lands purchased by the federal government that
are appropriate for inclusion into a unit of the National Wildlife
Refuge System shall become part of the Tule Lake, Lower Klamath units
or new refuges established for this purpose. Such holdings must
generally meet criteria for inclusion in the National Wildlife Refuge
System.
6. Those parcels of lands purchased by the federal government that
are not appropriate for inclusion into a unit of the National Wildlife
Refuge System shall either:
(a) Be granted to an appropriate local governmental body for the
purposes of replacing lease farming lands on the Tule Lake and Lower
Klamath National Wildlife Refuges. Operational control and the revenue
stream therefrom will be granted to appropriate local governmental
bodies. Revenues from the lease program will first go to offset tax
revenues comparable to those currently generated by refuge lease lands.
Additional revenues may be used by the appropriate local governmental
body to offset management costs. The amount of land to be used for this
purpose is equal the amount of lease farm lands currently on the
refuges. In the event that farming does not occur on a parcel of land
for five years, operational control of that parcel shall revert to the
United States. The acreage limit for this new lease lands is equal to
the acreage currently being leased for commercial farming on the
national wildlife refuges. Water interests associated with new lease
lands shall retain the same legal status as when privately held.
(b) Be administered in a custodial state to minimize soil erosion,
pending final disposition. After the acreage of lands in provision 6(a)
have been met, the remaining lands may be used by the US Fish and
Wildlife Service to either: (1) exchange for other lands owned by
willing parties; or (2) sell with the proceeds being devoted to
acquiring other lands from willing sellers. In either case, such lands
would be included in the National Wildlife Refuge System within the
Klamath River Basin of Oregon and California.
7. The Kuchel Act pertaining to the management of the Lower Klamath
and Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuges would be repealed. The refuges
would be managed just as other units of the National Wildlife Refuge
System. The water rights associated with the lease lands within the
refuges will remain with the land and be used for the purposes for
which the refuges were established. The water rights shall be
transferred to refuge purposes in such a manner as to maintain the 1905
priority date and the US Bureau of Reclamation shall give the same
preference to the refuges as it previously gave to irrigation contracts
covering said lands.
8. Except for the new lease lands described in Section 6, the water
rights now attached (or that may become attached as a result of
adjudication) to the parcels, or non-irrigation conservation easements
in this voluntary land sale program, would be transferred to the US
Fish and Wildlife Service which will be used to meet the purposes of
refuges and for the benefit threatened or endangered species in the
Klamath River Basin. These species include the northern bald eagle,
coho salmon, the Qapdo (``kup-tu'', or shortnosed sucker), C'wam
(``tshuam'', or Lost River sucker) and other species that may be listed
in the future. This includes lands that are added to the National
Wildlife Refuge System or those managed in a custodial state pending
final disposition.
9. $100,000,000 would be made available for the acquisition from
willing sellers of appropriate lands and/or water rights from lands in
the headwaters of the Klamath River Watershed, excluding the Klamath
Project, or in the Scott and Shasta Valleys. This would include lands
and interests in lands around Upper Klamath Lake, Klamath Marsh and
tributaries to the lake and marsh that are suitable for re-reclamation
as lake and/or wetlands, riparian restoration and for instream flow and
lake and marsh level enhancement. It would also include appropriate
lands in the Scott and Shasta Valleys in California. Such funds could
also be used for the voluntary retirement of federal grazing permits.
The result of such acquisitions would be to both increase the storage
capacity and improve the water quality of the lake and marsh, and help
meet tribal reserved water rights from instream flows in the
tributaries and the lake and marsh. Doing so will increase the amount
of water available for endangered species and tribal trust obligations,
thereby increasing the probability of adequate water being available to
landowners who choose not to elect to participate in the Voluntary Land
Sale Program.
10. Tax revenues to local jurisdictions lost by participation in
the voluntary sale program will be replaced by the federal government.
Revenues from those lands that become part of the National Wildlife
Refuge System will be mitigated via the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act in a
way that fully funds the program. For those lands temporarily held by
the US Bureau of Reclamation, the federal government would pay an
amount to local taxing districts equivalent to what was being paid on
January 1, 2001.
11. Federal transition assistance grants will be made to affected
and eligible local government units. Such grants could be used for
mitigating the impacts of the results of the voluntary sale program
and/or to assist communities in preparing for the post-sale program
period. The amount available for such grants will be specified in the
legislation after consultation with local government units. The
administering agency would be the USDA Farm Services Agency.
It is mutually understood that this is a proposal to Congress to
help resolve both the chronic and acute crises affecting farming and
fish and wildlife in the Klamath Basin. For a voluntary land sale
program to become law, Congress must develop a final package that it
finds to be in the national interest. Changes to this proposal are
inevitable. The greater degree of participation by project landowners,
and the greater the support by local government and other community
interests, the greater the possibility that this proposal--or something
close to it--will be enacted into law.
Finalized this 9th day of June, 2001.
Endorsers
Concerned Klamath Project Landowners
Oregon Natural Resources Council
Water Watch
Northcoast Environmental Center
World Wildlife Fund (Klamath-Siskiyou Ecoregion Project)
Siskiyou Regional Education Project
Kalmiopsis Audubon Society
Lane County Audubon Society
Oregon Watersheds
Audubon Society of Corvallis
Salem Audubon Society
Golden Gate Audubon Society
Rogue Valley Audubon Society
Cape Arago Audubon Society
Oregon Natural Desert Association
Rogue Valley Audubon Society
Cape Arago Audubon Society
Soda Mountain Wilderness Council
California Wilderness Coalition
Center for Biological Diversity
Northwest Environmental Advocates
Umpqua Watersheds
Klamath Siskiyou Wildland Center
California Trout, Inc.
Friends of Del Norte County
Concerned Friends of the Winema
Endangered Species Coalition
Northwest Environmental Defense Center
Headwaters Inc.
______
The Klamath Basin's Wildlife Abundance
by oregon natural resources council
The statistics of former wildlife abundance (and decline) in the
Klamath River/Basin have been well documented and noted in numerous US
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and other agency publications. In
1994, the USFWS office in Klamath Falls wrote, in describing the need
for habitat restoration, that ``113 out of 410 wildlife species
identified in the Klamath Basin are considered to be of concern or at
risk.'' More over, for the entire Klamath/Central Coast Ecoregion there
are ``197 species that are considered sensitive (i.e. federal category
species or species which are considered sensitive or species of concern
by Oregon and California.)``--Klamath/Central Pacific Coast Ecoregion
Restoration Strategy-USFWS, Volume 4, January 14, 1997.
Much of the reason for these declines is due to habitat loss. Page
1-2 of the July 1995 Wood River Wetland Resource Mgt. Plan, for example
notes that particularly in the ``upper'' Klamath Basin , ``wetlands
have been reduced from over 350,000 acres prior to 1905 to less than
75,000 acres today due to agricultural conversion...and other human
changes to the landscape (USBR 1992).''
Yet, overall, the entire Klamath River/Basin still remains one of
the richest biological areas in North America (and elsewhere in much of
the world) for two major reasons:
First, the area is geologically very old compared to most of
western North America, having been covered continuously by vegetation
for at least the last 65 million years (the entire Cenozoic Era). Thus,
the basin has been a refugium for species destroyed in other areas by
submergence, glaciation, desiccation, or lava flows. For example, the
Siskiyou Mountains, in the lower river/basin, has the highest known
diversity of conifer species: a 1-square mile area in the Sugar Creek
Drainage of the Klamath National Forest has 17 species of conifers.
Second, just to the west of Klamath Falls is a zone where four
major bioregions-the Cascadian, Californian, Great Basin and Klamath/
Siskiyou Mountains all converge--supporting plant and animal species
from all four regions. This meeting of biological regions is very
pronounced in the Soda Mountain area located mostly south of Hwy. 66
between Klamath Falls and Ashland. To protect this particular area's
superior ecological and scientific values President Clinton last summer
designated this area the Cascade Siskiyou National Monument.
Some of the wildlife species we particularly find in the upper
basin, such as White-faced Ibis, American White Pelicans, Red-neck
Grebes, Snowy Egrets, Least Bittern, Green Heron, Ring-neck Duck,
Yellow Rail, Pronghorn Antelope, Western Pond Turtle, Oregon Spotted
Frog and others occur in the Klamath Basin and area wildlife refuges at
what is generally the western, northern or eastern extremes of their
broader breeding range.
Protection of these species in their Klamath Basin wetland habitats
is thus important, because individuals and populations at the edge of a
species range are important for the viability of the species.
Individuals and populations at the edge of a species range often
possess the genetic constitution that expands the adaptive capability
of the species. This capability affords the species protection from
random catastrophic events and enhances its ability to adapt to large-
scale disturbance.
As for overall historical abundance, most recently, the USFWS's
January 2000, ``Programmatic Environmental Assessment of Klamath Basin
Ecosystem Restoration Office Projects 2000-2010'' quoted E.D. Cope's
1884: ``On the fishes of the recent and Pliocene lakes of the western
part of the Great Basin'' (who was also author of a 1879 American
Naturalist article titled: ``The fishes of Klamath Lake.'') Dr. Cope
wrote: that Upper Klamath Lake sustained ``a great population of
fishes'' and ``was more prolific in animal life'' than any body of
water known to him at that time.
In regards to waterfowl, an April 20, 1956 USFWS publication (and
report to the Secretary of Interior): ``Plan for Wildlife Use of
Federal Lands in the Upper Klamath Basin'' stated: ``About 80 percent
of all the waterfowl of the Pacific Flyway funnel through the Upper
Klamath River Basin in their annual migrations. In the Fall of 1955,
for example, there were at one time upward of 7,000,000 birds on Lower
Klamath and Tule Lake National wildlife Refuges in the Basin. This is
the greatest concentration of waterfowl in North America and probably
in the world.''
While no one was counting much before then, it is estimated there
were even more birds earlier in that century. Thomas C. Horn, the
Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuge manager in 1957 wrote: ``At the
time the area was made a refuge, in 1908, literally clouds of birds of
many species darkened the sky; the thunder of their wings was like the
roar of distant surf, and their voices drowned out all other sounds.''
Similarly, William Finley wrote in The Condor, 1907, in an article
titled: ``Among the Pelicans'' of Lower Klamath as a ``jungle``of
tules, an ``impenetrable mass'' with numerous floating islands
supporting a total of ``four to nine thousand while pelicans, one of
the biggest breeding colonies anywhere.''
Despite all that has been lost, the Klamath Basin today still
represents the largest interior freshwater wetland west of the
Mississippi River, and for that reason can well be termed the
``Everglades of the West.''
______
Blueprint for Restoration of the Klamath Basin
Prepared By A Coalition for the Klamath Basin
June 16, 2001
A Coalition for the Klamath Basin is an alliance of local,
regional, and national organizations dedicated to protecting and
restoring the Klamath Basin. Members include Klamath Basin Audubon
Society, Klamath Forest Alliance, Oregon Natural Resources Council,
Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, Institute for
Fisheries Resources, Sierra Club-Oregon Chapter, The Northcoast
Environmental Center, The Wilderness Society, and WaterWatch of Oregon.
The Klamath Basin is one of the nation's great ecological
treasures. Considered a ``western Everglades,'' this area in southern
Oregon and northern California once contained some 350,000 acres of
shallow lakes and wetlands (only 75,000 acres of which exist today).
The 200-mile long Klamath River was among the most productive salmon
and steelhead rivers in the West. The upper basin is home to remarkably
large native trout, and once contained thriving populations of spring
chinook salmon, steelhead, and Kuptu and Tshuam (Lost River and
Shortnose suckers). These fish once provided a major source of food for
Native Americans. The Klamath Basin attracts nearly 80% of the birds
migrating in the Pacific Flyway and supports the largest seasonal
concentration of bald eagles in the lower 48 states.
While water is vital to maintaining the ecological integrity of the
Klamath Basin, fishery dependent economies, and tribal trust resources
the dominant use of water in the Klamath Basin has historically been
irrigated agriculture. To date more than 75% of the Basin's wetlands
have been drained and converted to agriculture. Damming and diversion
of rivers and draining of wetlands have taken an enormous toll on the
Basin's ecology. Hydrology of the Basin has been radically altered and
water quality has been severely degraded. These conditions have
contributed to the decline of ESA listed species, the failure of
streams and lakes to meet water quality and temperature standards, the
failure to meet native American hunting and fishing rights, and
insufficient water to maintain the wetlands on the basin's national
wildlife refuges. Thousands of fishing dependent jobs have been lost as
a direct result of salmon declines in the Klamath Basin.
Federal assistance and support will be needed in resolving the
numerous issues and conflicts over water in the basin. We need to do
what we can to reduce the economic hardships this year's drought has
brought on Klamath Basin farmers without sacrificing the incredible
resources of Klamath Lake, the Klamath River, and the Klamath Basin
Refuges. The Coalition hopes that careful consideration will be given
to the actions outlined below so that the ecological wonders of the
Klamath Basin will be preserved and restored.
1. Reform Management of the Klamath Project. The Klamath Project
should be managed to meet the river flow, lake-level and refuge water
requirements as set forth in the applicable biological opinions and
ultimately should seek means to meet the full water requirements of the
refuges for ducks, geese, eagles and other wildlife, while recovering
fish species to harvestable levels.
2. Fund and Implement a Voluntary Demand Reduction Program. Water
has been severely over allocated in the Klamath Basin. Any meaningful
long-term solution will require considerable downsizing of the Klamath
Project and the retirement of many other water rights throughout the
basin. There are currently tens of thousands of acres for sale in the
Klamath Basin. A voluntary program to give financial assistance to the
farmers, who want to sell their lands, by buying their lands at a fair
price would be an equitable way to reduce agricultural demand, while
giving more security to those who want to stay in business. A federally
funded buyout program should be developed and implemented in this
regard.
3. Terminate Refuge Lease Land Farming. The lease of 20,000 acres
of federal refuge land in the Tule Lake and Lower Klamath National
Wildlife Refuges for commercial agriculture should be terminated. This
would allow management of these lands for fish and wildlife, eliminate
the use of pesticides on the refuges, allow refuge personnel to devote
more time to refuge management, help secure a reliable source of water
for refuge purposes, and ease the irrigation season water demands on
the Klamath Project.
4. Restore Fish and Wildlife Habitats. Although fish and wildlife
habitats have been degraded throughout the Klamath Basin, it remains
one of the few major river systems in the US where substantial
restoration is still possible. Reclaiming and restoring wetlands,
especially in the Lower Klamath and Tule Lake Wildlife Refuge areas and
around Upper Klamath Lake, are important to obtaining a more natural
hydrological regime, improving and increasing fish and wildlife
habitat, and improving water quality. Riparian areas need to be
protected and restored. Dams and diversions need to be screened and
provided with appropriate fish passage facilities, or removed. The
water retention and flow regulation capability of upland forested
ecosystems need to be restored through reforestation, canopy retention
and work to reduce the impact of extensive unpaved road systems.
5. Meet Water Quality Standards. The Klamath River and several of
its tributaries have been listed as water quality ``impaired'' under
the Clean Water Act. Total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) should be
established and implemented for the impaired streams and plans should
be developed and implemented to meet water quality standards.
6. Implement Water Conservation Measures and Improve Water
Management. There should be a thorough analysis of irrigation needs in
the basin. Opportunities for improving conveyance system and on farm
efficiencies should be carefully assessed, funded, and implemented.
Water use measuring and reporting need to be required, and an active
enforcement program needs to be implemented.
7. Augment Water Supplies. Every effort should be made to evaluate
water supply augmentation possibilities and environmentally sound
projects should be funded and implemented.
______
Mr. Pombo. Mr. Solem.
STATEMENT OF DAVID SOLEM
Mr. Solem. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, my
name is David Solem. I'm the manager of the Klamath Irrigation
District and the director of the Klamath Water Users
Association. Thank you for the opportunity to testify here
today on behalf of the Association. The Association represents
nearly all of the water districts in the Klamath Project.
On April 6, the Bureau of Reclamation issued a 4-1/2 page
operation plan. Two sentences apply to the project irrigation
from Upper Klamath Lake. I'd like to read those. ``Due to the
requirements of the biological opinions in the ESA and the
current drought conditions, only limited deliveries of project
water will be made for irrigation. As a result, current
conditions indicate water deliveries to farms and refuges
within the project service area will be severely limited.''
That's it. No options, no alternatives, no water.
The reallocation of water as called for by Federal
officials is causing tremendous hardship in the community.
Farmers and ranchers are scrambling to drill wells or block up
drain ditches, just to get the irrigation in order to salvage
something from their fields. Their situation is getting worse
by the day. Established hay fields and pastures are dying,
livestock is running out of water, top soil is blowing away,
and there is no certainty that the three species for which our
water has been taken will even benefit from it. Many have been
sympathetic about our situation, but sympathy doesn't pay the
mortgage, the grocery bills or our kids' education. This mess
must be fixed before the damage goes any further.
The reckless and irresponsible implementation of the
Endangered Species Act by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
National Marine Fishery Service, will have disastrous human and
environmental impacts for years to come. I understand the
requirement under this law to prepare reasonable and prudent
alternatives to protect threatened and endangered species. Is
it reasonable and prudent to devastate an ecosystem relying
upon agriculture for over 100 years?
It is not reasonable and prudent to deprive an irrigation
project of its water supply, to cause property values to drop,
to cause jobs to be lost, and to force families into
bankruptcy. Please tell me how it is reasonable and prudent to
operate an irrigation project without water. I believe our
situation can be resolved, but in the long run this crisis
illustrates all too well why the Endangered Species Act must be
amended. No one should fear an independent peer review of all
science.
In an attempt to deflect criticism of the Federal decision,
some are now blaming the drought for this crisis. Drought is
not to blame. There is no question the snow pack is low and
water supplies are severely limited. The fact is, however,
irrigation of lands in the Klamath Project will be seriously
impacted in all but the most extreme wet years due to the
demands of the biological opinions. These demands require the
Project to provide more water than is available. Earlier this
week, over 1,700 cubic feet per second was being released from
Upper Klamath Lake down the Klamath River. The inflow to Upper
Klamath Lake was roughly 200 cfs. Average inflow to the lake is
1,400 cubic feet per second.
Is sending over eight times the inflow of Upper Klamath
Lake down the river reasonable and prudent in a drought? It
clearly shows that NMFS is taking water that was stored for
project irrigation. Total flows below Iron Gate Dam from April
through September this year will be roughly twice the level of
flows required in the drought of 1994, and three times as much
as the drought of 1992.
Upper Klamath Lake levels required by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service are roughly 3 feet higher in September 30th
this year than in the drought years of 1992 and '94. Is it
reasonable and prudent to take an additional 200,000 acre feet
away from Project farms and ranches in a drought? Here again,
it's clear the agencies are taking water that was stored for
irrigation purposes. If the requirements for the two sucker
species and for Coho salmon were relaxed even slightly, there
would be water supplies for agricultural purposes and for the
wildlife refuges. So clearly, it is not the drought that has
created this crisis.
Over-allocation of water supplies has also been cited as
justification for taking project water. The only over-
allocation in this Basin is the over-allocation for
environmental purposes this year. In an average year, farmers
in the Klamath Project use approximately 400,000 to 500,000
acre feet, less than evaporated off these lands prior to the
development of the Project. The Klamath Basin overall produces
10 to 20 million acre feet of water going to the ocean after
irrigation diversions have been taken out. Our water use is but
a fraction of the water in the Basin. Nonetheless, the two
agencies are not restricting any use of water outside the
Klamath Project. Why? This is an example of the inequity of the
Federal decision. Why have they not required even other Federal
agencies outside the Project to restrict water use.
I urge the Committee, Congress, and the administration to
take the following steps to undo the damage caused by the two
Federal agencies to our communities. First, farmers and
ranchers in the community must be provided adequate financial
assistance for the water taken from them this year. I urge
Congress to increase the $20 million now included in the
Supplemental Appropriations Bill. While it is appreciated, that
amount is inadequate to mitigate all of the financial impacts
the Federal decisions caused. Of course, we would prefer to
have our water supplies instead of any Federal fund.
Second, the administration must conduct an independent peer
review of the science, and I think that's been discussed in
detail here today. Third, the Department of the Interior should
complete an EIS for the long-term operations of the Klamath
Project. The effort now underway must be withdrawn or modified,
because it is tied to these biological opinions and will
reflect all of their flaws as well. A new effort worthy of the
seriousness of these issues must begin with congressional
oversight. Fourth, Congress should appropriate funds for on the
ground restoration measures, such as the ``A'' canal fish
screen. A pilot oxygenation project in Upper Klamath Lake and
modifications to Chiloquin Dam would also be good projects.
I believe farming and a healthy environment are compatible
in the Klamath Basin. The people who rely on this project have
fulfilled their commitment to the U.S. By working hard to build
a successful community and to protect the species dependent
upon it. Now it's the Federal Government's turn to fulfill its
commitment to us.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Solem follows:]
STATEMENT OF DAVID SOLEM, MANAGER, KLAMATH IRRIGATION DISTRICT
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, my name is David Solem.
I am
the manager of Klamath Irrigation District and a director of the
Klamath Water Users Association. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify here today on behalf of the Klamath Water Users Association.
Our association represents nearly all of the water districts in the
Klamath Irrigation Project.
Words cannot begin to describe the anguish that has befallen our
community in the last 70 days. Look in the faces of the people here
today - you'll see pain, frustration and disappointment. The Klamath
Project, once an unparalleled example of individual accomplishment and
western development, has been turned upside down due to being blamed
for all of the environmental problems in the Klamath Basin.
The reallocation of water, called for by federal officials, is
causing tremendous hardship in our community. And our situation is
getting worse by the day. Crops are dying, livestock are running out of
water and feed, topsoil is blowing away, and there is no certainty that
the three species for which our water has been taken will even benefit
from it. Many have been sympathetic about our situation. But sympathy
doesn't pay the mortgage, the grocery bills or our kid's education.
This mess must be fixed before the damage goes any further.
The reckless and irresponsible implementation of the Endangered
Species Act by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) will have disastrous human and
environmental impacts for years to come. I understand the requirement
under this law to prepare ``reasonable and prudent alternatives'' to
protect threatened and endangered species. But where does the law say
it reasonable and prudent to take water from thousands of families to
meet politically motivated goals? Is it reasonable and prudent to
devastate an ecosystem that has relied upon agriculture for over 100
years? It is not reasonable and prudent to deprive an irrigation
project of its water supply, and to cause property values to drop, jobs
to be lost, and families to face bankruptcy. Please tell me how it is
reasonable and prudent to operate an irrigation project without water.
Aside from the terrible damage this decision has caused our
community, there are significant legal and scientific problems related
to the federal effort to protect the Lost River sucker, the shortnose
sucker and the coho salmon. The record is clear that these problems
include the manipulation of science and the abuse of the scientific
process. Many of these problems are described in a report our
association prepared earlier this year; ``Protecting The Beneficial
Uses Of Waters Of Upper Klamath Lake; A Plan To Accelerate Recovery Of
The Lost River And Shortnose Suckers.''
There are also serious financial implications from the decision.
How ironic is it that we are spending our hard earned dollars to defend
ourselves from a bureaucracy that our tax dollars supports? This is
insulting.
I believe our situation can be resolved by the Administration. But
in the long run, this crisis illustrates all too well why the
Endangered Species Act must be amended. The law must require
independent peer review of all science. And it should require the U.S.
Secretary of Interior must approve any action that will cause severe
economic impacts.
In regard to our situation, it seems the agencies are more
interested in harming the Klamath Project than protecting the species.
Since the two sucker species were listed in 1988, the Klamath Water
Users Association has attempted to work cooperatively with the USFWS to
improve habitat for these native fish. In 1993, we prepared a
comprehensive recovery plan that the USFWS promptly ignored. Over the
years, we supported numerous restoration projects, including the
removal of over 20,000 acres of farmland for the purpose of creating
wetlands--wetlands the USFWS said would solve water quality problems in
Upper Klamath Lake. Each time the USFWS wanted to acquire another
parcel, they promised us that particular acquisition would solve the
problem, and that it would reduce further regulations. We supported
every request. They failed to live up to their promise--each time.
This year, we reviewed the science in their decisions and
determined they were implementing steps that could actually harm these
two species, and ignoring others that would benefit the suckers. So we
prepared a new sucker restoration plan to accelerate the recovery of
these fish. The Service ignored it as well.
The situation is equally bewildering in regard to the Klamath
River. For over a decade, a disjointed course of federally funded
research, dominated by tribal interests, has resulted in politically
motivated fishery requirements. The Yurok Tribe describes the Hardy
study on the Klamath River as ``the most thorough, carefully researched
and credible study yet to be produced on the flow needs of anadromous
fish in the Klamath River. As such it is the best available science to
guide the federal agencies in making this decision.''
But what was the purpose of the Hardy study? According to documents
provided by the Department of Justice, Dr. Hardy was contracted as an
expert witness on behalf of the U.S. for the Yurok Water Rights
Adjudication. And for his so called ``carefully researched'' work he
has been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars. To say information
prepared for tribal litigation with Department of Justice dollars is
pure, unbiased science is outrageous. It's just one example of a
process out of control.
In an attempt to deflect criticism of the federal decision some are
now blaming the drought for this crisis. Drought is not to blame. There
is no question the snow pack is low and water supplies are severely
limited. The fact is, however, irrigation of lands in the Klamath
Project will be seriously impacted in all but the most extreme wet
years due to the demands of the biological opinions issued by the two
agencies. These demands require the project to provide more water than
is available. Earlier this week, over 1700 cubic feet per second (cfs)
was being released from Upper Klamath Lake down the Klamath River. Yet,
the inflow to Upper Klamath Lake was roughly 200 cfs. Average inflow to
the lake is 1400 cfs.
Is sending over 8 times the inflow of Upper Klamath Lake down the
river reasonable and prudent in a drought? It clearly shows that the
NMFS is taking water that was stored for project irrigation. Total
flows below Iron Gate Dam from April through September in 2001 will be
roughly twice the level of flows required in the drought of 1994 and
three times as much as the drought of 1992.
Upper Klamath Lake levels required by the USFWS are roughly three
feet higher on September 30th than in the drought years of 1992 and
1994. Is it reasonable and prudent to take an additional 200,000 acre-
feet of water away from project farms and ranches in a drought? Here
again, it's clear the agencies are taking water that was stored for
irrigation purposes. If the requirements for the two sucker species and
for the coho salmon were relaxed even slightly, there would be water
supplies for agricultural purposes, and for the wildlife refuges. So
clearly, it is not the drought that has caused this crisis.
Over allocation of water supplies has also been cited as
justification for taking Project water. The only over allocation in
this basin is the over allocation of water for environmental purposes
this year. In an average year, farmers in the Klamath Project use
approximately 400,000 to 500,000 acre-feet of water, less than
evaporated off these lands prior to the development of the project. The
Klamath Basin, however, encompasses over six million acres and produces
10-20 million acre-feet of water. Our water use is but a fraction of
the water in the basin. Nonetheless, the two agencies are not
restricting any use of water outside the Klamath Project. Why? This is
another example of the inequity of the federal decision. If these two
agencies are so concerned about these species that they have taken all
of our water supplies, why have then not done anything else? Why have
they not required other federal agencies outside the Klamath Project to
restrict water use? Doesn't the Endangered Species Act apply to areas
outside the project?
Some people also argue that many of these issues were considered in
recent litigation. Earlier this year, a federal court in Eugene, Oregon
did not issue a preliminary injunction as we sought in this matter.
Going into that proceeding, however, we well understood the difficulty
facing the court, on such short notice, to throw out the agencies
conclusions or to find them arbitrary or capricious. That case
continues. A far better policy is for the agencies to confront reality
and to be objective over how we more forward in the Klamath Basin.
It is our hope that we'll all first focus on the actions necessary
to make this community whole. A critical part of that process is for a
thorough review of all of the actions taken to date, and those not
taken, to protect the species that need our protection.
I urge this Committee, Congress and the Administration to take the
following steps to undo the damage caused by these two federal agencies
to our community.
First, farmers, ranchers and the community must be provided
adequate financial assistance for the water taken from them this year.
I urge Congress to increase the $20 million now included in the
supplemental appropriations bill. While it is appreciated, that amount
is inadequate to mitigate all of the financial impacts the federal
decision has caused this year. Of course, we would prefer to have our
water supplies instead of any federal funds.
Second, the administration must conduct an independent peer review
of the science and the process that led to the biological opinions,
including a thorough investigation of the Hardy study.
Third, the Department of Interior should complete an Environmental
Impact Statement for the Long Range Operations Plan of the Klamath
Project. The effort now underway must be withdrawn because it is tied
to the biological opinions and will reflect all of their flaws as well.
A new effort worthy of the seriousness of the issues must begin - with
Congressional oversight.
Fourth, Congress should appropriate funds for irrigation districts
in the Klamath Project to begin on-the-ground restoration measures,
such as the completion of a fish screen at the ``A'' canal. Oxygenation
of Upper Klamath Lake and modifications to Chiloquin Dam would be
appropriate measures as well.
I believe farming and a healthy environment are compatible in the
Klamath Basin. History will show that the people who rely upon this
project have fulfilled their commitment to the U.S by working hard to
build a successful community and to improve the habitat of these
species. Now it's the federal government's turn to fulfill its
commitment to us.
______
Mr. Pombo. Thank you very much.
Mr. Foreman, Mr. Fletcher, I agree with much of your
testimony. I think the greatest mistake that I and many of my
friends and neighbors made years ago was we sat by silently
when your rights were being violated, and we--I believe all
American citizens are paying the price for that now, because we
allowed it to happen. At any time anyone's rights are violated
in this country, we all need to stand together and fight
against that, because once you establish a pattern, once you
establish a precedent that the government can do something,
they eventually will do it to you, and I think we're all paying
the price for that right now. And I appreciate your offer to
work with all of us to find a solution, because the solution to
this problem is something that is going to involve all of those
who have a legitimate right in this situation, so I appreciate
your testimony. I thank you for being here today.
And, Mr. Solem, just to follow up a little bit on your
testimony. Now, you testified that the annual use was between
400,000 500,000 acre feet of water for irrigation in the
valley. Is that accurate?
Mr. Solem. That's correct, in the Klamath Project.
Mr. Pombo. Okay. And yet there is about--and I believe what
you said--20 million acre feet that are produced out of the
watershed.
Mr. Solem. Correct, yes. It's a huge watershed, 6 million
acres. The USGS reports it's an average of about 13 million
acre feet that flow out at the ocean, and it's been as much as
23 million acre feet within the last few years.
Mr. Pombo. And that 13 million acre feet that you're
talking about is not developed water. It's not being used.
Mr. Solem. That's correct. I mean, the Klamath Project is
unique in that the irrigation is on the east side of the
mountains and is a river that flows through the Cascade Divide
and into the ocean. Most of the water is generated on the west
side, farther downstream.
Mr. Pombo. Okay. Can you tell me what the approximate cost
of water for farming is in this area?
Mr. Solem. I can tell you what the O and M costs are, if
that's what you want. In the Klamath Irrigation District, our O
and M assessments are $25.50 per acre, per year. We have no
construction component to that. Our district paid off the
construction costs in 1954.
Mr. Pombo. So it's $25.50 per acre?
Mr. Solem. Correct.
Mr. Pombo. Is there a cost per acre foot, or is that just
based upon historic water rights?
Mr. Solem. It's based on historical water use. The Klamath
Project, because of the integral design of the system where
water that gets past us becomes another district's source, it
doesn't really work in the typical per acre foot type of
pricing system.
Mr. Pombo. How would you--if you needed to come up with a
value of the water that is being diverted to another use right
now, how would you come up with that value?
Mr. Solem. The value is really to the producer and the
owner of that land that the water is pertinent to. I mean, it's
really their property right. The district is just the
distributor. I think it's all of the value of the land. And
maybe that's not the answer you want, but if we don't have
water on this land, it won't produce, period.
Mr. Pombo. Now, maybe I can ask Mr. Bishop this question.
You used a number of figures to determine what the agricultural
value was in the valley. Would there be a way to somehow come
up with a figure as to what that water is actually worth?
Mr. Bishop. In terms of irrigated property versus non-
irrigated property, certainly you could arrive at some kind of
a number. We've done studies here in the Tulelake Basin, and
land values have declined some over the last 2 years, and
values for irrigated property range from somewhere between
$2,200 to $3,000 an acre. If you take the water away from it--
this is only anybody's guess --but it could be $100 to $500 an
acre. I mean, we don't know. We have no sales to back that up.
We're trying to figure it out ourselves.
Mr. Pombo. Do any of you know if anyone has sold water or
leased water on an annual basis in the recent past, and if so,
what they were able to get for that water?
Mr. Solem. In Oregon there really isn't a system of
marketing like in California, so it isn't really that type of a
scenario. Bureau of Reclamation did pay irrigators not to
irrigate on an annual basis, and those values ranged greatly,
just depending on the crop in a particular farmer's situation.
I really don't--.
Mr. Pombo. Was that voluntarily?
Mr. Solem. That's correct.
Mr. Pombo. And can you give me a range?
Mr. Solem. I think it ranged from somewhere from a hundred
dollars to several thousand dollars, because it really--.
Mr. Pombo. Per acre.
Mr. Solem. Per acre. But it was more based on crop values
than the water values.
Mr. Pombo. And that was the Bureau of Reclamation?
Mr. Solem. That's correct.
Mr. Pombo. Okay, thank you. Mr. Walden.
Mr. Walden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
Fletcher, I want to commend you for your comments today and the
spirit with which you offered them, and Mr. Foreman, you as
well. You made a comment I wanted to follow-up on, though, Mr.
Fletcher, about your belief that--if I heard you right--that
other parties should have participated. You would have
welcomed--maybe is a better way to say it--other parties
participating in the Hardy discussions. Is that an accurate--
Mr. Fletcher. Well, it's a little different. The Hardy work
and the National Marine Fishery Service biological opinion was
based on years of different studies, years of discussion, years
of efforts. The Klamath Task Force in '96 and '97, of which
Klamath County is a representative in that body and can have a
technical worker's representative, began scoping on flow issues
in the entire Basin. Hardy has extracted some of that. Hardy
has shown up to the group on a number of occasions, has offered
to share and discuss any and all the information that he has.
We do studies, Fish and Game does studies, the Fish and
Wildlife Service does studies as well, and that's kind of a
sounding group.
Now, I understand that out of the detailed, specific
discussions on Hardy, that the irrigators didn't have an
opportunity to be there, and that should be corrected, but I--.
Mr. Walden. And I guess that's the point I want to make,
because one of the things I've learned in this processes is,
not only didn't they have an opportunity to participate in
those early discussions, they were precluded, prevented by the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, FACA.
Mr. Fletcher. I would have a different opinion, because I
sat on the Klamath Task Force. I asked people to show up at
these meetings, to have their technical people there. The Hardy
study is just one component to what NMFS considered. They
considered a Trihey study that the Yurok--.
Mr. Walden. But within the context of the Hardy study
itself, is it not true that the water users were excluded
because of FACA? I mean, that's what the Department of the
Interior has told me. That's what the water users have told me.
Mr. Fletcher. Well, I know specifically--and you can look
at the Task Force minutes where Dr. Hardy briefs the Klamath
Task Force about both Phase 1 and Phase 2, and he actually
says, ``I'll be around all day. Anybody that has any questions,
come ask me,'' those type of things.
Mr. Walden. But the tribes were specifically included,
because you are a separate nation, right? Under the trust
responsibilities of the Department of Interior, you had an
absolute right--.
Mr. Fletcher. Yeah.
Mr. Walden. --as you should, to participate. But I believe
that the case is that, with the waters users, they were--this
came up at a March 21 hearing back in Washington where I took
the questions I got from the water users, saying, How come we
can't sit in and participate? And it gets to the point, I
think--some of us are concerned about--you spoke about the need
to have this science out on the table throughout the process so
you can participate and they can. Isn't that really the same
case, Chairman Foreman, in terms of the science--the scientific
underpinnings of the biological opinion on the suckers really
originated through the Department of Interior and the BIA for
use for the Klamath Tribe in adjudication, isn't that correct?
And then was shared with Fish and Wildlife at that point?
Mr. Foreman. Yeah, and I'm not fully aware of the process
that was used at that point. But we do agree that everyone
should participate.
Mr. Walden. And I guess that's--if we're going to make
decisions of this magnitude, you can see where people get very
concerned about having the feeling they've been shut out,
either by a Federal law, FACA, the Federal Advisory Committee
Act, or some trust responsibility the department has. But be
that as it may, it raises credibility issues, frankly, do you
agree? Yeah, Mr. Fletcher.
Mr. Fletcher. The bottom line is, I too want a crack at the
science that is on the opposing side, and I think that
everybody needs to be at the table and we need to hash that
out. It's only going to benefit the end product. I know the
FACA concerns, but I think you need to appreciate, Hardy wasn't
the only thing looked at in NMFS' decision. There was a
collective body of information.
Mr. Walden. But it was a considerable piece of it, wasn't
it?
Mr. Fletcher. It was a considerable piece that used
additional information that was available to everybody.
Mr. Walden. But as you well know, there are lots of
questions about Hardy and the Hardy study still circulating out
there.
Mr. Fletcher. Yes.
Mr. Walden. And I think that raises another issue about
using the--I don't remember the exact terminology--the best
available science, or commercially something or other science.
Those are issues that are coming up. What does that really
mean? Whose do you take? I appreciated Mr. Vogel's comments
about the need to have a blind peer review process, if you're
going to have one. I can see where, you know, you can end up
with problems absent that.
Mr. Solem, if I could quickly go to you before my time
expires. I appreciate your comments, as well as some others,
about the different projects we can go do to improve habitat
and all, and I want to raise the issue about oxygenation above
the Klamath Lake and modification of potentially to Chiloquin
Dam, or at least a fish passage and mitigation efforts. If we
move forward, as the Bureau of Reclamation is doing, and
initially, as I've encouraged, to look at oxygenation in the
lake, do you have a concern that if that proves to be
beneficial to the suckers, that there is a very difficult
ability or an inability to determine whether it was the higher
lake level or oxygenation that produced the improvement?
Because I don't want to go do something that produces
improvement in the suckers' viability and have it credited to
some other thing, like the higher lake level.
Mr. Solem. I understand your concern. I think we will have
to look at the design of the experiment just to see how that
would work. We are looking at doing it in deeper water as
compared to shallower water. There are short-term and long-term
restoration activities and we want to be able to look at both,
because in order for us to operate there has to be short-term
restoration things that we look at and that can benefit fish
and their habitat.
Mr. Walden. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pombo. Mr. Gibbons.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I'd direct my question to Mr. Solem. And you
indicated in your testimony today that the water irrigation
district for the Klamath area has fully paid for the cost of
the diversion works to the Bureau of Reclamation in, I think
you said, what was that, 1934.
Mr. Solem. Our district paid off in 1954.
Mr. Gibbons. '54, thank you. Since that time, have there
been any actions with regard to the Federal Government in
conveying the title to those works to the irrigation district?
Mr. Solem. No, sir. The Klamath Project title still is in
the Federal Government--the right of ways, the facilities--and
there hasn't been any decision or movement to transfer those
facilities.
Mr. Gibbons. Has the irrigation district attempted to work
with the Bureau of Reclamation on acquiring the title to those
works?
Mr. Solem. I've been with the district for nearly 20 years,
and it's kind of a cyclical thing. We, about every 10 years,
seem to bring up the issue. We are currently looking at that
situation again and the possibility of transfer.
Mr. Gibbons. Well, it would seem natural that once you've
paid for something, you want to receive the title to it. I
think that's probably the premise under which it was
constructed. The other issue I have is in knowing that they are
not delivering their water to you, have they approached you in
any fashion to offer you relief from the expense of O and M on
this project?
Mr. Solem. No, we have-- I know that certain districts have
paid their O and M to the Bureau already this year. You know,
we have a contractual obligation, that we don't want to violate
our contracts, but up to this point, the $325,000 of annual O
and M, the bills have gone out from the Bureau to be paid.
Mr. Gibbons. It seems to me that their breach of their
contract to deliver the water to you should relieve your
obligation to pay the O and M for this structure.
Mr. Solem. I would agree.
Mr. Gibbons. I have a question also, if you could help me.
Obviously, there's some things that can be done, that you
talked about earlier, from the Bureau of Reclamation--the 10 to
15 million dollar project, including fish screens to keep fish
out of the irrigation canals. Where does that project lie?
What's its current status right now? Is the Bureau of
Reclamation coming up with the required money, since it's their
project, obviously, to fund that program.
Mr. Solem. That's a very good question, because it's a
requirement, a reasonable and prudent alternative on the
funding, it's necessary that the funding goes along with it. To
this point, there is some money in 2002. I believe it's 3.5
million in the Bureau of Reclamation's budget, so I mean, it's
clear that that's inadequate to construct these facilities. The
problem is that the district is going to be held to a deadline
for construction of those facilities. We have paid out of our
pocket for the preliminary engineering design and are more than
ready to move forward on the final design and get construction
going, but Reclamation at this point has not been really too
forwarded in getting funding.
Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that when the
Bureau of Reclamation comes before us in Washington, that we do
take this issue up and make that a very pointed consideration
for our efforts back in Washington.
I want to just briefly talk with Mr. Bishop here for a
second, because America probably has a very small idea of how
much family farmers put at risk on a day-to-day basis, whether
it's planting seed in the ground and hoping that something
becomes of it, to taking out a loan through your institution to
help defray the costs. Can you help us, in the brief time that
I have remaining here, talk a little bit about the risks and
the costs of an average farmer, what they have to go through,
what they have to invest in? Why do they come to you to get
this loan, and then why are we so concerned because of the
outstanding indebtedness of a farm or a ranch, or something
like that, when we start talking about shutting off the water?
Obviously, they've got a debt that has to be paid, just as the
obligation we talked about with Mr. Solem. Would you help us
with something like that?
Mr. Bishop. We are a farmer-owned cooperative system that
was established, as I said earlier, in 1916, through the wisdom
of Congress, to provide a dependable, short, intermediate and
long-term source of financing to farmers and ranchers through
bad times as well as the good times. And because we are farmer/
borrower owned and they own stock in our organization, they
have something to say about the direction of the organization
and participate in governance of our organization.
They come to our organization to borrow operating funds, to
buy the seed and pay for the operating costs, to buy equipment
and machinery, and to buy real estate. And we provide a very
important role, public policy role to America through being
that lender that, in the good times and bad times, can be
depended upon to be here. We have extensively used the FSA
guarantees that I referred to earlier to help us to work with
farmers through times of distress. It's very important that
that program continue to function, and that they're not allowed
to put additional conditions on those loan guarantees, that
they've never before put on those loan guarantees, that will
enable us to stick with the farmers, restructure their loans,
perhaps re-amortize their loans, so that they won't have to
face another payment, which would have been paid from the 2001
crops that obviously aren't going to be there to make that
installment, to allow them the time necessary to do some of the
things that have been referred to by some of the previous
witnesses here today. That's what farm credit is all about. We
are very concerned about the farming and ranching families
here. We want to do everything we can to support them.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pombo. Mr. Simpson.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Bishop, I want to follow
that up just a little bit. You're conditioning their loan
reorganization, and so forth, based on a full water allocation
for 2002? Do I understand that to be the case?
Mr. Bishop. Yes. We've been told that while normally the
FSA guarantee loan program would be based on normal conditions,
that perhaps this year they would be conditioned on the full
water allocation, yes, sir.
Mr. Simpson. How can you do that when you don't know what
the water's going to be, what the snow's going to be, you know,
what the conditions are going to be in 2002? So who's going to
give that guarantee of a full water allocation? I mean, have we
conditioned it on something that we can't promise.
Mr. Bishop. Yes, Congressman. That's exactly my point is
that by the agency placing that condition on the loan
guarantees to provide the credit enhancement that we need, the
farmers don't have the certainty that we will re-amortize their
loans. We need to start that process immediately, so there is
certainty that they're not going to have to pay the next
installment from a crop that's going to be nonexistent. And
that's where we need the congressional support to work with
that agency to ask them to follow their own policy and
regulations when issuing these guarantees to our loans so that
we can work with the farm families.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
Mr. Solem, in the testimony that I was reading of the
Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Association, there's a
statement that I'd like you to clear up, because we've talked a
little bit about whether the irrigation district paid for their
project, and so forth. They say in here, ``The Project users
have not paid more than about 30 percent of the total cost of
the Project since 1905, and not even a 70 percent tax payer
subsidy.'' Which seems to be a little bit in conflict with what
you were saying. Could you explain that difference or what it
means?
Mr. Solem. The project debt was paid off in a variety of
ways, and there were other things that happened with this
project beginning in 1905. We went through a depression. There
were times that there were some payments actually dropped
during that period of time. We had land--the Klamath City
Airport was actually land within the district. That land was
excluded. They didn't require that land to pay their
construction obligation for that number of acres. I think
that--you know, the other part of it is that it's kind of a
complicated formula for Tulelake Irrigation District and they
went through an inability to pay. Construction payments were
paid with lease revenue from those lease lands and the
agricultural production on them. But the bottom line is those
obligations have been paid, period. There was no subsidy. And
again, I think Mr. Crawford read something that, actually in
the mid-fifties, it was already generating tax revenues way in
excess, from those lands, of any investment that the government
made.
Mr. Simpson. So to put it clearly, they have paid their
obligation.
Mr. Solem. Absolutely.
Mr. Simpson. And I was interested in why, once those
obligations--we have encouraged, the Congress, those Bureau of
Reclamation projects to be transferred to the ownership of the
districts, and so forth, and I know that's been a slow process.
Why hasn't this one been transferred?
Mr. Solem. I think one of the reasons why is the pay outs
occurred at different times. Our district, the Klamath
Irrigation District, is one of the first districts that paid
out. You had a build-up of the project lands. Ours started
early, paid off early. Some other lands started the development
a little later--their payment. Tulelake's was within the last 5
years--the final payment. We also have a little bit different
situation than maybe your districts, is there is a component of
reserve works that are actually operated and maintained by the
Federal Government, even though those facilities were--there
was construction payments made on them by the districts. That's
the O and M that we continue to pay. But I think the time is
now that we do ask for transfer. But I can tell you, the Bureau
of Reclamation here said, You are going to be fighting an
uphill battle, just because of the complexities and the issues
that we're dealing with here in the Klamath Project.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
Mr. Fletcher, in your testimony you wrote, ``No one
involved with the water problems in the Klamath Basin believes
that the annual operations plans for the Bureau of Reclamation
is the best way to manage the Project.'' You share that view.
What changes would you make in the management plans of the BOR?
Mr. Fletcher. Well, if I were king of the--first off, the
EIS needs to be done--long-term planning. That has got to
happen, because we need the same thing that I think Dave and
others need. We need certainty. You know, the worst thing is
for us on an annual basis to make a migration back to D.C. to
plead our case, and then we both live with whatever comes out
the back end. We have the same problem that the irrigators do.
There needs to be a good look at the science. There needs to be
an EIS that's developed for a long-term basis. And the longer
we prolong that--because we've been hearing EIS since '95, '96,
and every year we need to get to an EIS, but the annual crisis
prevents us from getting to an EIS, but it's got to happen.
Concurrent with that, we've got to have negotiations and
mediations on a bigger scale. It's not fair, like I said
earlier, that the Klamath Project is singled out. I fully agree
with that. We need to pick on everybody equally and do what we
can to fix these problems in the basin.
Mr. Simpson. A better way to put that might be for everyone
to share the burden.
Mr. Fletcher. Okay, there you go. You know, and I can fully
appreciate the frustration, because we have the same
frustration. We look above the lake and we look in the Shasta
and the Scott, and there are problems. The Scott River is dry.
It's going to go dry this year. So I don't think we need a peer
review--you know, zero water in the channel is not good for
fish. I mean, there's certain things that need to be done so--.
Mr. Simpson. And I want to echo what the Chairman said at
the first of this, that whenever we've seen anybody's rights
trampled on, it's spread to everybody's rights. And I do share
what he said, as I have studied with Native American tribes in
my district, the problems that they've had, and quite frankly,
the way they've been treated.
Mr. Pombo. Mr. Herger.
Mr. Herger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank each of
our witnesses and everyone who is here today. I really do not
have a question, but I would like to make some observations, if
I could.
And that is, it would appear to me that really the problem
that we have--the major problem we have is not that of the
drought and not enough water, in my opinion. We've had droughts
before. We have them periodically. The fish have made it, the
people have made it. Had it in '92, we've had it in the
seventies and the eighties. To me, that's not really the
problem.
And I think--Mr. Chairman, I think you hit on it before in
an earlier panel when you mentioned something to the extent
that the ESA, Endangered Species Act, is not being applied the
same way in the East and the West. You gave the example that
we've been becoming aware of here in the last few months, on
the Potomac River in Washington D.C. where they're literally,
every month, dumping huge amounts of toxins in the river, and
our good environmental friends aren't saying anything. As a
matter of fact, they're ignoring it. And we have even brought
it to their attention, and they still ignore it. So we see what
is clear, or it would seem clear to me that we're really seeing
a war in the west. We're seeing a war on western states, and I
think Mr. Kerr summed it up.
The idea is that, as someone mentioned, in this county, 57
percent of your county is federally owned. I have counties in
my district that 92 percent are federally owned and 78 percent
are federally owned--in the entire State of California, over
half of the State. But to our friends in the extreme
environmental movement, that's not enough. They want it all.
And so we hear what so bothers me every time I hear it--
please excuse me, but this willing seller. I mean, we bankrupt
someone, we make it so their property is worth something, and
then we force them into either foreclosing to the bank or
becoming a willing seller. And again, it seems for some reason
we see it in the West, not so much in the East where we have so
many of our environmental extreme friends seem to reside. And
it's not just here in the Klamath Basin. It's not just with
farmers.
At a levee on January 2 of 1997, very close to where I
live, down in the southern part of my district near Marysville
and Naraboga area--the Corp of Engineers in 1991 came in and
said, There will be a loss of life if this levee isn't repaired
on the Feather River. Our good friends in the extreme
environmental movement sued.
And Mr. Kerr, I have looked through your statement, your
testimony that you have printed, and I respectfully feel very
resentful how even in your testimony one of your comments is,
``Our attorneys are salivating at the prospect,'' basically of
suing, having to do with the God Squad. Salivating. Now, I
salivate on chocolate chip cookies, but to think of
salivating-- It would be humorous if it weren't so tragically
serious.
On this levee, 6 years later, 5 years later, three people
lost their lives on a levee that the extremists within the
endangered species community or the extreme environmental
community, they also were salivating to sue, and they did sue,
and they sued, and they held it up for 5 years and three people
drowned there. And you know what their comments were
afterwards? Not that much different than what we're hearing
now. ``We should never have built those levees. These rivers
should meander. That's what they all did. They were built on
flood plains.'' We should all live in the mountains, I guess.
It's the only place in the valley that doesn't flood.
Somehow that doesn't make sense, and somehow a country that
can put men on the Moon in the 1970's--now, I'm old enough to
remember that and I'm also old enough to remember, in the
earlier 1960's, just in high school, when John F. Kennedy--we
didn't even have air conditioning in our cars at that time, but
he made a statement that we were going to not only put men on
the moon, but we going to bring them back alive. And we did
that in 10 years, and yet somehow we cannot work together to
solve what challenge has been going on for thousands of years,
of droughts and floods and everything else, so that we can both
protect endangered species and homo sapiens, humans, as well?
That's wrong. That's tragically wrong, Mr. Kerr. And an even
though I respect you, I very much resent-- I sincerely respect
you, personally, but at least the statements and what you have
written here, that rather than working together, that you
salivate to sue if we should work together to try to solve this
problem, really concerns me and I think really shows us what
we're up against. The extreme environmental community, which
evidently it would appear that you represent, has declared war
on us. And you know, we are not going to cry uncle. We're not
going to give up. We're going to stand up for our rights and
we're going to win the war.
Mr. Pombo. Mr. Hastings.
Mr. Hastings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
thank the panel also for being here. I want to add my
congratulations, I guess, to Mr. Foreman and Mr. Fletcher for
the tone in which you said you wanted to work together. And I
say that recognizing that there is tension between tribes and
people, and that goes on. I have two tribes in my district and
there is tension that is always about and will probably never
go away. That's part of the challenge of a self-government in
the first place. But I think the difference in your tone, and
certainly the tribes in part in my district, is that you live
here, your families live here, you work here, and you want to
find solutions to the problems. That's very hard to come by,
but the idea is the willingness to sit down to come to common
ground. And I think the trick that we have to do, the challenge
that we all have is to try to find that area, those areas that
we have common agreement from the start, and work from there.
One area, for example, in my congressional district, where
there is broad agreement with the tribes--probably not unity,
but certainly broad agreement--is an issue that hasn't been
brought up here, but I know exists here to a certain extent
regarding the salmon, with the debate of wild and hatchery
salmon. The tribes, for example, in my district, for the most
part want to see salmon return and they're not so hung up on
the idea of whether they're wild or salmon because I think that
they look at the science and they agree there's not a whole lot
of difference. And just briefly, do you share that the main
concern is to try to get the fish back? Let's not get too hung
up on the science. Is there a broad agreement with you on that
also? You're more the salmon--.
Mr. Fletcher. I'm the salmon guy, yes. We need adequate
numbers of fish to provide for a robust fishery sufficient to
meet a whole host of needs. The issue about natural versus
hatchery salmon, that's a big, long debate that there's all
kinds of issues on, but we typically support--on the Klamath
River, for example, the Klamath Fishery Management Council is a
body of commercial, sport, Federal agencies, tribes, and we
come up with the best management practices for our respective
harvests. We come up with harvest objectives, we come up with
escapement objectives. And at present, for fall Chinook, we
average for a 66 percent harvest on fall Chinook, natural
populations, and we have a floor of 35,000 fall Chinook,
natural population. Within that, the population of the
hatcheries--the return to the hatcheries will swing up and
down. I would say that the natural populations are equally as
important as the hatchery fish, and I don't want to say that
you can replace those populations with hatchery fish. You just
can't do it.
In the Klamath Basin there's still a lot of tributaries
that are pristine--the Salmon River, the north fork of the
Trinity, the south fork of the Trinity, New River on the
Trinity, even the Shasta and the Scott. Those are all natural
producing systems that the hatchery can't replace the
production from those systems.
Mr. Hastings. Yeah, and I wasn't suggesting that, because
again on the extreme side, the extreme side says you can't co-
mingle whatsoever. And I mentioned in my opening remarks about
the clubbing of the fish. Let me suggest that there may be a
solution to this that we all ought to be aware of, because the
first issue is the one that I addressed earlier about how much
water is enough. And I think as we go along, we're going do
somehow agree how much water is enough. The minute we do that,
we'll find a solution. And we will find a solution, I have no
doubt in my mind, which will lead then to the next argument of
the debate between wild and hatchery, and I think we'll have to
find it out the. But I think it's worth an anecdote in order to
illustrate that even that solution is probably at hand.
When I was growing up I heard about the buffalo on the
great plains of the United States, and was well aware of when
we settled the great plains, we moved out of the natural
habitat, the buffalo. And pretty soon, when the wheat country
grew up and settled in the great plains, there was no buffalo.
But somebody thought that the buffalo was worth saving. Now, I
don't know if that person was down to the last two buffalo or
not, but the point is, they thought it was worth saving, and
they made that decision before the Endangered Species Act was
put into place. And now, of course, we know--I have buffalo in
my district, people raise buffalo. Buffalo is a commercial
product. Let's just remind ourselves of what we're talking
about. They are hatchery buffalo. And so I say that in a sense.
If the Klamath Basin has not been faced with this yet, it's
coming. Just keep that anecdote in mind.
And then as far as the solutions are concerned, nobody is
suggesting that the people in the great plains--Topeka,
Lincoln, Wichita--completely move out so that the buffalo can
have their wild habitat. Nobody is suggesting that. Yet in the
Northwest, when there was discussion about removing the dams on
the Lower Snake River, that was precisely what they were asking
us to do. Again, it's a double standard that the Chairman
pointed out. So I am confident that in the long run, when the
people are more and more aware of the issues that are being
driven, from my point of view, by the extreme environmental
side--we're seeing this in California on power right now, and
that awareness is higher. But when the awareness gets higher,
people become educated, they ask the right questions, and what
do they find at the end of the day for everybody? They find a
solution. So I am encouraged about the willingness to work this
out. We have to get through this tough time for the people
living here this year. That's the challenge that we have. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pombo. I want to thank this panel for your testimony.
I'm going to go ahead and excuse this panel, but if there are
any further questions from the Committee, they will be
presented to you in writing, and if you could answer those in a
timely manner for the Committee, I'd appreciate it. Thank you.
I'd like to call up our fourth panel; Mr. Zeke Grader, Mr.
Bill Gaines, and Mr. Robert Gasser.
STATEMENTS OF ZEKE GRADER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PACIFIC COAST
FEDERATION OF FISHERMEN'S ASSOCIATION; BILL GAINES, DIRECTOR OF
GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, CALIFORNIA WATERFOWL ASSOCIATION; ROBERT
GASSER, KLAMATH BASIN BUSINESSMAN
Mr. Pombo. I want to thank this panel for joining us here
today. And again, I would remind you that if you can try and
limit your oral testimony to 5 minutes--your entire written
testimony will appear in the record, but if you can try to
limit your oral testimony to 5 minutes, we'd appreciate it. Mr.
Grader, if you're ready, you can begin.
STATEMENT OF ZEKE GRADER
Mr. Grader. Thank you, Congressman Pombo, and thank you
Congressman Walden, Congressman Herger, Congressman Hastings
and our friends here also from Nevada and Idaho for holding
this hearing today. I know this is a very difficult issue.
Mr. Pombo. Would the gentleman suspend for just a minute?
If I could have order with the audience, please. I'm even
having a difficult time understanding him, so please-- Go
ahead.
Mr. Grader. Thank you again for bringing this hearing to
Klamath Falls. I would hope that also at some point the
Committee could also come out to Eureka to hold a similar
hearing and basically get testimony from people on both ends of
the Klamath River system. I think it would be very helpful in
your deliberation as we seek to bring everybody together to try
and find some solutions for these very difficult issues.
My organization represents working men and women in the
commercial fishing fleet, mostly in California, but we also
have members in Oregon and Washington as well, and probably the
bulk of our members are what they call commercial salmon
trollers, people who make their living fishing on the ocean.
They are food producers, which I need to remind people of now
and then. You have a copy of my testimony so what I'd like to
do is just briefly talk to you. I know this has been a long day
and a long hearing, so let me just try and be brief and just
make a few points.
The Klamath Basin, as you know, historically was the third
major salmon producing Basin in the lower 48 States. It was a
tremendous system, probably a million or so fish at one time,
second only to the Columbia system and the Sacramento, San
Joaquin system. Myself, I grew up in the fishing industry in a
place called Fort Bragg on the north coast. Some of you may be
familiar with it. Up until about 15 years ago, that port was
the largest ocean salmon port along the Pacific coast. More
fish caught in the ocean were landed in that port than any
other place along the coast. That was then. Today is now. Today
we have a fraction of the fish going there, mostly because of
closures that have been imposed to protect Klamath River
Salmon.
The history of our salmon is not something new. In 1971 the
California legislature, a couple years before, had put together
something known as the California Advisory Committee on salmon,
steelhead, trout. And in 1971 it issued its first report called
an Environmental Tragedy. Now, 30 years ago most people didn't
even know what the word environmental meant, and it was at
least a year or two before the passage of the ESA, the Clean
Water Act, the National Environmental Policy Act. But these
people, made up of commercial and sport fishermen, I believe a
tribal member, as well as fishery biologists, pointed out then
some of the ongoing problems that we're looking at in the
salmon fishery, and particularly the diversions in the Trinity
River system. Of course, the Trinity goes into the Klamath
system. That was being diverted to another Federal water
project, the Central Valley Project. There were also problems
identified full well with some of the land use practices that
were going on, as well as the diversions, and the threats that
were being made to the salmon populations.
Fast forward now 7 years to 1978. At that time the Bureau
of Indian Affairs came out to California and said that we have
to begin restricting ocean fishing of Klamath stocks to provide
for the Indian tribal rights there, particularly for the Yurok
and the Hoopa Tribes. That's fine, except that in the 1950's
this very same Bureau of Indian Affairs and Department of
Interior were saying that there were no such rights, and the
fishing industry based their production, gearing up, building
new boats, on the fact that pretty much they had clear rights
to these fish in the ocean. In fact it was the same Department
of Interior at that time that the Federal Fishery Agency was
under, known then as the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, the
precursor to out modern National Marine Fishery Service.
We had fishing vessel guaranty programs, tax programs for
fishermen to be able to set aside money to build new boats.
Indeed, Production Credit Association, who we heard from in the
last panel, was lending money to the fishing fleet to buy new
boats, so we were being told by another Interior agency, Go
ahead, build up your fleet, these fish will be there. At the
same time, as we well know, the Bureau of Reclamation, yet a
third agency of the Department of the Interior, were telling
farmers, both in this Basin as well as those serviced by the
Federal Central Valley Project, that there would be plenty of
water for them.
Well, I think that's where we are today. We've got a
situation where we had the Federal Government promising much
that it could not deliver on, often times in conflict,
apparently not talking to one another. The situation is that in
my hometown now there virtually is no commercial salmon fishery
left. There isn't along much of the California coast. In fact
from San Francisco all the way to about the mid-coast of the
point of Oregon, much of that is closed for all or a good part
of the season to protect Klamath stocks--to try and protect
them. This year, even with the predicted abundance of our
Sacramento fall run Chinook, we cannot get to those fish
because, whoops, the fish moved north this year. They're not
being found off the central valley coast, and this happens in
nature. They follow the feed, they follow current patterns. So
right now we have a fleet that's pretty much tied up along the
California coast because they cannot access the fish because
they have implemented to try and protect those remnant stocks.
The situation, of course, with Coho salmon, which was what
brought on part of the crisis we're faced with here today, or
caused at least the bi op and the order to restrict the water--
I should remind everybody that we have not had a Coho fishery
since 1994. So it's obviously not a problem in the ocean of
fishermen taking them. We have not been able to fish them, so I
just want to make that issue clear.
Now, there have been many here today that have said, Well,
the problem is the Endangered Species Act. I would respectfully
disagree. I think the Endangered Species Act, while it may not
have always been implemented correctly, is more so than
anything a messenger, and going after the ESA, in many
respects, is like trying to kill the messenger. There have also
been some that have said, Well, it's the fish. Well, you know,
it doesn't take a lot of rocket science to know that fish gotta
swim. In fact I think that was Oscar Hammerstein that said
that, and we've heard that today from some panel members. We do
know that fish have to have water, unless we develop some
genetic engineering that allows them to grow legs and lungs.
Right now, today, the way fish are, they've got to have water.
And, third, people have said, Well, it's those greedy
fishermen that have caused the problem. Again, I would
disagree. I think that the problem has been that what we're
left with in the fishing industry is we're just trying to save
what remnant populations we currently have. We're trying to
restore some of them, but we don't have any illusions about
bringing them back to their historic levels, but we would like
to save some of them so our people can continue working, can
continue producing fish.
Now, I think there are some solutions here, and I think we
heard some today. I think one is, despite what we heard from
some of the crowd, is that for those people that do want to get
out, that they be offered just compensation. This is no
different than what we're proposing right now for our ground
fish fleet. Senator Wyden has a bill that would help buy out
the ground fish fleet. There again, the government promised
fish that weren't there, and we're trying now to give some of
those people a way out so that we can provide stability for
those that remain.
Second, I think, obviously, we do need to have some
immediate disaster relief. What the growers in this area
experienced here was no different than what we experienced in
the fishing fleet when we had the severe El Ninos, what
ordinarily occurs when we have floods and hurricanes. This was
a natural disaster. You've had an extreme drought. They ought
to get some money and they ought to be compensated so we can
keep these communities alive.
Finally, I think we do need to provide some Federal
assistance in helping develop some of the ground water basins
here, to take a look, so you're not entirely dependent on
surface water, so you have this mix so that in drought years
you have other sources of water to access.
Finally, I think we need to come up with a good restoration
plan. I think I would agreed with my friend Troy Fletcher and
some others. We need to get everybody in this Basin together. I
know I've learned a lot here today from listing to various
people and what they say, and I think that probably the best
solution we can have is to bring everybody together. We started
that under the Klamath Restoration Program in the 1986
legislation by then Congressman Doug Bosco, and I think we need
to continue on that process. I think we've got everybody's
attention now. I won't quote Lyndon Johnson, but I do think
that we need to bring everybody together and see if we can't
work out some ways to where--I think we need some good
restoration programs on that might then free up some additional
water that could then be used in this basin. Thank you.
Mr. Pombo. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grader follows:]
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM F. ``ZEKE'' GRADER, JR., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
PACIFIC COAST FEDERATION OF FISHERMEN'S ASSOCIATIONS
Good morning. I am the Executive Director of the Pacific Coast
Federation of Fishermen's Associations (PCFFA), the west coast's
largest organization of commercial fishing families. PCFFA represents
thousands of working men and women of the west coast commercial fishing
industry and has member fishermen's associations and individual members
in ports from San Diego to Alaska.
We are a major west coast industry, generating many billions of
dollars annually to the region's economy, and supporting tens of
thousands of jobs in coastal communities as well as providing high
quality seafood for America's tables and for export. However, it is no
exaggeration to say that many of those coastal fishing-dependent
economies are now in economic crisis as fisheries have declined
coastwide. This is particularly true for salmon fishermen, who have
suffered enormously from the loss of salmon habitat and the de-watering
of many of our most productive salmon-bearing rivers and streams. This
impact has hit especially hard in the Klamath Basin. Now the Klamath
River suffers from major fish kills as a result of low flows to such an
extent that we now have several basin species listed under the federal
Endangered Species Act (ESA), including once abundant coho salmon.
The Klamath Basin (9,691 sq. miles) was once the third most
important salmon producing river system in the nation, producing an
estimated 660,000 to 1,100,000 million adult fish annually. Now river
conditions are so bad that most of these runs are either gone or so
reduced in numbers as to be nearing extinction. At present, the
``recovery'' goal for this system is to return at least 97,500 natural
spawners to the system each year, a very modest goal that has still
never been met. Even if met, this still means a total reduction of
Klamath salmon populations by 89%. As a result, commercial fishing is
almost non-existent throughout the ocean area in which Klamath salmon
most frequently travel, the ``Klamath Management Zone (KMZ).''
A big part of the problem for downriver salmon is reduced water
quality and quantity from upper river sources because of the Klamath
Project. The Klamath Basin works as a hydrological whole, and what
affects water quality in the upper basin has a huge impact downriver.
Unfortunately, diversion of natural waterways and draining of
wetlands has taken an enormous toll on the Klamath Basin's ecology and
wildlife. More than 75 percent of the Upper Basin's wetlands have been
drained and converted to agriculture, down from 350,000 acres to about
75,000 acres. Each acre of wetlands represents an enormous natural
storage sink for water to buffer dry seasons and drought, as well as
nature's most efficient water filtration system to keep water quality
up. As a result of the loss of both water storage and water quality
filtration of wetlands, fish and wildlife populations have declined
dramatically. Klamath River Coho salmon are now listed as a federally
threatened species and all species of salmon are now extinct above
Irongate Dam because that structure provides no passage for fish. C'wam
and qadpo (i.e., the Lost River and short-nosed suckers but originally
called ``mullet''), once widely abundant and a mainstay in the diet of
the Klamath Tribes as well as a major and valuable recreational fishery
for the Upper Basin, are now also on the endangered species list.
The Klamath Irrigation Project and other development in the upper
Klamath Basin has had three major impacts: 1) wildlife habitat has been
destroyed; 2) water quality has been degraded; and 3) the natural water
storage capacity of native wetlands and other habitats has been lost.
The hydrology of the Klamath River has been greatly altered, both
reducing the overall storage capacity of the system as well as
compounding the competition for water that is the impetus for this
hearing.
A number of restoration projects are underway in the Klamath Basin,
but without real change in overall water and land management, the
current state of affairs is simply unsustainable. According to the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, for example, if water management proposals
now under consideration by the Bureau of Reclamation are implemented,
12,000 to 18,000 acres of the 23,000 acres of wetlands on the Lower
Klamath National Wildlife Refuge will go dry during the fall waterbird
migration in half of all future years. Smaller but still significant
impacts would occur in an additional 28 percent of future years. This
year, for instance, the refuges may go dry entirely, devastating
protected bird populations from all over the west coast who use the
Pacific Flyway.
In recent years, water quality from the upper Klamath Basin has
been so poor that massive salmon die-offs have resulted far downstream.
In 2000, more than 300,000 salmon deaths were recorded in the lower
river, directly attributable to elevated temperatures caused by too
little flow. Even the Iron Gate Hatchery cannot operate with water
conditions so poor as they have been in many recent years.
Crucial Economic Importance of the Klamath Basin to West Coast
Fisheries
Both Oregon and Northern California coastal communities are
directly affected economically by the environmental degradation that
has been allowed to occur within the upper Klamath Basin by the
operations of the Klamath Project.
First off, Iron Gate Dam in Northern California (just south of the
Oregon border) is the end of the line for Pacific salmon, since it was
originally built with absolutely no fish passage, and all salmon runs
above that dam are now extinct. More important for this discussion,
however, is the diminished water quality and quantity flowing through
Iron Gate Dam, coming directly from the Klamath Irrigation Project.
Water released by the Klamath Project has for many years been of such
poor quality, and such minimal quantity, that Iron Gate Hatchery (the
largest and most important salmon hatchery in the basin) functions only
very poorly or not at all. Iron Gate Hatchery uses river water for its
operations. Whenever river water is too hot, too polluted or just too
little in flow, that hatchery fails! Even if some juvenile fish do
emerge from that hatchery, in many years in-river hot water
temperatures and pollutants are so bad that water conditions kill them
quickly. 1 Furthermore, declining water quality and nitrate
pollution coming out of Iron Gate Dam 2 ead to downriver
water quality problems that extend for many miles downriver, which also
disrupts natural production of wild salmonids.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Salmon are cold-water fish and need cold water or their eggs
will not hatch. Mortality of incubating salmonid eggs greatly increases
as water temperatures rise from 56 F. (13.3 C.) to 60 F. (15.6 C.),
which is usually considered the lethal limit. Water temperatures
downstream from just below Iron Gate Dam downstream routinely exceed
this lethal limit through mid-October. Spring-run chinook spawn from
mid-August to mid-October, and fall-run chinook spawn from mid-
September through early-December. High water temperatures at Iron Gate
have thus greatly narrowed the spawning windows for both these
subspecies and also greatly reduced the range of ESA-listed coho salmon
by blocking access to cold water tributaries.
\2\ Nitrate laden runoff from agricultural fertilizers creates
algae blooms which steal dissolved oxygen from the water that fish need
to breath. The fish die of suffocation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not just hatchery fish that suffer, but many wild runs as
well. Salmon must have cool, clear and abundant water just to survive.
The extremely high volume irrigation diversions managed by the Upper
Klamath Irrigation Project have, as a disastrous side effect, literally
de-watered several key salmon spawning grounds in the Klamath River
below Iron Gate Dam for parts of most years. It is not uncommon to
loose 25% or more of all salmon nests to dewatering, in spite of all
efforts to save them, amounting to a huge economic loss to coastal
salmon fisheries and triggering major fisheries closures.
Even the water that is released from the Klamath Project is often
filled with agricultural fertilizers, pesticide residues and waste from
runoff in the fields. These pollutants in and of themselves can kill of
much of the aquatic life below the dam. Young salmon and salmon eggs
are much more sensitive to toxic chemicals than fully mature adults,
and scientists have already documented many long-term and debilitating
problems, including developmental deformities, as a result of chronic
pesticide exposures in even very small amounts well below current
expose standards. 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See for instance, Diminishing Returns: Salmon Decline and
Pesticides, a publication co-sponsored by the Institute for Fisheries
Resources, available on the Internet at: http://www.pond.net/?fish1ifr/
salpest.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In essence, the lower river system has been engineered to be, and
is often treated as, nothing more than a huge drain for the Upper
Klamath Basin. However, the Klamath is not a drain, it is a river, and
its ecological needs must be respected. This means that adequate water
quality and quantity must be released from the Klamath Project
sufficient to support salmon spawning and rearing, which in turn
supports coastal salmon-dependent economies and communities.
Unfortunately, the way the Klamath Irrigation Project is currently
managed has greatly changed both the amount and nature of natural river
flows we get downriver. Prior to Project construction, the Upper
Klamath contributed as much as 35% of the total flow of the whole
Klamath River at its mouth in a typical August. Today as much as 90% of
that amount of water is captured by the Klamath Irrigation Project,
particularly in a dry year, with the remaining 10% released below Iron
Gate Dam essentially agricultural waste water of such low quality that
it routinely triggers major downriver salmon fish kills. 4
In other words, the total impact of Project operations has been an
order of magnitude reduction in total flows below Iron Gate Dam, a
complete change away from natural seasonal flow characteristics, and
highly degraded water conditions for what remains and is released.
These highly degraded conditions are clearly major contributing factors
in overall salmon declines in the lower Klamath Basin, often resulting
in major fish kills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Figures from Initial Assessment of Pre- and Post-Klamath
Project Hydrology on the Klamath River and Impacts of the Project on
Instream Flows and Fishery Habitat, Balance Hydrologics, Inc. (4 March,
1996) prepared for the Yurok Tribe. There is a fiction being espoused
by upper river irrigation interests that the original flows above Iron
Gate dam were only 2% of total Klamath river flows at its mouth, but
this number is patently incorrect. The actual percentage varied
seasonally, but peaked at about 35% in a typical August according to
1911-1913 pre-Project flow records and was generally above 25% from
July--October when those flows were most important.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Klamath River salmon, once they reach the ocean, swim both north
and south where some portion of them are then available for harvest. In
the past, roughly 30% of all fall chinook landed between Coos Bay, OR
and Fort Bragg, CA, for instance, were Klamath River stocks in origin
(See Table 1). Thus when these fish decline, as we have seen in recent
years, major fishing ports from Ft. Bragg, CA to Coos Bay and Florence,
OR are severely impacted economically. Currently, all ocean and
recreational salmon harvests within this ``Klamath Management Zone
(KMZ)'' is specially restricted by the Klamath Fisheries Management
Council or by state agencies to promote recovery of these severely
depressed fish. As a result, when stocks are low (as we have seen for
many years) most commercial fishing in the KMZ area is either closed or
severely restricted, resulting in tens of millions of dollars in
losses.
The Klamath stocks are also key indicator species for harvest
levels all the way from central California to the Canadian border. All
of our ocean salmon fisheries are now managed on a ``weak stock
management'' basis. This means that the weakest stock becomes the
limiting factor on ALL OTHER FISHERIES, regardless of how abundant
those other stocks might be. The requirement to avoid catching any
severely depressed Klamath chinook stocks, or any ESA-listed coho,
therefore limits harvest opportunities on all the otherwise abundant
(hatchery origin) fish populations from the California Central Valley
well into areas above Oregon.
In other words, it costs fishermen tens of millions of dollars in
lost economic opportunities just in order to reduce fishing impacts to
a minimum on all these severely depressed Klamath River stocks.
Klamath-driven closures and restrictions thus result in lost fishing
opportunities for ports as far south as Monterey Bay and as far north
as to the Canadian border.
Restoration of the Klamath Basin's salmon production is thus
critical to the future of salmon fisheries over much of the west coast
north of central California.
Over-Allocation of Klamath Project Irrigation Water Has Devastated
Water Dependent Coastal Communities
To be blunt, the Klamath Project has simply over-allocated the
available water. As a direct result, there is too little water for
downriver salmon production (and ESA listings there), too little water
to maintain fish in the upper Klamath lakes (and ESA listings there)
and too little water provided to the national wildlife refuges (and
major bird kills there). The Klamath Project is simply using more than
its fair share, leaving far too little water to maintain overall
aquatic health.
The fact that there are several species of Klamath Basin fish
already on the Endangered Species Act list, serious problems with Iron
Gate Hatchery operations, and major downriver fish kills nearly every
year now should tell us that something is seriously wrong. What has
gone wrong is that there are too many acres now irrigated in what has
historically always been a very dry and water-limited basin. We will
face increasing water conflicts unless the Project either reallocates
and conserves the water it now has, including making sure we have
adequate instream flows for fish and wildlife and to the refuges, or
more water storage is developed quickly. Frankly, things are so bad now
that we must do both.
The fate of downriver and ocean salmon fisheries are directly tied
to the quality and quantity of water released by the Bureau or
Reclamation through Iron Gate Dam. In spite of our arbitrary political
boundaries, the whole basin is hydrologically interconnected. Thus, as
we have seen, whatever happens in the Upper Klamath Basin dramatically
impacts downriver fishing-dependent communities and their allied
businesses. In past years, as water released past Iron Gate Dam has
been reduced in total flow and become more and more saturated with
nitrate-laced runoff, sediment and agricultural chemicals, these
downriver impacts, particularly on fishing-dependent communities, have
accumulated to the level of an economic disaster.
Downriver economic losses have already been staggering. Roughly
3,780 family wage jobs have already been lost in these downriver
fishing-based economies (representing a net loss of economic impacts of
$75.6 million/year) by the failure to protect and restore salmon within
the Klamath Basin, and several thousand remaining jobs are now at risk.
5 While Klamath Project operations have not been the sole
factor leading to recent major in-river fish kills, poor water quality,
nitrate pollutants and too little in-river flows directly related to
over-appropriation of water by the Klamath Project for agriculture have
certainly been a major factor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ These are estimates done by the Institute for Fisheries
Resources (IFR) for an as yet unpublished report, The Cost of Doing
Nothing: The Economic Burden of Salmon Declines in the Klamath Basin,
based on reconstructions of historic salmon runs and using standard,
well accepted economic analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Every dead salmon in the lower river is another fish that can never
be harvested, and will never provide income to hard-working downriver
salmon fishermen. Right now very little fishing is allowed in the
Klamath Management Zone for just that reason, because the fish are
simply not surviving increasingly hostile river conditions.
We support the right of upper Klamath farmers to a fair share of
the water, but the irrigators are not entitled to take it all.
Sufficient water must be reserved for salmon production for our
industries and our families as well, both for sound biological as well
as sound economic reasons.
Water left in the river has just as much economic value to coastal
Oregon and Northern California ports as it does used on the ground for
Klamath Falls agriculture. A fishermen's job is no less valuable than a
farmers, a fishermen's family no less deserving.
Millions in federal funding is now going toward salmon restoration
in the Klamath. It does no good to pour millions of dollars into
ecosystem restoration when federal funds are also simultaneously used
to de-water rivers we are trying to save. It is much cheaper to prevent
disasters than to fix them once they have occurred.
Water Planning Must Be on a Basin-Wide Basis, Including Both States and
All Interests
It is all too often forgotten in Oregon, my home state, that
roughly two thirds of the Klamath Basin lies in California. Thus the
Klamath Irrigation Project, which over the years has reduced the total
flows from the upper Klamath River to California by nearly an order of
magnitude and polluted the whole upper river, has had tremendous
impacts over the border in California. In a real sense, Oregon has
simply exported its pollution to California.
Any solution to Klamath Basin water issues MUST involve elected
officials as well as the agencies of both states. Any solution MUST
also involve the full range of stakeholders, including the downriver
Northern California coastal communities that have seen their fisheries-
based economies systematically strangled, and also including the lower
river Tribes whose cultures have been violated and whose fishing rights
have been rendered all but meaningless.
Unfortunately, the Bureau of Reclamation has long managed the
Klamath Project simply to provide as much water to irrigators as
possible, but without regard to the environmental consequences or to
other downriver and coastal economic sectors. The consequence has been
to create unnecessary conflict between Tribal rights, fisheries and
wildlife on the one side with Klamath Falls farmers on the other, a
conflict that is unnecessary and ultimately counterproductive. In a wet
year, these conflicts were apparent and pervasive but largely ignored
by the Bureau and therefore unresolved. Now, in this extremely dry
year, these conflicts have reached crisis.
Farmers Should Stop Blaming the ESA and Get To Work Solving Their Real
Problems
As small-scale family food providers, commercial fishing families
are very similar to, and generally very sympathetic to, the plight of
upper basin farmers who may be facing a year with no water because of
forces over which they have no control. However, we must also inject a
note of reality into the current near-panic. The problems facing upper
Klamath Basin agriculture are not primarily driven by either water
shortages (except on a short term basis) nor the increasing need to
protect flows for fish and wildlife. Nor can the blame be ascribed, as
some would have it, to the Endangered Species Act, which is after all
only the messenger. Upper Klamath Basin farmer's problems are much more
pervasive and systemic, including:
1. Climate and Location of the Klamath Basin Is Not Ideal for
Agriculture: The high elevation of the upper Klamath in and around
Klamath Falls (in excess of 4100 feet), and the resulting short growing
season with both late and early frosts, has made it difficult to grow a
wide variety of crops. Reliance on traditional temperature-hardy crops
such as onions, sugar beets and potatoes, however, has created problems
in itself because these commodities are in oversupply in both US and
world markets.
Likewise, Klamath Falls is not near any major transportation hubs
of the region, and so farmers there have more difficulty and expense in
shipping their produce to world markets than farmers in many other
regions. These problems add to their total production costs.
2. LMany Upper Klamath Farming Operations Can No Longer Compete in
World Markets: Because of the additional transportation costs, short
growing seasons, and other added costs of Klamath Falls agriculture,
many growers can no longer compete in the world markets. Some Upper
Klamath Basin potato farmers, for instance, chose last year to plow
their potatoes into the ground because they would have lost money
competing on saturated and depressed world markets. Many of these crops
have been declared as ``surplus'' and their growing operations are
supported not by a healthy market, but by federal surplus crop payments
from the federal Treasury. Klamath Basin cannot even compete cost
effectively with potato production in Idaho, much less foreign markets,
and the same is true for many of its products.
3. LProcessing Capacity Has Left the Basin: Secondary or value-
added processing is one major ways agriculture remains profitable and
serves a variety of markets. However, potato and sugar beet processors
and other processing plants have left the basin, largely because of the
first two factors mentioned. It is no longer economically feasible for
major processors to remain in the basin because of transportation
costs, limited and uncertain production, and oversupplied world
markets.
4. Conflicting Uses: Some 20,000 acres of the national wildlife
refuges (public lands) is now leased out to private parties for row
crop farming. Oddly, these lease lands have first call on water that
would otherwise go to the refuge. In other words, even when the refuge
wetlands themselves are threatened with drying up, the farms on the
refuge continue to receive full water! Additionally, those farms are
allowed to use pesticides and agricultural fertilizers that are well
known to damage wildlife in the refuges. Lease land farming on the
refuges is clearly a conflicting use, and should be phased out by
nonrenewal of these leases, which are on five-year renewable terms. In
order to keep those farmers whole, there are a number of opportunities
at present to simply move lease holders to farmland now for sale
outside the refuges on a willing seller--willing buyer basis, and this
would be a good use of federal funds, freeing up additional water for
the refuges as well as allowing those farmers who wished to continue in
operation to do so.
Most of these problems have little or nothing to do with ESA listed
species, but rather with the costs of production, conflicting uses,
global gluts and an increasingly volatile and interconnected world
market. Klamath Basin farmers are far more oppressed by world trade
agreements and increased global competition than by any endangered
species.
Fortunately the Klamath County economy has been swiftly
diversifying in recent years, and the farming sector now accounts for
only about 6 percent of total county employment. Most new jobs in
recent years, and those projected over the next several years, will be
in other sectors as the economy matures. The Klamath County economy
will survive, and even thrive in the long run, if traditional
agriculture within the county is cut back to more sustainable, and
ultimately more profitable, levels.
Working Toward Long-Term Solutions
However, there are several things that can be done in the long term
to prevent future water conflicts, and to move the upper Klamath Basin
toward an agricultural base that is truly sustainable. At present there
is not enough water to meet Project needs in 6 out of 10 water years,
and as the drought this year clearly shows the present water allocation
system is not sustainable. The following are some suggested short term
and long term actions that should be considered for addressing the
current drought situation, for restoring a healthy, naturally diverse,
and productive Klamath Basin ecosystem and for meeting future water
supply needs:
1. Emergency Relief for the Crisis. The Klamath Basin is in the
middle of what appears to be the most severe drought in recorded
history for the region, with less than 21% of rain inflow to the Upper
Klamath Lake in a region that normally gets less than 12 inches of rain
a year. Because of the severity of this water emergency, disaster
relief funds should be made available to farmers in the Klamath Basin
similar to the support other farmers nationwide receive when they
suffer form natural disasters. However, the drought is not caused by
the ESA or any other statute. The drought is caused by lack of
rainfall. No amount of lawsuits, protests or politicians can make more
rain.
Because this is a natural disaster, all necessary steps should be
taken to qualify the Klamath Basin farmers for emergency relief funds
and to help the many who are likely to have little or no water this
year. PCFFA strongly supports the effort to get disaster relief for
affected farmers.
2. Reform the Management of the Klamath Project. Protecting fish
and wildlife, as well as maintaining the basin's wildlife refuges,
should also be explicit purposes of the Klamath Project, not just the
delivery of water for farming. The Project should be explicitly managed
to first meet the needs of species listed under the Endangered Species
Act. The Bureau of Reclamation should meet the river flow, lake-level
and refuge water requirements as set forth in the applicable biological
opinions and ultimately should seek means to meet the full water
requirements of the refuges and downriver fisheries, while recovering
fish species to harvestable levels.
The Bureau of Reclamation should also have a drought contingency
plan. Reclamation and the Service should look at ground water
development that can be brought on line this year, which includes
approximately 30,000 acre-feet of groundwater already purchased by
Reclamation this year, and using any carryover water from Clear Lake
and Gerber reservoirs. In the long term, the State of Oregon has said
that 200,000 acre-feet of ground water could be made available from a
combination of existing ground water pumps as well as new well
development. While it will be too late to make much difference in crop
cycles this year, this ground water should be developed in any event to
prevent future drought disasters of this magnitude.
3. Terminate Lease Land Farming within the Wildlife Refuges and Use
Lease Lands Water to Keep the Refuges Viable and for Wetlands Water
Storage: Four years ago Congress passed the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997. That law was intended to improve the
health of America's wildlife refuges. It directs the Secretary of the
Interior to provide necessary water to national wildlife refuges and to
maintain the biological integrity and ecological health of these
special places.
The official policy of the Bureau of Reclamation is that the
wildlife refuges in the Upper Klamath Basin, among the most important
in the country for bird migrations, are in fact last in line for water
from the Klamath project with a junior water right to almost everyone
else. Even more troublesome is the fact that no water has yet been
allocated to the refuges this year even to meet the minimum refuge
water needs to support ESA-listed bald eagles as required in the
current USFWS biological opinion. A secure source of water needs to be
obtained to meet the refuges' water requirements. One immediate action
that should be taken to meet the water requirements for the refuges is
the termination of the refuge lease land farm program.
Currently 20,000 acres of federal refuge land within the Tule Lake
and Lower Klamath Wildlife Refuges are leased for commercial
agriculture. Commercial agriculture of these lands is simply not
compatible with refuge purposes, especially at a time when there is not
enough water to meet refuge needs. Commercial agriculture within the
refuges should be eliminated and the lands should be returned to their
natural habitat condition as wetlands. The water rights associated with
these lands could then be transferred to refuge purposes. This would
allow management of these lands in a normative manner that could allow
for storage of thousands of acre-feet of water that could be devoted to
refuge needs. This would greatly reduce water shortages to refuge
wetlands while easing the irrigation season water demands on the
Klamath Project. This would also allow the conversion of these lands to
habitats more productive for wildlife, eliminate the use of pesticides
and fertilizer on the refuges, allow refuge personnel to devote more
time to refuge management, and help secure a reliable source of water
for refuge purposes.
Many basin farmers now have private land for sale on the open
market in areas outside the refuge. There is a proposal to buy these
for-sale farmlands using a combination of private land trust funds and
federal funds, and then to lease these lands back to the local
irrigation district so that the district can sublease those lands to
farmers now leasing within the refuges as replacement lands as they are
moved off the refuges. This would recapture more wetlands for the
refuges (i.e., add more total water storage), eliminate conflicts
between farming and the refuges, and give those farmers now leasing
lands on the refuge itself replacement land for row crops at a
comparable price. It appears to be a win-win solution to these
conflicts and should be pursued actively. In the meantime, no new farm
leases on refuge lands should be issued and those which can be
terminated should be. At present these federal leases have a 5-year
rollover period by which approximately 20% will terminate each year.
4. Willing Seller Buyouts. Simply put, the limited water resources
in the Upper Klamath Basin has been grossly over-allocated in the
Klamath Project. A necessary as part of any solution must be to
downsize the Klamath Project and to purchase and retire many water
rights in the Upper Basin.
The impacts of global competition have been devastating on Klamath
county. Farming is no longer very profitable in the arid Upper Klamath
Basin. Real personal income from farming and agricultural services
declined 66% between 1969 and 1998 in Klamath County, 57% in Modoc
County and 26% in Siskiyou County. Most farm families now have second
incomes from work outside the farm, and the farm sector now only
employs about 6% of the total workforce in Klamath County, 17% in Modoc
County, and 7% in Siskiyou County, according to readily available
government economic and census data. Income from farming in Klamath
County now represents only two-tens of one percent of total county
personal income. Agricultural support services accounted for six-tens
of one percent of total income in 1997, only a slight decrease since
1969. 6 This is why so many have recently offered to sell
out, well before the current water crisis has hit the region. The
reality is that many of those traditional farming operations in the
basin are simply no longer profitable. Most of the crops grown there,
with its short growing season and 4100 foot elevation, are now classed
as ``surplus crops'' (potatoes, sugar beets and onions) that can only
be grown profitably in today's worldwide glut of these products because
of major agricultural subsidies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ From Economic Profile of Klamath County, Oregon, an economic
study by The Wilderness Society (2000), available from The Wilderness
Society, 1615 M. Street, Washington, DC 20036 (202)833-2300.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are currently tens of thousands of acres for sale in the
Klamath Basin, most of it for sale long before the current drought.
Many farmers in the Klamath Basin were financially stressed long before
this year's drought, because of global market competition.
A voluntary but targeted buyout program will give financial
assistance to the farmers, who want to sell their lands, by buying
their lands at a fair price. This would be an equitable way to reduce
overall water demand, provide farm families some transition money, and
provide more future water security to those who want to stay in the
business. A federally funded buyout program should be developed and
implemented for this purpose.
Water right acquisitions should be focused on the Klamath Project,
and target areas where acquisition of associated land is also a
priority for habitat and refuge restoration, areas where acquisitions
would help meet tribal and other federal reserved water right claims,
areas where acquisitions would improve water quality, and areas where
acquisitions would have multiple benefits. In other words, disaster
relief payments in the form of buyouts should be targeted to do the
most good toward long-term solutions.
5. Restore Fish and Wildlife Habitats. Although fish and wildlife
habitats have been degraded throughout the Klamath Basin, it remains
one of the few major river systems in the US where substantial
restoration is still possible. Reclaiming and restoring wetlands,
especially in the Lower Klamath and Tule Lake Wildlife Refuge areas and
around Upper Klamath Lake, are important to obtaining a more natural
hydrological regime, improving and increasing fish and wildlife
habitat, and improving lower river water quality and quantity for
salmon restoration, and generally increasing total water storage.
7 The area lying north and west of Lower Klamath National
Wildlife Refuge known as the Klamath Straits should be among the
highest priorities for purchase and restoration. Riparian areas need to
be protected and restored, especially in the Upper Basin tributaries in
Oregon and the Shasta and Scott Rivers in California. Dams and
diversions need to be screened and provided with appropriate fish
passage facilities, or removed. No fish screens have ever been
installed by the Klamath Project, in spite of obvious need.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Wetlands is nature's best water storage system. One acre of
wetlands holding one acre-foot of water, for instance, has stored
325,851 gallons of water which would otherwise be lost to evaporation
or waste or floods. Wetlands naturally release this water into the
system to buffer the effect of droughts and seasonal rainfall. (1 acre-
foot = 43,560 cu. ft. x 1,728 cu. in. per cu. ft. = 75,271,680 cu in.
of water. One gallon = 231 cu. in. Divide one by the other = 325,851
gallons/acre-ft. of wetlands storage).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upland impacts also play an important role in water quality. The
water retention and flow regulation capability of upland forested
ecosystems need to be restored through reforestation, canopy retention
and work to reduce the impact of extensive unpaved road systems, a
constant source of excessive silt.
There are existing and effective habitat restoration efforts within
the Basin, including those of the Klamath River Basin Fisheries
Restortion Task Force, created by P.L.-99-552 (October 27, 1986) as
amended by P.L. 102-570 (16 U.S.C. 460ss-3 et. seq.). The Task Force
has representation from the whole basin and a well established
restoration plan, but pitifully little money with which to accomplish
its immense tasks. Providing better funding to the Task Force is
certainly one way to assure that Basin habitat restoration efforts
continue.
6. Restore Normative Hydrology and Flows: The Upper Basin as a
whole has a highly disturbed hydrology, and needs to be brought into
more ``normative'' conditions. That is not to say that pre-Project
conditions could ever be re-established, but that the Project could
operate in such a way as to roughly emulate or imitate the more
biologically important natural hydrological conditions under which the
many unique species of the Basin evolved.
a) Instream Flow Protection and Water Right Acquisitions.
Meaningful instream and lake level flows need to be established and met
throughout the basin. Successful adjudication of federal and tribal
reserved water rights needs to be completed, and the water needs that
ESA-listed fish need for their recovery should be determined and
provided for. An active water right acquisition program to transfer
water rights from willing sellers to instream purposes should also be
established and funded. Again, such a process would allow compensation
to those who wanted to discontinue farming for whatever reason, while
providing more water certainty to those who continue. Water right
acquisitions should be focused on areas where acquisition of the
associated land is also a priority for habitat and refuge restoration,
where acquisition would help meet Tribal and other federal reserved
water right claims, and where the acquisition would have multiple
benefits. For instance, acquisitions in the basin above Klamath Lake
could assist in meeting Tribal and other federal reserved water right
claims in the upper basin, provide needed instream flows in the upper
tributaries, assist in maintaining Klamath Lake levels, improve water
quality in Klamath Lake, and add to the water supply to meet project
water needs, refuge needs and downstream flow needs for the re-
establishment of the salmon fishery.
b) Water Conservation and Improved Water Management. Improving
water use efficiencies and conserving water can increase water supply
at critical times and improve water quality. There should be a thorough
analysis of irrigation needs in the basin. Opportunities for improving
conveyance system and on farm efficiencies should be carefully
assessed, funded, and implemented. Water use efficiency standards and
goals should be set. Detailed basin-wide conservation plans, including
water conservation plans required of project users under the
Reclamation Act of 1982, should be established and implemented to meet
the efficiency goals. A full range of other measures should also be
considered to reduce irrigation demand, including changing crop types,
developing rotation schedules, and fallowing land.
c) Better Water Measurement, Reporting, and Enforcement. Given the
demands on the water resource, we can no longer afford to have anyone
taking more than their lawful share. This is unfair to other water
users and adversely affects instream flow conditions. The States of
Oregon and California need to assume greater responsibility in managing
and regulating water use. Very little water monitoring or enforcement
is actually being done today. Water use measuring and reporting need to
be required, and an active enforcement program needs to be implemented.
A recent study of water use from the Wood River in Oregon has shown
that requiring measuring devices can reduce illegal use and increase
streamflow.
d) Reduce Out-of-Basin Transfers. There are approximately 30,000
acre-feet of water transferred each year from the Klamath Basin to the
Rogue Basin. Some of this water is managed by the Bureau of Reclamation
as part of the Rogue Basin Project. An examination should be made as to
how the Rogue Project could be managed differently to help with the
situation in the Klamath Basin, and if possible these out-of-basin
transfers eliminated at least in low water years.
7. Fully Meet Water Quality Standards. The Klamath River and
several of its tributaries have been listed as water quality
``impaired'' under the Clean Water Act from the headwaters to the
ocean. In fact, water in the Klamath River in the Upper Basin is the
most polluted in Oregon, and among the most polluted in California.
Total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) should be established and implemented
for the impaired streams, preferably on a bi-state basis. The U.S.EPA,
Oregon DEQ, and California Water Quality Control Board Northwest Region
should immediately act to establish and implement interstate TMDLs in
the Lost and Klamath Rivers.
8. Implement and Fully Fund P.L. 106-498 to Develop More Water
Storage. Since at least July, 1994, when I personally testified on
these very same issues before this very same Subcommittee in a field
hearing in Klamath Falls, we have been strong supporters of efforts to
increase overall storage of water in the Basin. More recently, we
supported the Smith-Wyden Bill (S. 2882) in the 106th Congress, now
P.L. 106-498, as a good if belated beginning, and we commend both
Senators for their efforts in this regard. I also testified in support
of full funding for P.L. 106-498 in a hearing before this same
Subcommittee on 21 March 2001.
Now once again we urge this Committee and other Members of Congress
to fully fund P.L. 106-498 and urge the Administration to support
including that funding in the Budget. No good idea is worth much if it
cannot be implemented. Inherent in P.L. 106-498 also is language that
allows us to look at some creative solutions:
``Sec 2(3): The potential for further innovations in the use of
existing water resources, or market-based approaches, in order to meet
growing water needs consistent with State water law.''
This means finding creative ways to better conserve and reuse
existing water supplies, as well as considering a water marketing
system to make more efficient economic use of the supplies we do have.
All these are proven methods.
Although the Bureau of Reclamation is using some P.L. 106-498 funds
this year to purchase about 30,000 acre-feet of water, conservation, in
the short run, is the only option that we have this year to stretch
water supplies to their furthest, and even that will be nowhere near
enough. However, making more efficient use of a scarce resource always
makes sound economic sense. Reduced water demand can also be
accomplished in part though aggressive water conservation.
9. Meet all Fish and Wildlife Obligations to the Greatest Extent
Possible: Obligations under the ESA to prevent extinction of valuable
public resources, and obligations to Tribes to provide instream flows
sufficient to assure fisheries and protect their culture, are primary
obligations that the courts have ruled must be satisfied ahead of
Bureau obligations to water contractors. Klamath Water Users Assn. vs.
Patterson, 204 F. 3d 1206 (9th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 44
(2000). See also O'Neal vs. United States, 50 F 3d 677 (9th Cir. 1995).
This is the law of the land. Though not as clear in the courts, the
same policy considerations should also apply to protection of migratory
bird species on the national wildlife refuges, which are protected
under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and under international treaties.
Bald eagles on the refuges (which support the largest population in the
lower 48 states) are also protected under the ESA. Obligations to
public resources must be met first, under the law, by public agencies
before meeting the needs of private farmers to make a profit using
publicly subsidized water.
In summary, it is unfortunate that in serious drought years like
this one that limited water supplies may create hardships for some
farming families. We should seek to do all we can to: (1) avoid such
conflicts in the future by increasing the overall water supply and
making the most efficient use of the water we do have through
conservation and sustainable land use practices, and; (2) where
cutbacks on irrigation water do cause hardships, take all reasonable
and necessary steps to see that farmers are reasonably compensated for
the hardships they must endure through no fault of their own.
Federal financial assistance and support will be needed in
resolving the numerous issues and conflicts over water in the basin.
This is totally appropriate, in our view, as it was after all the
federal government who largely created these problems though gross
over-appropriation of limited water as well as years of negligence in
dealing with the fundamental biological limits imposed by a limited
(and variable) water supply.
We need to do what we can to reduce the economic hardships this
year's drought has brought on Klamath Basin farmers without sacrificing
the incredible resources of Klamath Lake, the Klamath River, the
Klamath Basin Refuges and a large part of the west coast salmon runs.
We hope you will give the above suggestions for long-term solutions
your careful consideration.
For more information see: http://www.pcffa.org/klamath.htm
______
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3135.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3135.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3135.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3135.057
THE OREGONIAN EDITORIAL
The Klamath dust bowl
Water crisis in the Klamath Basin isn't just about suckers vs. farmers:
It's about a century of unresolved problems
Sunday, May 13, 2001
A 3-year-old girl, daughter of one of Klamath Basin's desperate
farmers, stood amid 8,000 people at the bucket--brigade protest in
Klamath Falls thisweek clutching a sign that read simply ``We need
water.''
The little farm girl, Peyton Hager, her family and hundreds of
other families cut off from irrigation water face a bitter summer. But
if their farms are to ultimately survive, they need more than a token
share of what little water is available in Upper Klamath Lake.
They need immediate drought relief, and they need responsible
leadership to resolve a tangle of problems rooted in the basin's
history and its dry soil.
So far, all these farmers are getting are cover crops to prevent
thousands of acres of dry fields from blowing away in the hot summer
wind. That, and the political equivalent of cover crops----big talk,
lots of bluster about amending the Endangered Species Act, but no
effort to dig deep into all that needs to be done for the people, the
land and the wildlife of the Klamath Basin.
The Klamath crisis won't be solved by elected officials who fly
into town on borrowed corporate jets to join protests and shout about
how farmers are more important than endangered sucker fish. Political
hay isn't a cash crop for Southern Oregon farmers.
This crisis is not just about the worst water year in recorded
history in the Klamath, and not just about the federal government's
decision to use the available water to protect endangered sucker fish
and threatened coho salmon.
It is about decades of failure to resolve conflicts over water
rights that allow some upstream irrigators to take more water than they
are entitled to, while others are left high and dry.
It is about the facing the reality that the government long ago
promised settlers and farmers more water than it could deliver without
destroying some of the most significant marsh lands, wildlife refuges
and wild salmon runs in the nation. There's not enough water, even in
years of average rainfall, to sustain all of the farms in the Klamath
Basin. The government must work with willing sellers to retire some
farmland.
These farmers need water, but they also need federal agencies to
stop warring over their particular turf--fish runs, or irrigation
delivery, or waterfowl refuges--and begin working in concert to restore
wetlands, improve water quality, screen irrigation canals and conserve
water.
The Klamath drought is a true crisis, and perhaps a catalyst for a
serious reexamination of the Endangered Species Act. Put a picture of
that little farm girl with the plaintive sign, ``We need water'' up
against a shot of a slimy sucker fish, and for many people it's not
even a close call.
Yet it's not that simple, and nearly everyone close to the Klamath
crisis understands that. It's also about the people and communities
downstream from the Klamath Basin, the commercial fishermen and their
families who have lost their livelihoods, their way of life, because of
the way water is diverted, sprinkled and polluted across the arid
basin. The Klamath River system once was the third most productive
salmon river in the United States. Now it's a warm shadow of what it
once was, the Klamath coho is a threatened species and fishermen are
out their jobs.
It's about the Klamath refuge system, among the nation's oldest and
most important waterfowl refuges. These refuges host 80 percent of the
waterfowl that migrate along the Pacific Flyway, and are home to the
largest wintering population of bald eagles, yet they are abused. They
are last in line for water, behind suckers, salmon and farmers, and
what little arrives through myriad dikes and ditches is polluted. This
winter, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is worried that as many as
950 bald eagles--it's hard to even imagine that many of the great birds
in one basin--will be harmed by the drought.
There is a better way. It must begin with responsible elected
officials, a strong local community open to change and a real
commitment from the federal and state governments.
It should end with restored wetlands, a lake clean and sufficient
enough for fish, a river with enough cool flow for coho salmon, and
last but not least, a Klamath Basin with a sustainable level of
irrigated family farms.
Copyright 2001 Oregon Live. All Rights Reserved.
______
A Eugene, Oregon Register-Guard Editorial
May 27, 2001
Don't blame the fish: Government policies created Klamath Basin crisis
It's tempting oh so tempting - to oversimplify and distort the
Klamath Basin water crisis by declaring that it's all about protecting
sucker fish and salmon at the expense of farmers.
That's no more accurate than saying, as many did, that the
Northwest timber crisis was solely about protecting the spotted owl at
the expense of timber workers, an explanation that ignored the
government's primary role in allowing decades of overharvesting of
national forest lands.
It's that same federal government - and not the suckers and salmon
that bears the ultimate responsibility for the Klamath crisis.
It's that same federal government that dug dams, drained marshes
and built hundreds of miles of canals and ditches in the early 1900s,
and then promised farmers that they would forever have irrigation water
to feed crops across the breadth of what once had been an arid basin.
It's that same federal government that for years has ignored its
own scientists' warnings about the Klamath Project's devastating impact
on the region's fish runs and waterfowl refuges.
It's that same federal government that has failed to craft a
cohesive water policy that balances the needs of farmers against those
of fish and wildlife - and the Native American tribes, fishing
industries and downstream communities that depend on them.
The understanding that it's the federal government - and not the
sucker and salmon or those fighting for their survival- that is the
true culprit is critical to understanding new developments.
An example is environmentalists' demand last week that the
government stop the trickle of water that continues to flow to a few of
the more than 1,000 farms served by the Klamath Project. The
environmentalists say water is needed to save more than a thousand bald
eagles and other waterfowl that depend on wildlife refuges in the
Klamath Basin and that were the very reason these refuges were created.
Without this water, they say, eagles may perish in the months ahead.
Federal wildlife biologists have issued similar warnings. Yet the
federal government, at the insistence of Vice President Dick Cheney,
allowed the symbolic diversion of 70,000 acre feet of water to irrigate
cattle pastures in the Langell Valley east of Klamath Falls. It was an
irresponsible, unscientific and blatantly political decision that could
devastate the largest winter population of threatened bald eagles in
the lower 48 states.
Ironically, the plight of the eagles could serve a useful purpose.
It's harder to blame a beloved national symbol for farmers' predicament
than it is to blame the sucker and salmon - and the Endangered Species
Act that protects them.
Klamath Basin farmers can make it through this crisis intact,
provided the federal government gives them the financial assistance
they need and deserve, and moves quickly to develop a long-term
strategy that balances the needs of the basin's people, its wildlife
and the land itself.
But government grants and low-interest loans won't get the eagles,
salmon and sucker fish through the dry months ahead; they must have the
water they need to survive.
It was the federal government that laid the groundwork for the
Klamath water crisis. Now it's the federal government that must fix
this mess.
Source: http://www.registerguard.com/news/20010527/
ed.edit.klamath.0527.html
______
The Oregonian
Klamath solution takes cooperation by all
There are no easy answers in this drought year or for the future; many
interests must negotiate
Friday, June 1, 2001
IN MY OPINION John A. Kitzhaber DEAN ROHRER/NEWSART The current
water crisis in the Klamath Basin has been 150 years in the making and
serves as a reminder to us all that we are stretching our natural
resources beyond their limits.
Even in a normal year, the water in the Klamath Basin cannot meet
the current, and growing, demands for tribal, agricultural, industrial,
municipal and fish and wildlife needs. And with this year's near-record
drought, the consequences of our actions have hit home in a disastrous
way.
While we are working hard at the state level to address the short-
and long-term impacts of this drought, the history of the Klamath Basin
bears some scrutiny so we can understand how we got here in the first
place--and can avoid getting here again in the future.
The history of the Klamath Basin includes tribal rights resulting
from the 1864 treaty and later settlement of the basin at the urging of
the federal government, which offered land and water to veterans of
World Wars I and II. The Klamath Basin historically contributed
significantly to coastal recreational and commercial fishing--an
industry that has lost 7,000 jobs over the past 30 years related to
Klamath species decline. Traditional tribal fishing for suckers in the
basin stopped in 1986, two years before the Endangered Species Act
listing, because of tribal concerns over population declines of these
species.
This is the context in which drought has hit. The drought, in
conjunction with the need to provide water in Upper Klamath Lake for
listed suckers and in the Klamath River for listed coho, resulted in
only 70,000 acre-feet of water available for irrigation from the Bureau
of Reclamation Klamath Project, versus the usual 500,000 acre-feet. In
addition, this year, no water is allocated for wildlife refuges, home
to hundreds of bald eagles and a major waterfowl stopover on the
Pacific Flyway.
As a state, we have taken a number of steps to try to avoid,
minimize or mitigate these impacts. A drought emergency has been
declared for Klamath County. At my request, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture has also declared a drought disaster. Furthermore, before
the final biological opinions were released in early April, I urged the
secretaries of Commerce, Interior and Agriculture to exercise maximum
flexibility and share the burden, given the severe drought conditions.
At my request, state Attorney General Hardy Meyers asked the U.S.
District Court in Eugene to supervise court-ordered mediation of all
parties to resolve both the short-term and long-term issues in the
basin. Three days of mediation occurred in late April in an attempt to
find a compromise for this year. While the state put serious proposals
on the table, the parties were unable to reach agreement. However,
mediation will resume on the long-term issues in the basin this month.
The state is taking the lead in offering the court a proposal on the
conduct, scope and timing of continued mediation.
We have learned that many of the traditional federal disaster-
assistance programs do not fit the needs in Klamath County. I have
asked members of the congressional delegation to make a specific
request for the Klamath as part of any supplemental appropriations bill
for this fiscal year. I have also asked the federal agencies to return
to mediation with a willingness to bring long-term solutions to the
table.
Oregon's state agencies already have made available programs,
services and assistance to individuals and businesses in need.
Oregon's Water Resources Department has been working to process
emergency water permits and limited licenses to tap groundwater
sources.
Having heard concerns about the science being used in the basin to
make decisions about water allocation, I have asked the Independent
Multidisciplinary Science Team, created as part of the Oregon Plan for
Salmon and Watersheds, to review the available science and to offer an
opinion about the reliability of that information for making decisions
that have such critical effects on the basin.
All of these efforts, however, will not solve the underlying
problem in the Klamath Basin: A demand for water that exceeds the
supply of water.
No court can solve this problem; no one person can solve this
problem. It will take all the parties coming to the mediation table--
leaving their positions at the door--ready to roll up their sleeves and
design a long-term solution that will sustain the Klamath Basin for the
benefit of communities, the economy and the environment.
The recent political rhetoric about amending the Endangered Species
Act is just that--political rhetoric, making for good sound bites, but
doing nothing to solve the current crisis in Klamath County. I am on
record supporting changes to the act that were proposed in Congress a
few years ago. It is clear from that experience, however, that there is
not the national consensus or will to amend the act. This is even more
true of this Congress than the last.
Only the people in the Klamath who care about the future of their
watershed, their economy and their communities--working with tribal,
state and federal officials--have the tools to meet this challenge.
Increased water storage, decreased demand, enhanced conservation,
habitat improvements and many more actions can and should be taken to
ensure a sustainable future for all species in the Klamath Basin. I
will continue to do all I can to bring these actions about.
Copyright 2002 Oregon Live. All Rights Reserved.
______
Mr. Pombo. Mr. Gaines.
STATEMENT OF BILL GAINES
Mr. Gaines. Thank you, Chairman Pombo, members of the
Committee. It's a pleasure to be here today in Klamath Falls to
talk with you about the California Waterfowl Association and
our concerns with the water allocation decisions that have been
made recently, in the last few weeks. My name is Bill Gaines.
I'm the director of Government Affairs for the California
Waterfowl Association, and on behalf of our 15,000 members
throughout the Pacific Flyway, thank you for the opportunity to
speak to you today.
The Upper Klamath Basin is the most critical waterfowl
staging area in North America. So important is the Klamath
Basin to North American waterfowl on their annual migratory
trek, that if you look at a Pacific Flyway map, which I happen
to have right here--I don't know if you can see this or not--
you can easily find the Klamath Basin simply by looking at the
big black dot because that's where the apex of the Pacific
Flyway funnel is. It's right there, right on the Klamath Basin.
We estimate that about 75 to 80 percent of Pacific flyway
waterfowl either nest or stage here at some time during their
annual migratory trek.
Historically, this Basin contained about 350,000 acres of
naturally occurring waterfowl habitat. Today, however, largely
due to the construction of the Klamath Reclamation Project, we
only have about 25 percent of that historical habitat
remaining. Yet each year, as I mentioned, a full 75 to 80
percent of our Pacific Flyway depend upon this Basin's few
remaining wetlands to address their habitat needs.
In addition, these birds depend upon wildlife-friendly
agriculture for critical staging habitat as well. In addition
to waterfowl that depend upon these remaining wetlands--which,
by the way, nearly all of which are contained within the
Klamath National Wildlife Refuge complex--a documented 430
other wildlife species depend upon this Basin for habitat,
including the largest wintering population of bald eagles in
the lower 48 States.
Because of the Klamath Reclamation Project and the manner
in which it changed the Upper Basin's natural hydrology, nearly
all of our remaining wetlands today must now be managed. In
other words, they have to be artificially irrigated and
intensely managed to maintain marsh conditions. In effect,
similar to the farmers that are struggling with the water
allocation, the public and private wetland managers in the
Klamath Basin are also. As a result of this condition, the
quantity and quality of wetland habitat available in any given
year is nearly entirely dependent upon the allocation of water
it receives from the Klamath Reclamation Project, local
irrigation districts and other sources.
Tragically, the Upper Basin's highly limited surface water
supply, combined with the regulatory actions mandated by the
two recent biological opinions, will result, as you know, in no
water to the refuges this year, and little or no water for
wetland habitat in all but the wettest of future years.
Some environmentalists, in their zeal to protect both fish
and refuges, have called for the elimination of agriculture in
this Basin to free up the water necessary to address listed
species concerns. Our Association, as a spokesman for waterfowl
and their environments, can assure you that this is not the
answer. With only 25 percent of our historic wetland habitat
available in this region, it is critical that we manage our
remaining habitat to maximize these wetland values and
functions. Yet, even if we have sufficient water to maximize
the wetland values of our few remaining wetlands, it still is
not enough.
These waterfowl depend heavily on the wildlife-friendly
agriculture provided by local agricultural production to help
meet their nesting and foraging needs. In fact with the
agriculture that's going to be eliminated with the lack of
water this year, it's going to reduce the normal total wetland
food base and the waterfowl food base in this Basin by nearly
one-half. That's how much these birds depend upon local
agricultural production in addition to the habitat provided on
the refuges.
As we're all well aware, the two biological opinions
released in early April have not only shut off the critical
water deliveries to the Klamath refuge complex, but also, of
course, to the agriculture in the surrounding basin. To make
matters worse, because these waterfowl are going to be forced
to crowd onto the few remaining wetlands, we are very likely to
see significant avian die offs due to avian botulism and
cholera as well. The serious stress placed on these birds by
the lack of habitat, coupled with the anticipated die-offs due
to disease, may mark the beginning of the end for our Pacific
Flyway waterfowl resource.
Gentlemen of the Committee, three species of fish are
currently holding our Pacific Flyway, the bald eagle, roughly
430 other wildlife species, over 1200 local families, and an
entire local economy hostage here in the Upper Klamath Basin.
The California Waterfowl Association does not believe that this
was Congress's true intent when they passed the Endangered
Species Act a few short decades ago. Truly, as our nation
becomes more urbanized, conflicts between our fish and wildlife
species and our human environment will become more frequent.
Today's crisis in the Klamath can only be viewed as the
``canary in the mine shaft'' for what we can expect in the
future should resource agencies continue to be allowed to
implement the ESA as they do today.
To address these very real concerns, we ask Congress to
join us in seeking a few solutions. First, in the short-term,
we call for the U.S. Department of Interior and its agencies to
fully consider the impacts and risks to waterfowl and other
wildlife and the importance of wildlife-friendly agriculture
before making water allocation decisions based on the current
biological opinions.
Secondly, ground water is being talked about as the silver
bullet, if you will, to address these concerns. We can assure
you that ground water will help address these concerns, but it
cannot be viewed as a silver bullet. We must get a ground water
management plan in place to assure that the ground water
resource will be available over the long-term to assist in
meeting our water needs here in the Klamath Basin.
Over the long-term, we ask you to join us in seeking
careful common sense amendments to the Endangered Species Act.
If there were ever a poster child for the need for Endangered
Species Act amendments, it's what we're looking at right now in
the Upper Klamath Basin. In addition, we'd like you to work
with us in seeking changes in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act,
which helps to elevate our internationally shared migratory
waterfowl resource to a par with local and regional listed
species. We'd also like you to work with us in appropriating
Federal funding for projects which could provide incentives to
local growers to do wildlife-friendly agriculture on their
lands, or maybe even fallow marginal land when necessary, which
can also provide upland habitats for a variety of species.
And finally, helping us to call for peer review of future
biological opinions. Outside peer review is commonplace before
biological opinions, if you will, within the scientific
community are accepted as credible. It should also be
commonplace when biological opinions have the ramifications of
the ones that we're currently looking at up here in the Klamath
Basin are also put into play.
In closing, we urge the Committee to recognize that the
most important environmental asset of the Klamath Basin, its
waterfowl, are also the most costly victims of the current
water management decisions. It is important to recognize that
waterfowl hunting provides a financial and emotional commitment
to the conservation and enhancement of wetlands throughout
North America. These habitats directly or indirectly support
hundreds of wildlife species as well as more than one-half of
our currently listed species in California. Water allocation
decisions mandated to address the needs of three listed species
in the Klamath Basin are seriously threatening the future
health and well-being of the entire Pacific Flyway. Should the
flyway be devastated, I can assure you that many thousands of
acres of privately managed wetlands throughout California and
Oregon will also go away, because there will be no incentive
for these people to annually manage those lands, year round, to
provide waterfowl habitat or habitat for other species as well.
The California Waterfowl Association appreciates your close
attention to this serious crisis and the opportunity to provide
testimony today. We believe that we can all work together to
find solutions which meet the needs of the local community, the
Pacific Flyway, other wildlife and the fish species, and we
look forward to working with Congress and all interests in
seeking these solutions. Thank you.
Mr. Pombo. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gaines follows:]
Testimony of Bill Gaines, Director, Government Affairs, California
Waterfowl Association
Good morning. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, my name is
Bill Gaines, and I am the Director of Government Affairs for the
California Waterfowl Association. On behalf of our Association's 15,000
members, and waterfowl enthusiasts throughout the Pacific Flyway, I
would like to thank you for coming to Klamath Falls, and for providing
us the opportunity to present our concerns regarding the serious water
crisis currently confronting the Upper Klamath Basin.
Founded in 1945, the California Waterfowl Association (CWA) is a
private nonprofit organization dedicated to the conservation of
California's waterfowl, wetlands and our sporting heritage. The
California Waterfowl Association effectively pursues this mission
through waterfowl research, habitat projects, education and outreach
programs, and Government Affairs activities.
The Upper Klamath Basin is the most critical waterfowl staging area
in North America. So important is the Klamath Basin to North American
waterfowl on their annual migratory trek that the region can be easily
located on a flyway map simply by locating the ``apex of the Pacific
Flyway hourglass.''
Historically, this Basin contained over 350,000 acres of naturally
occurring seasonal and permanent wetland habitat. Today, however,
largely due to the construction of the Klamath Reclamation Project,
over 75% of these historic wetlands have been destroyed. Yet, each
year, a full 75% of Pacific Flyway waterfowl depend upon this Basin's
few remaining wetlands and wildlife-friendly agricultural lands for
critical staging habitat. In addition to waterfowl, remaining wetlands
in the Basin--nearly all of which are now contained within the Klamath
National Wildlife Refuge Complex--also provide critical habitat for
many other species. In fact, more than 430 other wildlife species have
been documented in the Upper Klamath Basin--including the largest
wintering concentration of bald eagles in the lower 48 states.
Recognizing the importance of the Upper Klamath Basin to migratory
waterfowl, and the tremendous loss of waterfowl habitat resulting from
the construction of the Klamath Reclamation Project in 1906, President
Teddy Roosevelt established the Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge
by Executive Order just two years later. Nearly one hundred years
later, the Klamath National Wildlife Refuge Complex remains the most
important waterfowl refuge in the entire National Wildlife Refuge
System.
Because of the Klamath Reclamation Project, and the manner in which
it changed the Upper Basin's natural hydrology, nearly all of the
region's wetlands must now be ``managed''--artificially irrigated and
intensely managed to maintain marsh conditions. In effect, public and
private wetland managers in the Klamath Basin must ``farm for ducks''.
As a result of this condition, the quantity and quality of wetland
habitat available in any given year--most notably the exceptional
habitat available on the Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge--is
almost entirely dependent upon availability of wetland water supplies
from the Klamath Reclamation Project. Tragically, the Upper Basin's
highly limited surface water supply, combined with the regulatory
actions mandated by the two recent Biological Opinions, will result in
no water to the refuges this year, and little or no water for wetland
habitat in all but the wettest of future water years.
Some environmentalists, in their zeal to protect both fish and
refuges, have called for the elimination of agriculture in this Basin
to free up the water necessary to address listed species concerns. Our
Association, as a spokesmen for waterfowl and their environments, can
assure you that this is not the answer. With only 25% of our historic
wetland habitat available in this region, it is critical that we manage
our remaining habitats to maximize values and functions for waterfowl
and other wetland dependent wildlife. Yet, even if we have sufficient
annual water available to maximize the waterfowl values of these few
remaining wetlands, we still could not meet the biological needs of the
tremendous numbers of waterfowl that depend upon this region. As such,
similar to California's Sacramento Valley where rice production
provides vitally important surrogate habitat and food for waterfowl,
cereal grains and other wildlife-friendly agriculture in the Basin are
critical to meeting the needs of Pacific Flyway waterfowl. Removing
wildlife-friendly agriculture from the Upper Klamath Basin--regardless
of the quantity of water it may free up for refuge use--would gut our
Pacific Flyway waterfowl resource by eliminating roughly half of the
food base annually available to these birds.
As we all are aware, the two Biological Opinions released in early
April have not only shut off critical water deliveries to the Klamath
Refuge Complex, but also to the important waterfowl food resources
provided by local agriculture. To make matters worse, as waterfowl are
forced to crowd onto what little wetland habitat that may remain, there
will likely be significant die-offs due to the increased risk of avian
botulism and cholera. The serious stress placed on birds by the lack of
habitat, coupled with the anticipated die-offs due to disease, may mark
the beginning of the end for our Pacific Flyway waterfowl resource.
Ladies and gentlemen of the Committee, three species of fish are
currently holding our Pacific Flyway, the bald eagle, roughly 430 other
wildlife species, 1,200 families and the entire local economy hostage
in the Upper Klamath Basin. The California Waterfowl Association does
not believe that this was Congress'' true intent when they passed the
Endangered Species Act a few short decades ago. Truly, as our nation
becomes more urbanized, conflicts between our fish and wildlife species
and our human environment will become more common. Today's crisis in
Klamath can be viewed as the ``canary in the mineshaft'' for what we
can expect in the future should resource agencies be allowed to
continue to implement the ESA as they do today.
To address these very real concerns, we ask Congress to join our
Association in immediately seeking some solutions. First, in the short-
term, we ask you to join our Association in:
1. Calling for the U.S. Department of Interior and its agencies to
fully consider the impacts and risks to waterfowl, other wildlife and
the importance of wildlife-friendly agriculture before making water
allocation decisions based upon these Biological Opinions.
2. Calling for a groundwater management plan that will ensure that
the groundwater resources used to help address our short-term water
supply needs will remain viable over the long-term. It is important to
recognize that groundwater is not the ``silver bullet'' to addressing
the Basin's water needs. Groundwater quality must be checked to ensure
that it is not harmful to agriculture and wetland plant growth. In
addition, the excessive temperature of some groundwater sources could
be harmful to waterfowl and other wildlife. Finally, we must fully
understand the ramifications of using this resource. Past use of
groundwater has reportedly resulted in the drying up of naturally
occurring spring fed wetlands.
Finally, over the long-term, we ask for your help in:
1. Seeking changes in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act which elevates
our internationally shared migratory waterfowl resource to a par with
local or regional listed species.
2. Seeking careful, common sense amendments to the Endangered
Species Act. If ever there were a ``poster child'' for the need to
amend the ESA in order to ensure it considers impacts upon other non-
listed species and our human environment, it is the current crisis in
the Klamath Basin.
3. Appropriating federal funding for projects which serve to
increase the surface water annually available to meet the region's
water needs. For example, off-stream storage facilities to capture
excess flows when available, and tail-water return systems which more
effectively utilize available supplies could play a vital role in
addressing the region's water woes. In addition, these types of
facilities, if properly managed, can also provide additional waterfowl
habitat and groundwater recharge benefits.
4. Calling for appropriate ``peer review'' of future Biological
Opinions. Full outside peer review is required throughout the
scientific community before any opinion is considered credible.
5. Creating federal programs which provide incentives to encourage
for wildlife-friendly farming and ranching practices.
The Upper Klamath Basin is the most important waterfowl staging
area in all of North America. Yet only about 25% of the Basin's
historic wetland habitat base remains today. With nearly all of these
remaining wetlands contained within the Klamath Basin National Wildlife
Refuge Complex, it is critical that we allocate sufficient water to
address the needs of the waterfowl, bald eagles and hundreds of other
species which depend upon this habitat. But we must not stop there.
When allocating limited water supplies, we must also consider the
vitally important wildlife benefits provided by local agriculture, and,
of course, the importance of farming to local families and the
community.
In closing, we urge the Committee to recognize that the most
important environmental assets of the Klamath Basin--its waterfowl--are
also the most costly victims of the current water management decisions.
Waterfowl hunting provides a financial and emotional commitment to the
conservation, and enhancement of wetlands throughout North America.
These habitats directly or indirectly support hundreds of wildlife
species, as well more than one-half of our currently listed species.
Water allocations mandated to address the needs of three listed species
in the Klamath Basin are seriously threatening the future health and
well-being of the entire Pacific Flyway. We urge the Committee to
reject the current action, and demand water management strategies to
assure that waterfowl, including the farm and ranch food resources, are
protected.
The California Waterfowl Association appreciates your close
attention to this serious crisis, and the opportunity to provide
testimony today. We do not believe there can be only one ``winner'' in
this crisis. We believe that if we all work together we can find
solutions which meet the needs of the local community, the Pacific
Flyway, other wildlife and the fish species. We look forward to working
with Congress and all interests in seeking these solutions.
______
Mr. Pombo. Mr. Gasser.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT GASSER
Mr. Gasser. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I'm
the witness you've been waiting for--the last. Thank you for
coming.
My name is Bob Gasser. I'm co-owner of Basin Fertilizer
Company, Merrill, Oregon, located on the Oregon/California
border in the heart of the Klamath Basin. My great-grandfather,
Frank Zumpfe, selected the town site of Malin, and established
a Czech settlement there in 1909. The Czechs were drawn here to
the area by the Klamath Irrigation Project. My wife and I are
both descendants of these Czech settlers.
My partner, Chris Moudry, and I started our company in 1975
when we were both in our early twenties. With the help of our
employees, we built Basin Fertilizer into a successful
operation that employees 26 people and provides ag-services to
over 600 basin-area family farms.
We have a loyal, family oriented company. The average
employee worked for us for over 15 years. We have worked hard
and built the businesses into the kind of solid, tax paying
company that the American dream is built upon. Our company
supports 80 individuals, and last year our employees paid over
one half million dollars in taxes. These taxes are being used
against us to fund agencies like National Marine Fishery
Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife.
Today, many previously solid Klamath Basin ag-dependent
businesses are in serious trouble due to bad decisions that
have been made by our government.
The National Marine Fishery Service and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service caused the Klamath Basin crisis. These two
agencies came up with misguided biological opinions using
unproven voodoo science. These opinions handed down under the
authority of the ESA have been used to justify the destruction
of an entire basin's economy, ecosystem and thousands of lives.
Lives are being destroyed.
When the decision was announced on Black Friday, April 6th,
2001, my first thought was, How is my business going to keep
afloat? Later that evening a valued employee approached me with
tears in his eyes, wondering if he would still have the job
that he loves. My focus immediately changed. How can I and the
people who helped build this business survive together? From
that point on, all my attention has been strictly focused on
simple survival.
No one could believe that their country, the United States,
land of liberty and justice for all, could actually tear apart
the very fabric of their lives based on such unjust, unfounded
reasoning. This kind of arbitrary decision making happens in
dictatorships, not here. Most farmers and ranchers felt that
surely someone in Washington D.C. would use common sense and
rescind this ludicrous order to deliver zero water before it
was actually too late to plant. That was not to be. Today, many
businesses are in dire straits. My company is projecting a loss
of 85 percent of revenue. Other businesses are also taking a
severe hit.
I have 17 letters from a variety of ag-dependent
businesses. There has been an immediate drop in ag-sales and
projected sales ranging from 15 percent at a local restaurant
to 95 percent at a Tulelake irrigation business. I'd like to
submit these to the Committee. They're all trying to hang on.
Bankers are reluctant to make operating loans. Mortgage
payments can't be made. Property and equipment values have
plummeted. The labor force is leaving. The value of businesses,
including blue-sky, will never again be what it should, due to
the fear of this happening again at the whim of some
misinformed government agency. The American dream of owning
one's own business is shattered. Now that dream is a nightmare
and a liability.
In your June 7 memo, you asked me to discuss what I'm doing
to help repair the situation. I've had no choice but to step
away from my normal business routine and devote my volunteer
energy working to solve this crisis. I've been involved in
planning community efforts to draw national attention to this
crisis, including the tractor rally, the forum with Governor
Kitzhaber, the May 7th Klamath Basin Bucket Brigade which drew
an estimated 18,000 frustrated people to the streets of Klamath
Falls in protest. Where else but in Southern Oregon could
18,000 protestors leave the streets cleaner after the protest,
with no vandalism or violence? Klamath Basin people are the
backbone of America, but our backs are being broken by our own
American Government.
I'm on the Committee that developed the economic impact
report to evaluate the damage our community has endured. This
report has been submitted to Congress. You can help by urging
your colleagues to support this package to mitigate the unjust,
regulatory drought. In addition to the Relief Package, Congress
is considering a $20 million program in the supplemental
appropriations process. While this is a start, it only begins
to cover the massive financial impacts of the April 6th taking
of our water.
We need your help now. There must be an immediate
independent review team to assess the data used in this year's
biological opinions for the two sucker species and the Coho
salmon. I also urge you to amend the ESA so that people are
finally considered along with the needs of fish, wildlife and
plants. We must consider people, families and common sense.
My partner and I made a pledge to our people to keep them
employed for this 2001 season. To do this we have already cut
hours, wages, overtime and health benefits. We're trying to
keep our well-trained, licensed employees, even if we have to
make no profit and are forced to take out loans to pay them. To
lose this valuable work force would surely be the death of our
company. Please take a look at those two pages, with pictures I
provided for you. These families are hard-working, self-
motivated Americans. If you choose not to help the Basin
farming and ranching community, I'd like you to choose which
page of people I should let go. I'd also like your help when I
have to tell these families that their livelihood is gone. I'm
not sure I can deliver that message and ever look at our flag
with pride again. Thank you for coming, and thank you in
advance for your determination to end this crisis.
Mr. Pombo. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gasser follows:]
STATEMENT OF ROBERT E. GASSER, OWNER, BASIN FERTILIZER CO.
My name is Bob Gasser. I'm co-owner of Basin Fertilizer Co. in
Merrill, Oregon; located on the Oregon and California border in the
heart of the Klamath Basin. My great-grandfather, Frank Zumpfe, was the
scout who selected the town site of Malin, Oregon, and established a
Czech settlement there in 1909. The Czechs were drawn to the area by
the Klamath Irrigation Project and the opportunity it provided to help
hard-working people rise from poverty. My wife and I are both
descendants of those Czech settlers and have planned on living here our
entire lives, surrounded by friends and family members who also desire
a wholesome, family and community oriented, country lifestyle.
My partner, Chris Moudry and I started our company in 1975 when we
were both in our early twenties. With the help of our employees, we've
built Basin Fertilizer into a successful operation that employs 26
people and provides ag services to over 600 Basin area farm families.
We have a loyal, family oriented company. The average employee has
worked over 17 years with us. We have worked hard and built this
private business into the kind of solid, tax-paying company that the
American dream is built upon. Our company supports eighty individuals
and collectively the 26 employees paid a minimum of over + million
dollars in taxes last year. These taxes are being used against us to
fund agencies like National Marine Fisheries Service and Fish and
Wildlife.
Today, many previously solid Klamath Basin ag-dependent businesses
are in serious trouble. We are in trouble not from a natural disaster
or any decisions of our own. We are in trouble because of bad decisions
that have been made by our government.
The National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service caused the Klamath Basin Crisis. These two agencies
came up with misguided Biological Opinions using unproven ``voodoo
science''. These ``opinions'' handed down under the authority of the
Endangered Species Act have been used to justify the destruction of an
entire basin's economy, eco-system and thousands of personal lives.
Seriously, gentlemen, lives are being destroyed.
When the decision came on Black Friday, April 6th, 2001, my first
thought was--``How is my business going to keep afloat?'' Later that
evening, a valued employee approached me with tears in his eyes
wondering if he'd still have the job he loves. My focus immediately
changed. ``How can I and the people who helped build this business
survive together?'' From that point on all my attention has been
strictly focused on simple survival. It's hard to believe that this is
happening in a productive area that works hard to feed our nation.
For three to four weeks following this devastating decision, I
found my customers in denial and disbelief. No one could believe that
their county, the United States, land of liberty and justice for all,
could actually tear apart the very fabric of their lives based on such
unjust, unfounded reasoning. This kind of arbitrary decision making
happens in dictatorships or war-torn countries, not here. Most farmers
and ranchers felt that surely someone in Washington D.C. would use
common sense and rescind this ludicrous order to deliver zero water
before it was actually too late to plant. That was not to be.
Today, businesses such as mine are in dire straits. We are
projecting a loss of 85% of revenue in the Klamath Project lands that
are receiving no water. The 15% remaining business is due to the
limited number of ag wells.
How are ag dependent businesses in the Klamath Basin affected?
Bankers are reluctant to make operating loans.
There has been an immediate drop in sales ranging from
15% at a local restaurant to 90% loss at a recently closed auto repair
shop in Tulelake.
Mortgage payments can't be made.
Property & equipment values have plummeted.
The well-trained labor force is forced to leave the area.
The value of businesses (including blue-sky) will never
again be what it should be due to the fear of this happening again at
the whim of some misinformed government agency.
The American dream of owning one's own business is
shattered. Now that dream is a nightmare and a liability.
The business impacts from shutting off our water are far-reaching.
Oregon Employment Department reports that in the three counties of
Klamath, Siskiyou and Modoc, approximately 2,061 farm labor jobs will
be lost for a total of $36 million in lost wages. These figures do not
include approximately 880 more farm labor jobs that are not covered by
the unemployment insurance program.
Agricultural Employment in Klamath County represents--35%
of total employment countywide
Agricultural Employment in Siskiyou County represents--
58% of total employment countywide
Agriculture represents 27% of total payroll in Klamath
County, 47% in Siskiyou County
This data provides evidence that not only is the agricultural
financial infrastructure demolished but also the economic base of all
three counties is seriously compromised. This man-made disaster has
torn through Northern California and Southern Oregon like a tornado,
leaving a wake of financial, physical and mental destruction.
In your June 7th, memo, you asked me to discuss what I'm doing to
help repair the situation. When this decision came down, I had no
choice but to step away from my normal business routine, and devote my
volunteer energy working to solve this crisis. I've been involved in
planning a variety of community efforts to draw attention to this
crisis, including the tractor rally, Kitzhaber Forum, and the May
7th,Klamath Basin Bucket Brigade which drew an estimated 18,000
frustrated people to the streets of Klamath Falls to protest the zero
water allocation. Where else but in Southern Oregon could a mass of
18,000 protestors leave the streets cleaner after the protest with no
signs of vandalism or violence. Unlike the radical so-called
environmental groups, we don't destroy other's property and lives to
further our cause. Klamath Basin People are the backbone of America but
our backs are being broken by our own American government.
I'm on the committee that developed the Economic Impact Report.
We've submitted this report to Congress. You must provide relief with
the Economic Relief Package of $221 million to help mitigate this
unjust regulatory drought. Oregon State University Department of Ag &
Resource Economics has concurred with the damage amounts suffered by
this basin. Recently, President Bush signed a supplemental
appropriations package for $20 million. While this is a start, it in no
way begins to cover the massive financial impacts of the April 6th
taking of our water.
We need your help now. There must be an immediate independent
review team to assess the data and scientific method used in this
year's biological opinions for the two sucker species and the coho
salmon. We believe that the suckerfish were mistakenly listed and
should be delisted immediately. No science available can prove their
endangered status. History has proven that these unprecedented high
lake levels and high stream flows will kill more suckers and salmon,
not save them. Undoubtedly, this government decision will kill the
fish, wreck our basin eco-system and devastate thousands of people,
financially, physically and mentally. The people making these drastic
decisions must be held accountable for the destruction of the entire
Klamath Basin. We can and we must amend the ESA to prevent future
disasters of this nature. We must consider people, families and common
sense.
My partner and I made a pledge to our employees to keep them on the
job for this 2001 season. To do this, we've already cut hours, wages,
overtime and health benefits. We're trying to keep our well-trained,
licensed employees even if we make no profit and are forced to take out
loans to pay them. To lose this valuable work force would surely be the
death of our company. I'd like you to take a look at the two pages of
pictures I've provided for you. They're all hard-working, self-
motivated, non-subsidized Americans. If this crisis is not solved
quickly, I'm going to have a real problem. These people will find their
lives ruined when we can no longer provide them with the jobs they
depend on. Please take a careful look at these families. If you choose
not to help the Basin farming and ranching community, I'd like you to
choose which page of people to let go. I'd also like your help when I
have to tell these families that their livelihood is gone, maybe
forever.
I'm not sure that I can deliver that message and ever look at our
flag with pride again.
Thank you for coming, and thank you in advance for your
determination to end this crisis.
______
Mr. Pombo. Mr. Hastings.
Mr. Hastings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Gasser,
thank you for that testimony. Before I got into this job, I was
a businessman in the Tri-city area at the same time that the
public power, the nuclear plants were being terminated. You
probably don't recall that, but I saw overnight the revenues
drop precipitously, not to the scale that you're going through,
but I understand exactly what you're going through, and we will
obviously do everything we can to try to alleviate that pain.
Mr. Grader, is it Grader?
Mr. Grader. Grader.
Mr. Hastings. In your oral testimony, you sounded very much
like you wanted to find solutions to the problems that are
facing us, and you expressed the concern of the fishing
industry in general and gave us an historical perspective. But
then I read your written testimony and I see what I would
consider a bit of an inflammatory sentence here, and I'll quote
it. It says, ``Farmers should stop blaming the ESA and get to
work solving their real problems.'' And then I read the rest of
this, and quite frankly--and then I looked over at Mr. Kerr's
testimony and it sounded like it came out of the same playbook.
Now, the concern I have--and I want to give you a chance to
make amends here--is that Mr. Crawford, who is a farmer here,
in his testimony--in his oral testimony and his written
testimony--said very specifically that this is not an either/or
situation. He supports the fishing industry recovery, and yet
you're representing the fishing industry and you're coming in
here with this rather inflammatory statement.
Mr. Grader. Well, first of all, I don't even know Mr. Kerr.
Secondly, I think as far as the ESA goes, it's the same thing I
tell my own membership, and we had some very serious problems,
as you're probably aware of, on Stellar sea lions in Alaska.
They're very serious problems that we have off of California at
times where, for example, we've been closed, had our fishing
restricted to protect winter run fish. And I go back and tell
my members, I said, What is it with the ESA? Well, we're being
shut down. And I said, Well, why? Well, because the fish
numbers are down. Well, that's the problem.
In this particular instance, I think it's a situation where
there is not adequate water. And what water is remaining, to
prevent a couple species from going instinct, are being
allocated to them right now to prevent their extinction. We can
keep the human people here from extinction by some immediate
cash relief from the Congress. That will help--.
Mr. Hastings. Okay--.
Mr. Grader. Let me finish, because I think there are some
other solutions. That's why I said we need to get everybody
together. I think we can find ways between the restoration
programs and better use of some of the water. Some of it might
be looking at, for example, the removal of Iron Gate Dam, which
right now is a heat sump. It's causing a lot of hot water to go
down into the Klamath River itself. The removal of that,
basically, a dam which regulates water from an upstream hydro-
project, is located in the wrong location. It's heating up the
water. That may mean, for example, that we don't have to
release as much water then downstream if we can get that water
so it has areas where it's kept cool.
There are other things we can do. This is not a lot
different--and I know Congressman Herger probably realizes
where we were 10 years ago when we had the winter run listed,
and what we had to do then. We made some changes and nobody
went broke.
Mr. Hastings. Well, but my point is--and I know there's
solutions to that and I know you take them--I now you're very
sincere in your approach. What I'm addressing, though, and I'll
just make the final point here, is that in your statement--and
your association apparently agrees with this statement or you
wouldn't have said it--``Farmers should stop blaming the ESA
and get to work solving their real problems.''
Mr. Grader. Exactly, and that's the same thing I tell my
own members. Stop blaming the ESA and let's get on with the
real problems, and sometimes that's been working to try and
bring back winter run salmon--.
Mr. Hastings. Right, well--.
Mr. Grader. --which, let me add, because that's a success
story. We listed the winter run salmon. It took 4 years to list
them. It didn't happen overnight. People have been saying,
Well, you can automatically get these suckers listed. You
don't. It took 4 years to get them listed, after the agency was
in big-time denial. We had to first get them listed under our
state act. After that we had to threaten to sue a number of
people changing the Federal Shasta Dam operations to cold
water. We then had to change a couple major irrigation
districts, their pumping policies, get them to screen their
pumps, also fix a dam downstream. We did all those under the
ESA, and those fish are coming back now.
Mr. Hastings. I appreciate that, but my only point I'm
saying--and I understand the sense that you're saying that--but
in your testimony here, then you criticize exactly the same
way, ``Well, you know Mr. Coronada is immaterial,'' but you
simply say this area is not suitable for agriculture, and I
think that that is wrong.
Now, my time is up and I'm going to have to leave here very
shortly, Mr. Chairman. But what I would like to say in my
closing remarks is, number one, to thank everybody for your
patience in coming down and hearing what is perhaps your first
Congressional testimony or Congressional hearing. I am very
pleased to have the privilege of coming down here and being
part of this panel, since I don't sit directly on this panel.
But this issue interests me so much, because of what I have
learned and what I have gone through in my district in Central
Washington, that I wanted to come down here today.
And I was very impressed this morning when I saw the
grocers come down with the supplies for the food bank. Boy, I
have to tell you, that shows what Oregonians are all about, and
particularly, Oregonians in rural areas. This is a very
compassionate society, and certainly this part of Oregon is
very compassionate.
But here is something that I am very concerned about, and
this isn't directed to any of you that are sitting here. As a
matter of fact, it's directed to the press. I understand that
we have national press here. They should be here. This is a
huge story. People's lives and livelihoods are potentially cut
off with an act of the Federal Government, with absolutely no
time for people to react. But if the only story--if the only
story is a story about how compassionate people are in this
part of the country, without saying why that compassion has
reached this level--namely, the need to amend the Endangered
Species Act--then quite frankly, the media will have not gotten
the story right.
Now, one of the things that we that are elected should
probably not do is to tell the free press what to print, but
I'll tell you this. This area is a rural part of America, just
like my district is a rural part of America. And the story was
always missed, because it did not talk about the root cause
that caused these hearings to be held in rural America, and
that's the need to amend the Endangered Species Act. I hope
that that message gets out to the media that is here today.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you very much for the
consideration that you've given me and my colleagues. Thank
you.
Mr. Pombo. Thank you. Mr. Herger.
Mr. Herger. Well, Congressman Hastings, I want to thank you
again for taking time out from your district on a Saturday
morning and afternoon to be here with us. We're very grateful
to you. And I just have to also comment too, you know, the
greatness of our country is that we can disagree and hopefully
not be too disagreeable, unlike China or the former Soviet
Union where they would maybe throw you in jail, or worse.
But, Mr. Grader, evidently the Endangered Species Act has
been much kinder to your fisherman than they have been to the
constituents that I represent, or you would never begin to make
the statement that it should not be at least brought up and
modernized and updated. And again, let me just allude to
three--in addition to what's happening here, where basically
zero water is going to these farmers. That's not right. Where
we can get extreme environmental groups that can sue because of
the way the law is written and be able to stop--a couple
biologists, without peer review, can shut off this water, and
you can listen to them and not listen to all the other
information, that's not right. And a law that's set up that
way, I would respectfully say, is in dire need of being
reformed.
And I can go on to the three people who drowned on a levee,
where they couldn't replace a levee, where they could sue--a
highway--and these are all in the district I represent. A
highway where just as of yesterday the 149th head-on collision,
resulting in a fatality, where they can't widen the road
because of a meadow fern. They're fighting it there. Again, my
good friends in the extreme environmental community, lawsuits
are holding up that highway. And a high school in Chico where
they cannot build, or they built it over more than two-thirds
for a bond issue to increase, to build a new high school
because they're over-crowded--cannot build it because of this.
That is wrong and something needs to be done.
And I'm grateful that your people aren't being affected
nearly as dramatically as the ones I know, but I would like to
urge you to consider the other areas of this. But let me, if I
could--and I want to thank you for being here, Mr. Grader. We
can work together, I believe. In essence, maybe we have a
little bit of disagreements here or there, but for the most
part, I think most of the people here today do want to work and
solve the problem.
Mr. Grader. In fact we have, Congressman Herger, as you
know, in your district, in dealing with a lot of the salmon
issues, and as a result both farmers and fishermen are doing
pretty well now.
Mr. Herger. Yeah, and one of my good friends, Doug Bosco,
former Congressman, we worked very closely on these issues
affecting you. And, Mr. Gaines, I want to thank you for being
here.
Mr. Gaines. Thank you.
Mr. Herger. And some of the irony, the tragic irony of the
Endangered Species law--one more example why it must be
reformed, just for the sake of the environment is, supposedly
to save two endangered species, we're endangering I don't know
how many countless more. And maybe I'd like to have you respond
to that just a little bit. But you indicated in your testimony
that the leased land provided important food and habitat for
migrating waterfowl, but this year, because there is no water
for farming on private lands, on leased lands or for the
refuge, there will be no habitat for migrating waterfowl. And I
understand that the United States is under a certain obligation
to provide habitat for migrating waterfowl, pursuant to the
Migratory Bird Treaty. And if you would, if you have any
details about this treaty, do you know what kind of impact this
zero water decision will have on the United State's obligations
under the treaty, and do you know if these impacts were
considered on other endangered species.
Mr. Gaines. Congressman, I'm glad you asked me the question
about the Migratory Bird Treaty, because that treaty was
written about 80 to 90 years ago. It's a treaty that has been
signed by the Federal Governments throughout the North American
continent, and it is a treaty that simply is outdated. It was
largely passed many, many decades ago to deal with the taking
of waterfowl, to try to deal with issues such as market hunting
and other issues that, you know, we don't really worry about
today, but still there is an obligation to help protect and
embrace our international migratory waterfowl resource.
Another agreement between the Federal Governments of
Canada, Mexico, and the United States that is incredibly
important to waterfowl is the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan, which is a plan that recognizes that the
waterfowl populations have suffered tremendous losses and that
we as a continent need to work together to provide habitat to
address their needs. The Klamath Basin, again, as far as the
Pacific Flyway is concerned, is the most important staging area
we've got. It's the most important staging area in all of North
America.
You may remember, one of the long-term solutions that I
asked for Congress's help in seeking was to strengthen the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act so that it can raise waterfowl and
the other wetland dependent species that depend upon their
habitat to somewhat of a par, if you will, with the suckers and
salmon and other listed species.
Another point that I made that I'd like to mention one more
time is that the wetlands not only provide habitat for
waterfowl, but the Central Valley Habitat Joint Venture, which
is a component of the North American Waterfowl Plan down in
California's Central Valley, estimates that half of
California's listed species are dependent upon the same exact
habitat that our waterfowl depend on as well. The single
species focus of the current Endangered Species Act just
doesn't make any sense. Again, you've got three species holding
over 430 species hostage, and that's above and beyond the
impact to our human environment and local economy. It just
doesn't make sense.
I work for a wildlife organization. You would think that
we'd be hanging our hat on the Endangered Species Act. We're
not. It causes us as much pain as it does the people here in
the Klamath Basin and elsewhere. When we put in a waterfowl
project, if we want to take marginal farm ground out of
production and restore it to managed waterfowl habitat--habitat
that provides benefits for all of those listed species--we
might as well go and try to build a Wal-Mart. We have to go
through all the same steps that somebody would if they want to
put blacktop over the top of it. It just doesn't make any
sense. It needs to be amended. It needs to have careful, common
sense amendments, and we look forward to working very, very
closely with Congress in doing so. Thank you.
Mr. Herger. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pombo. Mr. Simpson.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I'm glad to have
all of you testifying. And there's a couple questions I want to
ask that have absolutely nothing to do with just the basin
right here, but the ESA in general.
Mr. Gaines, is it true that--because this affects my
district--that the terns on Rice Island, which was created by
dredging the mouth of the Columbia River, that they are
protected under the Federal Migratory Bird Act?
Mr. Gaines. I'm sorry, the last piece of that question
again? I'm sorry.
Mr. Simpson. Are those terns protected under the Federal
Migratory Bird Act?
Mr. Gaines. All migratory birds? No, The Caspian terns.
Mr. Simpson. The Caspian terns, yeah.
Mr. Gaines. If they're migratory. I'm not sure if they're
migratory, but if they're migratory, they are, absolutely.
Mr. Simpson. So, you know, my constituents in Idaho, my
farmers, have a real hard time trying to understand why these
Caspian terns that thrive at this banquet of salmon that go
down the river and out to the ocean, past a man-made island, a
federally protected bird eating a federally protected fish, and
they're being asked to give up their water to make this happen.
Quite frankly, they just shake their heads and they wonder if
there's any common sense left.
And I will ask you, Mr. Grader. There is one other question
to ask, by the way. Are there any other listed endangered
species that we actually kill?
Mr. Grader. That we actually kill?
Mr. Simpson. Yeah. I'm just asking this --I mean, I like to
meet them so I don't mind your industry.
Mr. Grader. Well, keep in mind--well, let me just add
something here. There are none that we have a deliberate plan
for killing on. What we do have is there are regulations in
place, very severe regulations that have been put in place on
the commercial fishing industry to avoid any take of a listed
species. Likewise, we also have restricted certain land uses,
timber harvest practices, for example, certain water things
have all been implemented to try and give some level of
protection. The level of take is very marginal right now, and
like I say, we cannot get at healthy runs of salmon right now
off California, because they've moved into a closed area. And
ordinarily those fish are found off the Central California
coast where they're available to our fleet, but because of this
year's currents and that, they moved into this closed area.
We're hoping it's not going to stay that way, but we could very
well be seeing a whole fleet of salmon trollers likewise
requesting some sort of disaster insurance. At the same time,
we understand that we've got to do something to get back some
of these wild fish.
Keep in mind, we've also talked about industries being held
hostage to the ESA. My industry this last year, or part of it,
was held hostage to the Migratory Bird Act. We have a fishery
for California halibut off of the Monterey coast and off of the
San Luis Obispo area. That fishery was shut down because of
incidental take of not an endangered species, but a bird that
is under the Migratory Bird Act. Now, we could have gone and I
guess come forward to all of you and said, Let's get rid of the
Migratory Bird Act or let's reform it so it doesn't apply to
us. Instead, what we're trying to do is figure out a way where
we can design those nets where we can avoid the take of the
birds, and I think that's a better solution.
Mr. Simpson. Well, I appreciate your answer, and I don't
mean to sound like I'm against your industry. As I said, I
enjoy those salmon an awful lot. But it is a question the
people of Idaho often ask. You talk about conflicting actions
by Federal agencies. They want to bring Grizzly bears back into
Idaho at the same time they want to bring salmon back in, but
they tell us that they're going to bring Grizzly bears who are
herbivores. These won't eat salmon.
Mr. Grader. Well, I suspect those Grizzly bears would be
eating very well. They're probably very healthy, because if
they're eating wild salmon they're getting a lot those good
Omega 3s, so that means they're probably going to have good
hearts, they're probably going to be immune from any type of
cancer, and who knows what other health benefits they'll have,
so you'll have some very healthy Grizzly bears.
Mr. Simpson. Well, I want to make sure that whoever I'm
with out in the forest I can out run. But there is right now in
the Stanley Basin--and I'll give you an example. You mentioned
all the difficulty we have--and farmers face it every day--
dealing with different Federal agencies charged with different
goals. Right now in the Stanley Basin there is a case going on
where several years ago an individual dug an illegal diversion,
a canal in the Salmon River. It was illegal. Everybody admits
it. It was done probably 15 years ago. Today the Army Corps of
Engineers-- The land was subsequently sold to an individual
that now owns it. Today the Army Corps of Engineers is telling
the new land owner to fill back in that diversion. And NMFS is
telling him, Well, there's spawning salmon in there so don't
fill it back in. We've got a land owner stuck in the middle
here, and he's going to lose a ton of money just defending
himself one way or another.
You know, last night I heard on television--I got back to
my room and I watched this hour long program of what's going on
here in this Basin, and I noticed that everyone who supported
the farmers not getting their water--maybe that's the wrong way
to say it--the environmentalist, or whatever you want to say,
that were on the program--expressed a great deal of sympathy
and sorrow for the farmers that this had to happen. But I got
to tell you, it's sort of like my dad told me one time, you
know, ``Sorry don't feed the bulldog,'' and that's kind of the
way I look at this. I really hope that in the end that we as a
society have the wisdom to save the environment from the
environmentalists.
Mr. Pombo. Thank you. Mr. Gibbons.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And,
gentlemen, thank you for your testimony here today. I know
that, like the rest of these fine people sitting in this
audience, that it took dedication and time out of your busy day
to come here and help us better understand this. And,
gentlemen, let me say, as someone who comes from Nevada, which
probably is drier than any other state, except for whiskey--
Well, whiskey is for drinking. Water is for fighting over. But
I'm really troubled. I'm troubled when I hear organizations
that say there's a better use for this water than farming. I'm
very troubled by that because--I'm troubled because I don't
believe that, Mr. Grader, your fishermen in California are any
more important than these farmers who are growing food here in
the Klamath Basin.
Mr. Grader. That's exactly right, Congressman, we're not.
And we've never said that we were. What we're trying to do, and
I think one of the reasons we're concerned is that we have some
critters that are probably--and the science we have, and it's
the best science available, indicates that they may go over.
That is, if they're lost--as the old saying goes, extinction is
forever. We've been working ever since 1986 with the passage of
the Klamath Restoration Act to try and come up with solutions
that would work for everybody, and we're still doing that. And
I would readily agree. I think one of the problems we got into
the trouble we're in right now is that for a long time people
considered somehow fish and fishermen as some sort of lower
species, for an awful long time, and that was a sad thing. I
think now we're getting on a par--we certainly don't--and I
think if you know of my work in California, we're working very
hard with the water users, we're working hard with the rice
growers. We have worked very hard, and sometimes in the face of
a lot of environmentalists who want to take their water, and
saying, We've got to protect out food producers. But those food
producers also include fishermen.
Mr. Gibbons. So then you would say that it would be just as
fair for the Federal Government to come in here and mandate
buying out your fishermen to stop them from fishing.
Mr. Grader. They're doing it.
Mr. Gibbons. Well, Mr. Chairman, I know that this hearing
has gone on a long time, and what I would like to do in just
the brief time remaining that I have is kind of do what our
colleague from Washington did, just sort of sum up what I think
is important that we have taken away from this hearing. And
that, of course, is the hope that all America can understand
what the issue is about today and that the problems that we
have here, the problems that these wonderful people, the
farmers and ranchers in this area are suffering through, is not
about this year's drought and it's not about the agricultural
industry being present here today. It's not about the farmers
trying to feed this nation. The problem, Mr. Chairman, is about
the misapplication and the abuse of the Endangered Species Act,
and it's the misapplication and the abuse of science that's
gone in to support it. In fact it's been poor science and a
reliance on emotion and politics rather than science to support
that issue.
And highlighted today, which I think we've all heard that
clearly today--and I hope everyone gets this and all America
gets this--that it's time to amend the Endangered Species Act.
It's time we gave our farmers and the agricultural industry the
same access to decisions and the process of those decisions
that some of our extreme environmentalists have had over the
last several years. We want to give them the same opportunity
to be part of the decision process and to put sound science, as
I said earlier, and common sense back into the law, back in the
front of the decision process, and take the emotion and
politics out.
And I think it's time, as we heard also, to begin the
restoration projects on the ground here, to get these species
into recovery so that we can get them off the list. And any
law--this is common sense--any law that can only meet the
requirements of the application of justice must be applied
fairly and equally. And we can't save every species, and maybe
that's the way it should be. And under the current Endangered
Species Act, the way it has been misapplied gives me pause to
stop and say thank you. Thank you that we don't have dinosaurs
roaming around the country today.
Mr. Chairman, I do want to thank you and Mr. Walden and Mr.
Herger for bringing this issue to our attention. I'm from
Nevada, as I said. It's an important issue that's going to
apply not only just to this area, but all across the West, all
across America, if we don't stand and fight it today. It is
time for us to go to work, time to amend the ESA, and I just
want to say thank you for allowing us to be here today, and
that's my statement. Thank you.
Mr. Pombo. Mr. Walden.
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I beg to differ with
my colleague from Nevada. He says there are no dinosaurs
running around today. Actually, they are. They oppose reforming
the ESA. They are the dinosaurs.
Mr. Grader, I want to go back--you made a comment that
intrigued me how about how back 30 years ago, which would be
about 1971, most people didn't even know about the word
environment. And it raised a point, because in about the 1971
session of the Oregon Legislature, Oregon passed its landmark
Bottle Bill, and that section of the report dealt with Land Use
Planning, which is still a controversial topic here, but
indeed, it looked at that. It was engaged aggressively in
cleaning up a very, very polluted Willamette River, and there's
still obviously work to be done there. And it set aside its
beaches for the benefit of the general public.
And the reason I say that all that is because the thing
that frustrates me the most in the last 2-1/2 years of being in
Congress is being told--and I'm not saying you did this today--
but this sense that no matter what we do to improve habitat, to
improve water quality and quantity in basin after basin after
basin, you never get credit for it. And you see it right here
in the mitigation efforts that have been taking place with the
false promise that if you take this land out of production it
will help you over here on the regulatory side where you get
water. And I'm sure your industry has been through this as
well, and it's an extraordinarily frustrating thing. When I
look at Oregon's history, and the people I've met with and
worked with throughout this district, and the projects they've
shown me in this Basin, we're making good progress and doing
good things. And a lot more needs to be done, obviously, but we
need to get some credit for what we're doing too.
When you said, ``Going after the ESA is like killing the
messenger,'' if troubles me, because I don't think you heard
any of us up here say, Go after and eliminate the ESA,
although, there may be that sense. But what you did here today
I think is hard to argue against. And the question I would
raise for any of you is, Does anybody disagree with the notion
of requiring blind peer review of the science, yes or no?
Mr. Grader. No, they do not.
Mr. Walden. You don't disagree with that? Does anybody
disagree with that? Does anybody disagree with requiring public
access to that science so that everybody has a chance to look
at it, yes or no? Do you agree or disagree? Is that a bad thing
to but into the act.
Mr. Grader. No.
Mr. Walden. Those are the things I get, coming out of this
hearing, that would strengthen the Act and lend credibility to
the science by allowing everybody to have a chance to look at
it. And you made another comment that intrigues me, about the
Chinook runs. And if I heard you right--and correct me if I
didn't--but that they have moved north because of the ocean
currents. And some of us have argued with NMFS for a long time
that the ocean conditions have as much, if not more, to do with
salmon survival as what happens upstream.
Mr. Grader. They both do.
Mr. Walden. They both do. The difference is, in the
Columbia Basin--and I represent probably as much of the
Columbia River as anybody now that Doc Hastings has left the
room. It is the farmers and those before us who have had the
whole blame laid on them. And I have had NMFS say to me in a
hearing, We can't deal with what goes on in the ocean. We can
only deal with what goes on up-river, from the mouth, which is
where all the focus seems to be.
Now, you've had pressure on harvests and things of that
nature, but in effect there are natural occurrences that take
place in the ocean environment that are way beyond our control,
and yet the penalty and the price is paid by those up-river--in
many cases, to their extinction.
Mr. Grader. Well, yeah, I don't disagree with that, and
obviously ocean conditions are critical. We saw that in the
Columbia River. We could contrast that with California. In the
past few years--.
Mr. Walden. About every 10 years--.
Mr. Grader. Well, in the past few years we've had excellent
ocean conditions off California, and off the Columbia Basin
they did not. And we know full well-- NMFS is saying it's now--
because they've done just about everything they could to our
commercial fleet, and then they began looking at some of the
upstream causes. And it's a balance, and there are no simple
solutions. But, obviously, we do need to have, and I think it's
well-known in science, a certain minimal level of water in
streams.
Mr. Walden. Sure.
Mr. Grader. We need to protect those watersheds from
certain types of activities, and much of this is do-able. The
problem is getting people to the table to talk about it,
getting them out of denial. And it's no different than what
happened in my fleet 30 years ago when we were saying that some
of our fishing activities were resulting in over-harvest. It
took a while, but finally our guys took a look at the numbers
and said, We better correct it, and they went about doing that.
But, you know, it's a whole combination of things. I think we
are moving out of denial. I think we're moving into acceptance.
I think we're going to be able to resolve this issue. It may
mean that there may be a few less farms in this district, but
it may mean that there's going to be better conditions for Mr.
Gaines' waterfowl and it may mean more security for the
remaining farmers here as well as providing the water we need
here and providing the minimum flows.
Mr. Walden. Well, let me make two points. One gets back to
this issue of hatchery fish versus wild stocks. And I am told,
and I've been told this several times, and I'm going to go get
it in writing from somebody, that when it comes to the recovery
plan for the east coast--the Atlantic salmon recovery efforts--
they count the hatchery fish, and they don't out here. And the
only place where we have environmentally sensitive units, or
whatever the technical term is for ESU, is in the northwest--
Ecologically Significant Units--is in the Pacific Northwest.
NMFS does that apply that anywhere else in the country.
Mr. Grader. The ESUs are applied throughout the West, in
California there as well.
Mr. Walden. But they're not applied in the East, are they?
Mr. Grader. Well, let me just add that I think--.
Mr. Walden. They are not applied-- Yes or no--.
Mr. Grader. You're right, you're right, no, but that is--
that's a big issue with us because--.
Mr. Walden. Thank you. That's a bigger issue with us.
Mr. Grader. Yeah. Because in Maine, for example, we were
just appalled at the way that they handled--.
Mr. Walden. At their recovery program.
Mr. Grader. Yeah. There was no recovery program. It's a
joke.
Mr. Walden. Well, we have reached an agreement here,
because it wasn't a joke, because they apply a different
standard in Maine than they do in the Pacific Northwest. They
count hatchery fish there. They ignore them here. We had one of
the biggest runs of Chinook in our history, even preceding
construction of the dams in the Columbia River this year, and
our farmers are going broke and being shut off from their water
up there, and we've shut down our forests.
And let me conclude with one other comment, because I think
we all have to gauge and measure our rhetoric, and I realize
mine has gotten hot today on occasion, but I would draw your
attention to your comments and those of Pietro Pavarano?
Mr. Grader. Paravano.
Mr. Walden. Thank you. And Glen Spain, from your
Fisherman's News Letter of June of this year.
Mr. Grader. Right.
Mr. Walden. And I'm going to quote from it. It says,
``However, real water reforms always come at a price for
irrigators who have become dependent on bloated and federally
subsidized water projects. These growers, who now find
themselves with less water for irrigation, are blaming Federal
laws and fishermen for stealing water''--and I'm quoting here--
``they themselves have stolen from the ecosystem and lower
river fisheries over many decades. It's a little like the
owners of chop shop and the bad cops they had on their payroll
complaining after a bust about the cars and their parts being
returned to their rightful owners.''
I would suggest that that sort of rhetoric is probably not
the kind of conducive verbiage that we need if we're all going
to sit at the same table and try to come to a result.
Mr. Grader. Thank you.
Mr. Walden. Mr. Chairman, if I could just take the liberty
of introducing into the record a letter from the Horton family
here, residents of Klamath County, Oregon, which I'll make it
available. And also a letter from United States Senator Gordon
Smith in which he explains that he is very supportive in
helping to get the 20 million disaster assistance emergency
supplemental, and it says if it does not stay in there, he will
filibuster the bill until it is in there. Further, he is
introducing the Endangered Species Act Reform Bill with Senator
Max Bacchus of Montana as a co-sponsor in a bipartisan effort,
and other material, so I will put that in the record as well.
And on a final note, because I was asked to do, this hearing
will be cable cast on Klamath Cable, Channel 3, Sunday at 2:00,
for those who want to sit through it a second time. But we do
appreciate the Klamath Cable Channel for you being here.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your diligence in the way you've
conducted this hearing. And to my colleagues, thank you for
taking your time to be here. And to the members of all of our
panels, we appreciate your taking your time to be here as well.
Thank you.
Mr. Pombo. Well, I could go back to Mr. Grader and ask some
more question--.
Mr. Grader. I feel sorry for the other members here who
don't share the same popularity I have with all of you.
Mr. Pombo. But I feel he's probably answered enough for
right now, and there will be an opportunity in the future to
answer some more. But I will tell you that, for you and your
organization, that if you want to be part of a constructive
solution to the problem then you've got to work for it and
you've got to stop throwing bombs.
Mr. Grader. Well, I'll tell you--thank you, Congressman,
but we have, in fact if you look at our track record in
California, we have a good record--.
Mr. Pombo. I can look at your track record, and if you want
to get into it, we can. Because some of the most abusive
testimony I have ever received as a Chairman of a Committee has
come from your organization, and some of the most outrageous
testimony I have ever received as a Chairman of this Committee
has come from your organization. I want to work with you. I
have supported compensating fishermen when we take their
private property or destroy the value of their private property
by destroying their fishing industry. I have supported that in
the past. Your organization has opposed compensation for
farmers when the Endangered Species Act takes away their
private property.
Mr. Grader. Congressman, I respectfully disagree. We have
never done to that and you must--.
Mr. Pombo. You testified--.
Mr. Grader. I have never testified to that.
Mr. Pombo. Well, I'll provide it to you. And it wasn't you.
It was one of the other gentlemen who was representing your
organization at a hearing.
Mr. Grader. I have never done that nor authorized anybody
to do that.
Mr. Pombo. Well, they've done it.
Mr. Grader. I'd like to see it, because--I mean, I think
that's one of the values of these type of hearings, because
there's a lot of charges flying around and we're getting at the
truth of this. We not only need peer review science. I think
perhaps peer reviewing some of the statements that are made,
and I guess that's the reason that it's necessary for all of us
to get together. But if there are those type of statements, I'd
like to find them. Likewise, I've heard other statements here
that are, frankly, not true. For example, this is the first
time the ESA has ever been used, and this type of thing, and it
was not. We saw what happened in the--well, Congressman Herger
knows what happened to the growers in the Glen Claus Irrigation
District, but we got that resolved, when their water almost got
cut off.
Mr. Pombo. This is not the first time the Endangered
Species Act has been used to that end, and all I have to do is
look at my own district to explain it. And so it's a matter of,
if we are going to work toward a constructive solution to this
particular problem, everybody needs to put down their swords
for a minute and sit down and try to work toward that.
Mr. Gaines and I have worked together for years, and that
does not mean we've always agreed. There have been times when
we have very vocally disagreed on topics, but no matter what
happened, he has always come back on the next issue and we've
tried to work it out, and I respect him a great deal for that,
because he has always been willing to work with us and try to
find a solution. Sometimes my growers, my farmers are at odds
with what his organization wants, and we try to work something
out on it, and I respect him for always doing that, and I
appreciate that.
Mr. Gasser, I don't have a good answer to give you. I wish
I did. If I had a good answer to give you to what to tell your
employees and what to tell your family, I'd probably tell it to
everybody in my district, because I'm going through the same
thing. There is not one square inch of my district that is not
habitat or potential habitat for something, and we don't do
anything unless we check with Wish and Wildlife Service.
In fact I've got a letter sitting on my desk back in
Washington that was sent from our local Fish and wildlife
Service in Sacramento to the United States Department of
Agriculture representative, saying that before the farmers
plant this year's crop, they better check with us to see if
they have any endangered species problems. And what are we
going to do about that? I mean, that's these people's attitude.
And, you know, a lot of these guys are in the same boat that a
lot of your people are in. They're going broke, through no
fault of their own, nothing they did. They are not inefficient.
They didn't change their operations. They didn't go out and
spend all their money. Government actions killed them. And
there's got to be a way for us--for us to sit down with you
guys and figure out an answer and come up with some kind of a
solution that is good for Fish and Wildlife, but allows human
beings to be part of the environment and continue to be there.
I just want to close this hearing by thanking all of you
for being here, thanking all of our witnesses, for those of you
that took your time to be here today. I've got to tell you that
being a witness in front of a Congressional hearing is not the
easiest or most comfortable thing in the world to do. Not only
are some of them pretty nervous about coming up here, they also
know they're going to be up for some abuse when they do, and I
appreciate all of our witnesses who did agree to be here and to
testify. The hearing would not have been possible without you,
so thank you very much for doing that.
I would also like to thank the local peace officers for
being here, for helping us keep everything orderly here today.
That has meant a great deal to us. I'd like to thank our staffs
for coming out here and all the hard work they put in to make
this hearing a success. And I would like to also add a special
thank you to the security detail from Washington who came out,
because many of them are fathers just like us, and they're
going to all be running for planes right now, trying to get
back home to be with their kids tomorrow, and I appreciate what
they did and what our staffs did to make this work. Thank you.
In conclusion, I just want to say, you know, we've got
problems in this country. And I get extremely frustrated with
things that happen under our government, actions that are taken
under our government, mistakes that we've made, mistakes that
we will make. And we will continue to work, we will continue to
fight, we will continue to argue, we will continue to try to
make things better. And our jobs as elected representatives are
to try to fix problems and to try to abide by our
constitutional ability to fix what is wrong with the way our
government is working, and we will continue to do that. Your
jobs as citizens are to participate in the political process,
and you are doing that by being here today, and I appreciate
that.
But at times, especially at times like this, you get
extremely mad and frustrated and everything else, but I've got
to remind you that you still live in the greatest country on
earth. Just a couple of weeks ago we had 14 people who died in
the Arizona desert trying to sneak into this country. We are
still the only country on earth that employees a full-time
police force to keep people out, not to keep people in. You
still live in the greatest country on Earth. We just need to
make it better. And I appreciate you all being here, thank you.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:55 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[The items listed below were submitted for the record:]
1. Letter from Senator Gordon H. Smith
2. Letter from Patricia L. Horton, et al
3. Statement from Jack Roberts, Oregon Labor Commisioner
4. Miscellaneous pictures and letters submitted for the
record
United States Senate
Gordon Smith
Dear Friends
It is encouraging that so many members of the Committee have
traveled to Klamath Falls to examine the crisis you are facing.
It has been over two months since the Bureau of Reclamation
announced that no water would be delivered to agriculture in the Basin.
In that time, the inequity of your situation has attracted national
attention, having been recognized by Fox News, The New York Times and
The Wall Street Journal. Congressman Walden and I have taken your cause
to the floors of the U.S. House and Senate, to federal agencies and to
the President.
President Bush has included $20 million in disaster assistance in
the Emergency Supplemental appropriations bill, and I am working to
ensure that it will remain there in the Senate version. Otherwise, I
intend to filibuster the bill, and will hold it up until the money is
restored.
I know that at this time of year you would rather be working your
land than attending hearings and worrying about making it through this
year. At the Bucket Brigade last month, I promised that I would
introduce legislation to amend the Endangered Species Act. My bill, S.
911--which connotes the urgency of the problem - seeks to return
objective science to species management, provide more stability for
landowners, and allow for locally developed management plans. I am very
gratified that Senator Max Baucus of Montana joined me in this
bipartisan effort as an original cosponsor of the bill.
I recognize that this will come too late to affect the current
situation with the Klamath Project. That is wiry I am encouraged that
the Department will undertake an independent scientific review of the
science that has been used to develop the current biological opinions.
I continue to believe that other reasonable and prudent alternatives
can be developed that would allow for much more flexibility in the
operation of the project and thereby ensure water deliveries to farmers
and ranchers.
Friends, rest assured that I am with you in this fight, and will be
until we prevail.
Warm regards,
Gordon H. Smith
United States Senate
______
To The House Endangered Species Act Working Group,
First let me thank you for taking the time to travel and hold this
hearing where people can feel they too have a voice in a very
complicated system of government. I would like each of you to know and
take back to Congress the knowledge, that the residents of this basin
are descendants of pioneers and that makes us much stronger than the
average American, we have strong genes in our blood and soles. Knowing
that, understand we will fight this fight to the end. Please understand
that we are true and good stewards of our land and have held that proud
tradition for generations here in The Klamath Basin. Please understand
that the dams around here only hold the water longer, they do not and
have never raised the ``historic'' level of the lake. Please know that
the Sucker fish do not and have never thrived in high water (too much
ammonia). The Original draft of the Biological Opinion stated this on
three pages, but those pages did not find their way into the final
draft. Please know that we are going to harm the salmon, when the
overly warm water that is being held in Klamath Lake is sent down
stream. We will need water from the Trinity to cool the warm water
before it kills the fish. What we are urging you to do is stop the
destruction of this entire ecosystem. We have 500 other species that
are being directly affected by this singular act. What about their well
being? What we are urging you to do is to find a compromise between
mankind and the environment. Know we too provide much needed habitat
for the species that live here and travel through the basin each year.
Remember that 20% of the world migratory water fowl travel through here
every year. What are they to do this winter when the much needed food
for their long journey is not here? Know and remember that we do and
have always cared about our lands and environment. We need to stop the
junk science for good and it needs to stop right here right now!
Sincerely,
Patricia L Horton
Alice M Horton
Doyle D Horton
Ronald L Horton
Maxwell P Horton
Residents of Klamath County Oregon
______
STATEMENT OF JACK ROBERTS, OREGON LABOR COMMISSIONER
For the record, my name is Jack Roberts and I am commissioner of
the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries. I would like to thank you
for this opportunity to testify before your committee. Because I know
there are many people who also want an opportunity to share with you
both their insights and their experiences as they relate to the Klamath
Basis Water Crisis, I will be brief.
Others will give testimony regarding the human and scientific
aspects of this problem. I would like to speak to you about the
economic impact, specifically the impact thus situation, and the
federal policies which have been prescribed to deal with it, will have
on the jobs and the incomes of the people of the Klamath basin.
It is obvious that no water for irrigation means no crops, which
means no harvest and therefore no employment for those who work in the
fields and harvest the crops. Payments to farmers to compensate them
for the loss of their crops, while welcome, will not replace the lost
income of those who would have been employed on those farms, or the
local merchants and landlords who would have profited by selling or
renting to those workers.
In this regard, the Klamath Basin Water Crisis may seem no
different than any other crop failure or economic disaster that can
befall a community. However, this crisis must be seen against the
broader backdrop of what has happened to rural Oregon generally, and to
the Klamath basin specifically, in order to appreciate its full import.
On a national basis, unemployment in rural communities is roughly
the same as unemployment in urban areas. As recently as 1995, this was
also true in Oregon. Since that time, however, while Oregon's urban
unemployment rate has been the same as, or lower than, the national
rate, unemployment in rural Oregon has soared to 3, 4 or even 5
percentage points higher throughout the last six years. This growing
employment gap has corresponded to the adoption of restrictive new
federal environmental policies, particularly those virtually banning
the harvest of timber on the federal lands that make up most of
Oregon's territory.
Unemployment here in Klamath County has been in excess of 10
percent most of this year. In nearby Lake and Harney Counties,
employment in recent months has reached 13 and 15 percent,
respectively. And these figures are computed on the basis of civilian,
nonagricultural employment.
A lack of jobs outside of agriculture is but one half of the cruel
equation creating poverty and distress in rural Oregon. The other half
is the fact that those who are employed invariably end up working for
less money than those in our major cities.
In Oregon, per capita income is just 95 percent of the national
average. Yet even this statistic is misleading. Only four of Oregon's
36 counties have an average income that is above the statewide average,
and all four of these have incomes above the national average as well.
Three of these counties--Multnomah, Clackamas and Washington--form the
greater Portland metropolitan area, while the fourth-Benton-is a small
county that is home to Oregon State University and a large Hewlett-
Packard manufacturing plant.
The other 32 counties all have incomes below our state average,
which means they have an income well below the rest of the country. In
fact, 22 of Oregon's 36 counties have incomes that are less than 80
percent of the national average. All are rural counties. Klamath
county, even before the current water crisis, ranked just 31St out of
our 36 counties in income. Its per capita income was less than three-
quarters that of the rest of the county, and just 65 percent of the
average income earned in by people living in Portland.
This is the economic situation confronting farmers and farmworkers
who will be displaced in the current crisis. And who are those workers?
More than a fifth, 22 percent, will be Hispanic-nearly three times
their percentage of the Klamath county population at large. Another 10
percent will be Native Americans more than twice their share of the
population.
Ninety percent of them have no more than a high school education,
and 41 percent have never completed high school (double the rate of the
total Klamath County population). Only 15 percent are under 21 years of
age, the ones who can most easily be educated or retrained for other
employment. Nearly a third are 40 years of age or older, the hardest
age group to retrain or reeducate. And more than 80 percent of
agricultural workers are men, usually the sole or primary support for
themselves and their families.
All of these statistics point to a single, irrefutable fact:
Denying farmers in the Klamath basin the water they need to irrigate
their crops will have a devastating impact on communities and families
that are already reeling from the effects of other federal policies
that have driven a growing wedge between urban and rural Oregon.
Somehow, at some level of government, there must be a recognition that
people are part of the environment, too, and that our natural habitat
is a growing and productive economy.
______
[The following pages includes some of the many photographs
and letters submitted for the record from residents of the
Klamath Basin. All items submitted for the hearing record have
been retained in the Committee's files.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3135.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1353.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3135.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3135.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3135.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3135.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3135.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3135.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3135.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3135.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3135.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3135.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3135.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3135.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3135.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3135.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3135.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3135.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3135.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3135.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3135.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3135.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3135.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3135.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3135.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3135.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3135.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3135.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3135.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3135.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3135.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3135.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3135.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3135.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3135.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3135.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3135.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3135.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3135.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3135.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3135.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3135.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3135.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3135.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3135.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3135.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3135.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3135.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3135.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3135.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3135.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3135.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3135.053