[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 7 (Tuesday, February 5, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S350-S351]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. SMITH of Oregon:
  S. 1912. A bill to amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to 
require the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce to 
give greater weights to scientific or commercia data that is empirical 
or has been field-tested or peer-reviewed, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Madam President, today I am introducing 
legislation that, if enacted, could prevent another tragic situation 
like the farmers and ranchers of the Klamath Basin experienced last 
year. The Act, the ``Sound Science for Endangered Species 
Decisionmaking Act of 2002,'' would require independent scientific peer 
review of certain actions taken by the regulatory agencies under the 
Endangered Species Act. In addition, it would require the Secretary of 
the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce to give greater weight to 
scientific or commercial data that is empirical or has been field-
tested or peer-reviewed.
  As many of you may recall, I have come to the floor of the Senate on 
many occasions over the last year to plead the case of the farmers and 
ranchers in the Klamath Basin. Last year, field-level biologists with 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries 
Service developed two separate biological opinions on the operation of 
the Klamath Project, as it related to suckers and coho salmon, 
respectively.
  Taken together, these two biological opinions sought to both raise 
the lake level of Upper Klamath Lake and increase flows in the Klamath 
River, at the time the Basin was experiencing a severe drought. On 
April 6, the Bureau of Reclamation announced that the agency would 
deliver no water to most of the agricultural lands that had received 
irrigation water from the Federal project for almost one hundred years.
  I cannot begin to describe for you the human toll that these 
biological opinions exacted on the farmers and ranchers in the Klamath 
Basin. Suicides and foreclosures have both occurred. Those who still 
have their farms lost most of their farm income last year, many 
depleting their life savings to hold onto their land. Ranchers were 
forced to sell off livestock herds. Stable farm worker communities were 
decimated as families moved to find work.
  The real tragedy is that none of this had to occur.
  Just this week, the National Research Council found that key 
decisions regarding the operation of the federal Klamath Project had no 
clear scientific or technical support. In fact, the Council went so far 
as to say that, ``the committee concludes that there is no substantial 
scientific foundation at this time for changing the operation of the 
Klamath Project to maintain higher water levels in Upper Klamath Lake 
for the endangered sucker populations or higher minimum flows in the 
Klamath River mainstem for the threatened coho population.''
  In other words, the two key decisions that deprived farmers of their 
water were not justified by the science.
  This situation should never be repeated. Decisions of this magnitude 
under the Endangered Species Act must be peer reviewed, and some 
standard for the science used in these decisions must be established.
  I was in Klamath Falls the day after the decision was made to cut off 
water

[[Page S351]]

to the farmers. I will never forget the anguish on the faces of the 
people I met with that day. Many were World War II veterans who 
received homesteads in this Basin after the war.
  Our constituents deserve better from their government. They will get 
it if this bill is enacted. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
cosponsoring this bill. I've submitted for the Record an editorial from 
today's Oregonian newspaper that describes this situation, and 
expresses support for the House companion bill. I ask unanimous consent 
that the article be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                      Victory for Klamath Farmers

Scientists find no basis for decision to withhold water from farms for 
                threatened fish during historic drought

       Klamath Basin farmers insisted throughout last year's 
     bitter drought and intense environmental battle that the 
     government had no good reason to hold back their irrigation 
     water for federally protected fish.
       Now it seems they were right. A panel of top scientists 
     convened by the National Academy of Sciences has concluded in 
     an interim report that there was ``no sound scientific 
     basis'' for withholding irrigation water from more than 1,000 
     farmers last summer.
       The report by the independent panel of 12 scientists 
     changes dramatically the national debate over the Klamath 
     Basin. Suddenly, the farmers are on the high ground, having 
     endured a summer of emotional stress and financial loss due 
     to the federal government's decision to keep extra water in 
     Klamath Lake for endangered suckers and in the Klamath River 
     for threatened coho salmon.
       The scientists said there is no evidence that to protect 
     the suckers it was necessary to hold back irrigation water 
     and keep the level of Klamath Lake relatively high. Further, 
     they said a second decision to send warm lake water 
     downriver, rather than to irrigators, may have actually 
     harmed coho by increasing the river's temperature.
       These findings aren't a green light to open wide the 
     irrigation headgates, in good water years and bad ones. 
     However, President George W. Bush vowed in an appearance in 
     Portland last month that he would get more water to farmers--
     and now he's got a stronger hand to do so.
       The scientists suggested that in the short term that lake 
     and river levels be held to standards in place from 1990 to 
     1999. They also emphasized that the U.S. Bureau of 
     Reclamation, which recently proposed a farmer-first, fish-
     and-wildlife-second water plan for the Klamath Basin, should 
     not draw down the lake and river below levels of the last 
     decade.
       Now the burden of recovering fish shifts from the farmers 
     to where it really belongs--to a broad effort to improve fish 
     habitat and water quality throughout the Klamath Basin, 
     restore wetlands that naturally filter the water and install 
     screens to protect fish from getting sucked into canals.
       The report also should help persuade Congress to approve 
     pending bills to fund Klamath projects and provide more 
     relief to farmers. Too, it may provide impetus for a bill 
     proposed by Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., to require independent 
     scientific review of all government decisions to protect 
     endangered species.
       The federal biologist who ordered the withholding of 
     Klamath water said last summer they were required by law to 
     err on the side of imperiled species. While that's true, what 
     happened in the Klamath last summer is beginning to look like 
     an awful and avoidable error.
       The decision to keep extra water in Klamath Lake and 
     Klamath River cost the regional economy $134 million, 
     according to a report from Oregon State university and 
     University of California at Berkeley. It wiped out thousands 
     of jobs, shoved farms into bankruptcy and foreclosure, and 
     caused tremendous stress and uncertainty in families 
     throughout the Klamath country.
       For these farmers and their families, it must be small 
     consolation to be told now that they were right all along.

                          ____________________