[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11462-11467]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



      THE INCREDIBLE TRAVESTY OCCURRING IN KLAMATH BASIN IN OREGON

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kirk). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to address my 
colleagues in this House about the incredible travesty that is 
occurring in the Klamath Basin in Oregon.
  What I will do tonight is talk about the background of the Klamath 
Project, which also includes the Tulelake area of Northern California, 
and about the devastation that has occurred there because of the 
Federal Government's decision to overappropriate the water and 
basically tell the farmers they cannot have a drop this year.
  That is the first time since this project was created back in 1905 
that the Federal Government has failed to keep its word to the people 
that it enticed, indeed lured, to this basin.
  You may be able to see to my left here information from the family 
that sent me this. After each world war, the Federal Government enticed 
veterans to settle the Klamath Basin with a promise of water for life. 
You can see an application for permanent water rights. This is a 
picture of Jack and his wife Helen and their family in Tulelake, 
California. They were promised this. They were invited out as veterans 
to settle the reclaimed lake beds of the Klamath Basin, the Tulelake, 
California, area and to grow food to feed the world, indeed feed the 
country, indeed settle the West.
  Let me talk about this basin for a moment, and then I will talk about 
the science that has gone into these decisions, the disputes that exist 
about that science, and really why the Klamath Basin has become ground 
zero in the battle over the Endangered Species Act.
  First let me give some history. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 
Klamath Irrigation Project, lies within three counties along the Oregon 
and California borders: Klamath County in Southern Oregon; Modoc and 
Siskiyou Counties in Northern California.
  Under the 1902 Reclamation Act, the States of California and Oregon 
ceded lake and wetland areas of the Klamath Basin to the Federal 
Government for the purpose of draining and reclaiming land for 
agricultural homesteading. The United States declared that it would 
appropriate all unappropriated water use rights in the basin for use by 
the Klamath Project.
  So under section 8 of the Reclamation Act, these water use rights 
would attach to the land irrigated as an appurtenance or appendage to 
that land.
  During the mid-1940s, 214 World War II veterans were lured to the 
area by the United States Government with promises of homesteads and 
irrigated farmland and guaranteed water rights.
  Established in 1905 as one of the reclamation's first projects, the 
project provides water for 1,400, that is right, 1,400 small family 
farms and ranch operations on approximately 200,000 acres. Municipal 
and industrial water comes from this project, and water for three 
national wildlife refuges.
  Together, farmers and wildlife refuges need about 350,000 acre feet 
of water.
  Now, in 1957, the two States formed the Klamath Compact, to which the 
Federal Government consented. The compact set the precedence for use in 
the following order: domestic use, irrigation use, recreation use, 
including use for fish and wildlife, industrial use and generation of 
hydroelectric power.
  Now producers grow 40 percent of California's fresh potatoes, 35 
percent of America's horseradish and wheat and barley. Water users 
claim that they use less than 5 percent of the water generated in the 
basin. Yet they generate in excess of $250 million in economic activity 
every year. Now I want you to think about that number: $250 million 
annually of economic activity in this basin.
  On April 6 of this year, the Federal Government said, none of that is 
going to happen. We are not giving you a drop of water.
  In 1988, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the short-nosed 
and the lost river sucker fish as endangered under the Endangered 
Species Act. In the drought year of 1992, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service recommended that Upper Klamath Lake be kept above a minimum 
elevation of 4,139 feet during summer months, although it allowed that 
the lake could drop to as low as 4,137 feet in 4 of 10 years.
  For the first time in Klamath Reclamation Project's history, 
irrigation deliveries were curtailed at the end of the growing season 
to meet minimum lake levels. That was in 1992, a year of a large 
drought.
  In 1996, the Bureau of Reclamation agreed to meet certain minimum 
instream flows below Iron Gate Dam to protect habitat for tribal trust 
resources in anadromous fishruns. In 1997, Southern Oregon and Northern 
California coastal Coho salmon were listed under the Endangered Species 
Act as threatened. A 1999 biological opinion from the National Marine 
Fishery Service concludes Klamath Project operations would affect, but 
not likely jeopardize, the Coho; and then in the year 2000 a study that 
some consider to have used controversial experimental technology, to 
say the least, by Dr. Thomas Hardy, a Utah State University 
hydrologist, and it called for instream flows to protect the fish far 
higher than those set by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or 
those agreed by the reclamation in 1996.
  Suits have been filed by environmental, tribal and fishing groups to 
enjoin the Bureau of Reclamation from operating the project without a 
current biological opinion for the Coho salmon.
  Judge Sandra Armstrong subsequently ruled the project may not be 
operated without adequate flows sent downstream to the salmon.
  Following a declaration of severe drought for the Klamath Basin in 
this year, 2001, a new biological opinion from the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service for the suckers called for a minimum elevation in 
Klamath Lake to be raised to 4,140 feet. That is a foot higher than the 
minimum elevation required during the last drought in 1992, and that 
was allowed to drop to as low as 4,137. So you are really looking at a 
3-foot difference in lake levels all of a sudden that are required, 
with no tolerance for lower elevations in drought years; no tolerance 
for lower elevations in drought years.
  Then a new biological opinion based on this Hardy flow study called 
for increased flows below Iron Gate Dam to protect the Coho salmon 
habitat. On the one hand, you have a Fish and Wildlife biological 
opinion saying you must maintain a lake level of 4,140 feet with no 
exception to protect a bottom mud living sucker fish, and then you also 
have to have a whole bunch more water flowing down the river out of 
that lake for the Coho salmon.
  Analysis of the studies underlying these opinions showed that 
requirements for the two species appropriate all, all, of the water 
available in a normal precipitation year; all of the water available in 
the normal precipitation year to take care of the suckers in the lake 
and the Coho salmon in the river, according to these new biological 
opinions. Yet there is incredible discussion, debate, frustration about 
these two biological opinions, how they were crafted, what they 
contain, the conclusions that they draw; and I will get into that in 
some detail soon.
  In fact, in a study of historical flow data taken from the past 36 
years, now this is important, Mr. Speaker, in the last 36 years annual 
flow targets were met in only 13 of those years and monthly targets 
were never achieved. So think about what this means for the people in 
this basin. Our veterans from World War I and World War II lured there 
to settle the lands with the

[[Page 11463]]

promise of water forever, now have the spigots turned off. The canals 
are dry, as are their fields.
  Operations consistent with these biological opinions would rarely 
provide water for irrigation or, and this is important, wildlife 
refuges. Perhaps farming could occur 3 years out of 11; 3 years out of 
11.
  This is a very complex water system in this basin. They reclaimed 
lake beds, they built canals. They built diversions. They built sumps. 
They have added irrigation from pumps. They have moved the water around 
in this basin to accommodate the wildlife, to provide for the farmers 
and for the fish. Yet every year we seem to get a new set of biological 
opinions that say we need more water in the lake, more water in the 
river. Sorry, if you are a farmer, you are not going to get a drop.
  So on April 6, 2001, the Klamath Project Water Allocation decision 
was announced stating that based on biological opinions and the 
requirements of the Endangered Species Act there would be no water 
available from Upper Klamath Lake to supply the farmers of the Klamath 
Project. Only a small area over in the Langell Valley and Bonanza would 
receive water from a different system in Clear Lake and Gerber 
Reservoirs.
  Last Saturday, six Members of this House of Representatives, 
including four members of the House Committee on Resources, 
participated in a field hearing in Klamath Falls. So many people in 
that basin wanted to turn out to observe this hearing, and this was not 
a town meeting but this was an official hearing of the full Committee 
on Resources, that we had to move the hearing from the Ragland Theater 
that seats 750 or so people to the Klamath County Fairgrounds where 
more than 2,000, some have said as high as 3,000, people turned out. 
For 5\1/2\ hours, the grandstands in that fairgrounds contained people 
concerned about the future of that basin. They sat there with us as we 
took testimony and heard about the problems.
  Somewhere here on one of these posters, I want to show what happened 
before the hearing started. I think this speaks to the magnitude of the 
problem, Mr. Speaker. What we see here is a semi-truck, a semi-truck 
loaded with food. In 5 days, we organized a food drive in Oregon, 
thanks to the Oregon Grocers Association, with most, if not all, of the 
grocery stores in the State participating. Eight semi-truck loads of 
food came down to replenish the food in the Klamath food bank. The 
number of people accessing that bank is up 1,400. Now, we are talking 
about a small rural community; 1,400 more people, I think was the 
number, of what they would normally have at this time of year, 1,400.
  Think about this sad irony, Mr. Speaker. We have truckloads of food 
from all over Oregon from grocery stores that often compete but today 
were united, bringing food to a food bank to feed farmers, farmers 
going to a food bank. Think how they feel and how the people that work 
for them feel.
  I thank the grocery industry in Oregon for their generosity. This 
will get us through the middle of August. That is all, the middle of 
August. Then we will be back looking for more help, and we can use it.
  I said that science is always at issue in debate here, and I want to 
get into why I believe the Endangered Species Act needs to be revised 
to deal with the issue of science. In this case again we are dealing 
with two biological opinions, one from the Fish and Wildlife Service 
and one from the National Marine Fisheries Service.
  The one from the Fish and Wildlife Service, I am told, was originally 
put together, the science there as part of the tribal trust obligations 
of the Department of Interior through the Bureau of Indian Affairs, to 
be used as data in water adjudication issues for the Klamath tribes, a 
legitimate purpose. It all makes sense, but those data and the analysis 
then came over to the other part of the Department of the Interior, the 
Fish and Wildlife Service, and used there to set the lake level, not 
part of the adjudication now but to set the lake levels they believed, 
these scientists believed, necessary to improve the lives of the 
suckers.
  One of the things the Endangered Species Act does not require is that 
that data, those analyses, those data not be made public. I think it 
ought to require that, because I think each of us in this Chamber and 
those elsewhere should have an opportunity to review this science. I do 
not see what would be wrong with saying, you ought to have that 
opportunity and that ability and the law to specify that.
  The law under the Endangered Species Act does not require that that 
science be independently reviewed, peer reviewed. It does not require 
that.


  In this case, the Fish and Wildlife Service, to their credit, went to 
one of the great establishments in Oregon, educational institutions, 
Oregon State University, and asked for a review of their pre-decisional 
draft professional scientific review. They went to these outside 
scientists; said, you take a look at this and tell us what you think.
  I want to read what the scientists at Oregon State University said in 
response to the biology that had been put together to make this 
decision. Now, again, this is the pre-decisional draft. This is not 
what they ended up with, but I just want to say what we started with.
  Here is what they wrote. This review of the BO, the biological 
opinion, will address both the key scientific issues related to the 
opinion and editorial problems with the document. 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 biological opinion.

                              {time}  1915

  We urge in the strongest possible way that the Service revisit 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, quote-unquote, 
window dressing. Rather, they obscure the data and make it very 
difficult to find validity in the claims. This document has the 
potential to have a severe negative impact on the Service's public 
credibility.
  Now, as I said, in this case the biologists went for outside 
consultation, peer review, and they got it. They got it.
  Now, it is important to understand this document was dated 6 March, 
2001. The decision that set the new lake level came down 6 April, 2001, 
a month later. Now, to their credit, the folks at Oregon State reviewed 
the final decision of the Biological Opinion and said it is reasonable. 
They cleaned it up, they fixed it, and you could come to the 
conclusions they came to based on the data that is there.
  Now, I have also seen an e-mail from one of the scientists that did 
this review who said he also thinks it errs on the side of the fish, 
and that you could reach a different conclusion. So the science is 
still being debated out there. But the one thing that is not debated 
out there is that there is no water for the farmers.
  Now, take a look at this. Normally this would be a green field this 
time of year. Normally this would be a green field. This is a wheel 
line. You can see the wheel is mired down here in the dust of what 
should be a green field. The winds are kicking up the dust. And I 
realize it may not be the highest definition picture here, but suffice 
it to say, in many areas, this is what we are beginning to see happen. 
Farms that would be producing wheat or horseradish or alfalfa or other 
pasture or other grains, look like this. Some farmers tried to do their 
best to put a cover crop on so that it would not blow away. Most of 
them have succeeded in that. But as the summer sun bakes on this land 
and the winds kick up, we are seeing more and more of this problem. 
They have no water.
  Now, I say the science is being questioned. In our Committee on 
Resources

[[Page 11464]]

hearing on Saturday, David A. Vogel testified, and he is a biologist 
with all the kind of background you would want, a Master of Science 
Degree in natural resources and fisheries from the University of 
Michigan, Bachelor of Science in biology from Bowling Green State 
University, worked in the Fishery Research and Fishery Resources 
Division of the Fish and Wildlife Service for 14 years, in the National 
Marine Fishery Service for a year, received numerous superior and 
outstanding achievement awards and commendations, on and on and on, has 
done a lot of research on the Klamath Basin.
  Let me tell you what he said about what has happened here. I am 
quoting from his testimony before our committee.
  ``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 and rigorously developed against empirical evidence.''
  That is pretty harsh stuff.
  ``None of those elements of good science characterize the decision 
making process for the Klamath project.''
  Now, I would say as a disclaimer, the Klamath water users have hired 
his firm to evaluate this science. But if this was the fate of your 
farm, would you not be hiring well-qualified scientists to question the 
data that a month before it is put into use is ripped apart in a stern 
indictment. Now, again, they cleaned it up, but I got to tell you when 
no water is flowing and the only thing that is coming your way is a 
foreclosure notice, you ought to look at the science and hire quality 
people to do that. I believe they have done that here.
  Some other things I want to point out, because I think it is 
important. Again from Mr. Vogel, who has credentials in this area:
  ``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 3 years after the sucker 
listing, it also became apparent that the assumptions concerning the 
status of short-nosed 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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife surveys 
considered populations of both species as relatively abundant, 
particularly short-nosed, and exist in mixed-age populations, 
indicating successful reproduction. Recent population estimates for 
suckers in the Lost River-Clear Lake watershed indicated their 
populations are substantial and that hybridization is no longer 
considered as rampant, as portrayed in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service study in 1988. Tens of thousands of short-nosed suckers 
exhibiting good recruitment are now known to exist in Gerber Reservoir.
  ``In 1994, the Clear Lake populations of Lost River suckers and the 
short-nosed 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. Unlike the information 
provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 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 the listing.''
  He goes on to say, ``I believe the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's 
recent biological opinion on the operations of the Klamath project has 
artificially created a regulatory crisis that did not have to occur.'' 
That did not have to occur.
  He goes on, and I think this is very important, ``This circumstance 
was caused by the Fish and Wildlife Service focus on Upper Klamath Lake 
elevation and is a major step in the wrong direction for practical 
natural resource management. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
rationale for imposing high reservoir levels ranges from keeping the 
levels high early in the season to allow suckers 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. These data do not show a 
relationship between lake elevations and sucker populations.''
  Listen to that again. The data do not show a relationship between 
lake levels and sucker populations, ``and to maintain higher than 
normal lake elevations can actually promote fish kills in water bodies 
such as Klamath Lake.''
  So which scientist do you believe? Which scientist do you believe? 
The problem is when it comes to the Endangered Species Act, the only 
ones that are believed are the ones that issued this biological opinion 
that resulted in no water for the farmers.
  Mr. Vogel goes on to write, ``During the mid-1990s, I predicted that 
fish kills would occur if Upper Klamath Lake elevations were maintained 
at higher than historical levels. Subsequently, those fish kills did 
occur. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 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. This is not an 
opinion, but a fact, extensively documented in the administrative 
record and subsequently ignored by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.''
  So that is Mr. Vogel's comments.
  Now I would like to share with my colleagues comments from another 
very learned individual, Mr. Harry Carlson, Superintendent, Farm 
Adviser, on the letterhead of the University of California. I will find 
his credentials here, because they are very solid.
  He says, three degrees from the University of California at Davis, BS 
in wildlife and fisheries biology, MS in agronomy, and a PhD in 
ecology. Superintendent at the University of California Intermountain 
Research and Extension Center in Tulelake, California. He is also the 
university farm adviser for field and vegetable crops in Modoc and 
Siskiyou Counties. So in these roles he collaborates with many 
university researchers on issues of importance regarding agriculture in 
the Klamath Basin. Obviously a gentleman with incredible credentials 
and very capable of commenting on this science.
  He says, ``Serious gaps and errors in logic in the 2001 NMFS 
Biological Opinion on Coho salmon severely damage the credibility of 
the report in demanding huge increases in flows for the protection of 
the species. The legal basis for issuing this opinion lies solely on 
the threatened status of Coho salmon in the greater southern Oregon-
northern California region. Yet, the NMFS Biological Opinion is almost 
solely based upon Chinook salmon, not on threatened Coho species. 
Further, there is almost no discussion on the explicit effects of 
Klamath project operation on Coho populations in this area. Most of the 
discussion is centered on Chinook populations and life stages, while 
acknowledging that Coho life histories and the use of the river 
resource are very different from Chinook. This leads to serious errors 
in logic and invalid conclusions.''
  He goes on to say, ``The report acknowledges that very little is 
known about the status of Coho in the Klamath River, but at the same 
time, ignores the detailed hatchery return data that are available. 
Full analysis of these data probably would show that there is very poor 
correlation between Iron Gate flow regimens, Coho survival and spawning 
returns.''
  He writes, ``My overall conclusions are these: The salmon Biological 
Opinion never comes close to making a case

[[Page 11465]]

that proposed project operations and resultant flows in any way 
jeopardize the continued existence of Coho in the Klamath River. 
Science and logic dictate that the increased flow requirements demanded 
in the Biological Opinion will most likely have little impact on the 
continued existence of Coho salmon in southern Oregon and northern 
California. Similarly, the high lake levels demanded in the sucker fish 
Biological Opinion are not supported by logic or available data. 
Indeed, high lake levels may be part of the problem. An independent, 
unbiased review of the Biological Opinions would lead to the almost 
inescapable conclusion that the maintenance of high Klamath Lake levels 
and the increased demand for flows in the river will have little or no 
impact on the recovery of the threatened and endangered fish.''
  Again, the University of California, Harry L. Carlson, 
Superintendent, Farm Adviser, PhD ecology, BS in wildlife and fisheries 
biology. Learned individuals who have also looked at these data and 
come up with much different conclusions.
  Yet, again, the only conclusion these folks have who want to farm in 
this basin and were promised water is that there is nothing in the A 
Canal and nothing in their fields. I want to tell their story now. You 
heard about the conflict over the biology and the science.
  Before I get to their story, I think it is important to again say, 
does this not speak volumes about the need for independent, blind, peer 
review of the data? Why should we not change the Endangered Species Act 
to require that? Should we not know that at the foundation of a 
decision that affects 1,400 farm families, ruins a $200 million 
economy, and threatens the survivability of bald eagles in the refuge 
that holds the most of them in the winter of anywhere in the lower 48 
and is a major stopping point on the Pacific flyway, where 70 percent 
of the food is raised on farms like this. Where are those birds going 
to eat? They can eat dirt, and the bald eagles are going to suffer. The 
environmental organizations are threatening to sue over all of these 
decisions, because there is not water adequate enough for the refuge.
  Let me share some of the stories of some of the people I represent in 
the Klamath Basin. Reading from boxes of testimony, you probably cannot 
see them, colleagues, but two full boxes of testimony over here that we 
picked up at the hearing from individuals who wanted their thoughts 
heard, so we have gone through that. I want to share some, because they 
are heart-wrenching and they speak to the problem.
  This is entitled ``Proud to be an American.'' ``When my daughter, who 
was raised here in the Basin, left to go to college, eager to live in a 
bigger city, I told her one day she would be back. I was right. She did 
come back, and married a wonderful, hard-working, caring and 
intelligent man. He happened to be a farmer. I felt blessed to be able 
to live near them. Soon they gave our family two more precious people 
to love, my grandchildren. Life seemed good. I was and am a proud 
grandparent, and I was a proud American. And I don't feel that now.
  ``My daughter spent her birthday this January in the hospital 
receiving the news her 5-year-old son has Type I diabetes. Our families 
were shocked and scared. As you can imagine, it has changed all of our 
lives forever. Then this. No water for farmers, no farming, no money, 
no health insurance for their son. I wake every night unable to sleep, 
tossing and turning with constant thoughts of all this mess. Driving to 
and from Merrill to Klamath Falls, I look at the fields, the sheep, the 
cattle, the horses, and all the types of birds soaring in the sky. It 
is hard to imagine that this will all be gone.

                              {time}  1930

  ``The other grandparents and farmers are too and were in the process 
of retiring. Imagine trying to start a new career at the age you are 
supposed to be thinking of retirement. This is just one family. Some 
may be a little better off, some a little worse, only time will tell. I 
will never feel the same about our country or our flag that I was 
always so proud of. The men who fought for what it was supposed to 
represent have my pride, but it ends there. I would never have believed 
America would turn its back on its own. What a joke.
  ``My soon-to-be six-year-old-grandson can go by any field around here 
and he can tell you who it belongs to, what they are growing and knows 
all the equipment names and how they are used. No one can ever tell me 
that the love of farming was not born in this young boy.
  ``This is not about a drought, it is about destroying a way of life, 
taking away freedom, crushing hopes and dreams and changing forever the 
lives of generations to come. When this all started, I decided to make 
a scrapbook for my grandson, thinking it would be something he would be 
proud of: the farmers fighting for their rights and winning. I never 
dreamed I would be putting together a book that would show him how he 
lost his heritage as a fifth generation farmer. My heart breaks for my 
daughter and her family and all the other farmers facing the demise of 
their honorable profession. Proud to be an American? Not anymore.'' 
Signed, Susan Morin.
  Jeffrey Boyd writes, ``This water crisis has the potential to destroy 
everything my grandfather, my father, and my family have worked to 
build. My grandfather is 92 years old and is confined to a bed in a 
rest home in Klamath Falls, Oregon. He may not be able to move, but he 
is aware of what is going on and he cannot believe what is happening to 
the Klamath project. My father will be 60 years old this year and this 
will be the first time in his 40-plus years of farming that no water 
will be delivered to the Klamath project, to the Tulelake irrigation 
district. His land values have fallen and he is worried that the bank 
will foreclose.
  ``As for myself, my family and I are determined to stay and fight for 
what we know is right. However, I am not able to get financing because 
of no water; and other than a minor amount of well water, I am not able 
to irrigate my crops. My father, out of the goodness of his heart, can 
employ me until October, and then my job is gone. To top all of that 
off, the potato packing shed that my wife works for will probably have 
to lay off people because the growers that run potatoes through the 
shed have no water and can raise no potatoes. I hope this sounds bad, 
because it is.''
  It is bad. It is tragic, and it does not have to happen.
  For Mary Lou Clark, she writes, ``As an educator, I am alarmed that 
the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in property taxes and farm 
production will devastate our schools as well as all public services in 
the Klamath Basin. All sectors of our community are beginning to feel 
the devastation as farmers go bankrupt. Laborers go hungry and 
businesses supporting farmers are forced to close their doors. I urge 
you to help us right this terrible wrong. We are more than willing to 
participate in solutions, but the people of the Klamath Basin should 
not have to bear the brunt of the consequences of the Endangered 
Species Act and water shortages alone. Common sense has to prevail.''
  This one from Richard and Nicola Biehn. ``It is crucial that the 
economic hardships of the people are considered. For us, the slowdown 
of the asphalt construction, my husband has lost days of work, as paved 
streets and driveways are not priorities when people are worried about 
mortgages and grocery bills. The construction trade is grinding to a 
halt. Thus, there will be less work in the future for local small 
companies.''
  And from Deep Creek Ranch in Merrill, Oregon, Don and Connie and 
Julie Dean write, ``At 60 years of age and a lifetime effort expended 
maintaining a livestock and farming heritage established by my parents, 
how do I attempt to explain the heartache and the stress factor created 
by the complete loss of a year's production? Granted, we are not a 
large operation, but it provides for my mother, my wife, and myself 
and, I thought, future for my daughter, my sister-in-law and their 
children who are the next generation taking over this operation. What 
reassurance can there

[[Page 11466]]

be for the younger generation of a country that will blind side its 
citizens with such economic devastation? The initial loss of $150,000 
in sales for 2001 together with approximately $125,000 of capital 
expenses for establishing an irrigation well and replanting the alfalfa 
acreage destroyed by the man-made drought erodes the financial 
stability of this family farm.
  The passage of time used to be a comforting asset in the growing of 
crops, but under the present situation, time has become a mortal enemy, 
slowly moving many families in the Basin closer to total financial 
collapse. As we approach fall, the thoughts of thousands of farm 
families and town businesses finding themselves with their backs 
against the wall could make for a desperate group to deal with. It is 
with utmost sincerity that I request this honorable committee to take 
urgent action and the $221 million aid package being considered to 
rectify the taking of our contractual irrigation water.''
  Indeed, this administration stepped forward immediately with a $20 
million package in the supplemental appropriations that we approved 
yesterday in this House Chamber. Twenty million of a $250 million 
problem. I thank them for the initial help. Obviously, much more needs 
to happen.
  Unfortunately, the others in the other body today, they worked on 
language to remove that $20 million. How heartless. How senseless. How 
wrongheaded. Hopefully, my colleagues will come to their senses and 
restore it, because if we cannot get $20 million, what are we really 
telling these people? We do not care at all? It is wrong. It has to 
change.
  Mr. Speaker, the other sad irony in all of this, these people who 
have not had the water turned on at canal, who fought for our country 
in World War I and World War II and settled this land at the asking of 
the government, who are now having to go to food banks and beg with 
their banks not to foreclose on them and explain to their kids and 
workers who have worked the fields for them for 30 years that the 
future is bleak. They are also getting bills from the Federal 
Government to pay for the operations and management of a project that 
delivers no water to them; delivers no water. They get a bill for it.
  We are going to try and change that too. I am going to call on the 
Department of Interior, the Bureau of Reclamation to take pity and 
mercy on these people and at least waive those fees for this year. If 
they are not going to get water, why should they have to pay when they 
have had another promise broken to them.
  Here is another letter I received, and it is amazing how many people 
also send photos of themselves and when they settled here and what it 
was like and what it has become for them.
  ``The day of April 6, 2001 was as infamous to the people in this 
Valley of Tulelake as December 7, Pearl Harbor Day, was to the citizens 
of the United States.'' This from retired staff sergeant Fred Robison, 
I believe, U.S. Air Force, 1942 to 1946. He sent a picture here, my 
colleagues probably, I am sure, cannot see, but I will read the caption 
because it was on the front cover of Reclamation Era Magazine, February 
1947.
  ``Fortune smiled on Fred and Velma Robison because we wanted our 
readers to see that others shared their joy.'' Here is the full picture 
from which the cover was made. Fred had to wait until number 61 was 
drawn before hearing the good news. You can tell by those big grins 
that it was well worth it. He was one of the Tulelake homestead 
winners, 1947. No water today. He fought for his country. They turn off 
the spigot.
  A letter to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), chairman of the 
Committee on Resources from Darla Parks, a 40th generation farm family 
teacher and mother. She said the day they cut off the water was one of 
the worst days of her life. It says, ``Instead, I feel that I was naive 
and betrayed by a government that I knew was imperfect, but a 
government that I trusted not to breach contracts, a government that 
could use common sense and look at the real facts and would surely put 
entire communities before fish and find an equitable solution where 
both fish and farmers could survive.''
  That is the argument I am trying to make tonight, is both can 
survive. They have, they can. These decisions are based on science that 
is in dispute, by certified, smart people. I read their credentials. 
They have looked at the same science and said, I get a different 
conclusion. But under the Endangered Species Act, there is only one 
conclusion that prevails, and that is the one that comes from the 
agency, and that is not right.
  I have a lot of other letters here. I want to share a few comments 
and then I will yield my time back to the Chair. A couple of these I 
just feel like I have to share.
  Bob and Lynn Baley, and Kylee and Allie and Bradlyn. ``I, Bob Baley 
and my wife Lynn are both third generation farmers in the Tulelake 
area. We have both worked to live in this community all of our lives. 
When we planned our family of three wonderful girls, it was our dream 
and intentions to raise them in the same town, attending the same 
schools, church, 4-H and FFA programs that we have had the experience 
and pleasure enjoying in this drug-free, nonviolent, rural community. 
Grandfather Baley raised his first commercial table stock potato crop 
in 1929 on this family farm. The Baleys have provided potatoes every 
year from then until this devastating water cutoff year of 2001. Along 
with commercial potatoes, this family farm has worked very hard to 
build itself into a very diversified family farming operation of 3,000 
acres consisting of contracted Frito Lay potatoes for the past 32 
years, contracted dehydrated onions for the past 41 years, contracted 
peppermint for oil, along with alfalfa for hay, barleys, wheat and 
peas, all of which are water-dependent crops. One year without 
fulfilling our contracts, we have a very high chance of never achieving 
them again, and that will financially destroy this operation.''
  So I say to my colleagues, as we pick up a bag of Frito Lay potato 
chips, think about the Baleys, the fact that for years they have had 
contracts with companies like Frito Lay, to provide for the potatoes 
that go into those bags. I have to laugh, some people think you get 
milk from a carton and potato chips from a bag and you forget they are 
grown by men and women who take the risks, who work long days and in 
some cases long nights, who fight against Mother Nature's freezing 
temperatures and yes, droughts, and now our government who says they 
cannot have water.
  And then they go up against some radical environmentalists. We had 
one that testified, who actually I have worked with and worked out some 
solutions with, but I was really disturbed by his comments to the 
committee because he said ``Locally, potatoes are being raised more for 
the government subsidies than the market.'' Totally erroneous. 
Factually in error. Sure, there are some potato growers here that 
probably have crop insurance, just like you and I have auto insurance, 
to protect us against the unexpected. It is a prudent business 
practice. But growing for subsidies? The Baleys do not grow for 
subsidies, they grow for Frito Lay. There are no subsidies for these 
crops.
  This person also said, first it is marginal farmland. You put water 
on this land like they have since 1905 and it produces some of the best 
yields in America. I do not know many crops in the garden at my house 
if I fail to water it, if I do not go home this weekend and the water 
system does not work, they are not going to look very good on a summer 
weekend. Without water, we do not grow things in this country. I grew 
up on a cherry orchard. We did not water often, but the trees would not 
have survived if we did not water at all. That is what we have 
happening. We are getting dust bowl where we used to have a Basin that 
was so very productive and farmers who were successful.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to close with just two other comments. This is 
from one of the outstanding commissioners, county commissioners; and we 
have some really great county commissioners in these counties. I am 
most familiar, of course, with the Klamath

[[Page 11467]]

County commissioners, Steve West, John Elliott, and Al Switzer, who 
have worked day and night with me on trying to do everything we can to 
get help. But I think Commissioner West who was asked to testify said 
it well. He said, ``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 Species Act is the Federal law for all of the people 
of the United States. Therefore, all of 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 cannot be asked to pay the 
entire costs of the Endangered Species Act for the entire Klamath River 
watershed. All of the problems of water quality, quantity and 
endangered species in the Klamath River system cannot be solved on the 
backs of the upper Klamath irrigation project, the people of Klamath 
county and the people of the upper Klamath Basin alone.''
  These people want to work together with environmentalists, they want 
to respect the tribal rights of the Yuroks and the Klamath and others 
who have legitimate claims here that we need to respect and not trample 
their rights, but we do not need to trample the rights of the other 
people in this Basin.
  So in closing, I want to thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) 
for his willingness to allow us to have this full Committee on 
Resources hearing in my district. I want to thank the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Herger) who has been tireless at my side and I at his 
as we work to find solutions. Sue Ellen Waldbridge over at the 
Department of Interior for agreeing to come out and testify but, 
moreover, for spending 82 hours on the ground out there trying to learn 
about every angle of this problem and look and work with us for 
solutions.

                              {time}  1945

  I want to thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), the 
gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. 
Simpson), and especially the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), who 
joined me on the dais, and who participated for 5\1/2\ hours on 
Father's Day weekend to take testimony and hear about the problem. He 
pledged to work with me as we tried to find solutions so we do not have 
a dust bowl, so we do not have farmers going to food banks, so we have 
an Endangered Species Act that works for the species that does not pit 
one against the other, bald eagles against suckerfish, but one which 
works for all.
  This reform is definitely needed.

                          ____________________