[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 9]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 12630]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



       KLAMATH BASIN GOVERNMENT-CAUSED DISASTER COMPENSATION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. WALLY HERGER

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 28, 2001

  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, principles of fairness and justice demand 
that the Government not force some people to bear burdens, which should 
rightfully be borne by the public as a whole. However, that is 
precisely what is happening in the Klamath Basin in northern California 
and southern Oregon because of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and 
today I rise, joined by my Oregon colleague, Congressman Greg Walden, 
to introduce legislation to address that.
  The ESA has strayed far from its original mission. It was never 
intended to sacrifice human health and safety and economic well-being. 
Yet, the fact remains that under the guise of species protection, 
constitutionally-protected property rights are being trampled, local 
economies are being destroyed, families are being forced into 
bankruptcy and, in many cases, human health and safety are being 
jeopardized. There is little consideration given to the human species 
under the ESA. Once a species is ``listed,'' its needs must come 
first--before the rights and livelihoods of American people. As it is 
currently being implemented, the ESA requires species protections at 
any and all costs.
  Regrettably, rural Western communities are disproportionately bearing 
the burdens and costs associated with species protection, burdens which 
should rightfully be borne by the American public as a whole. The zero-
water decision that was recently handed down in the Klamath Basin is 
the ``poster child'' for precisely these kinds of injustices. Farmers 
in this rural area were told on April 6, 2001 that there would be no 
Klamath Project water for agriculture this year, because, in the 
opinion of a few Government biologists, it was needed to protect two 
species of fish that may or may not be endangered.
  The decision does not come without significant social and economic 
impacts. The Klamath Project supports approximately 1,500 small family 
farmers and ranching operations and scores of related businesses. This 
agricultural area generates in excess of $250 million in economic 
activity annually. The annual value of crops produced is estimated at 
more than $110 million. All of this human activity has come to a 
grinding halt because of an ESA mandated decision that is based only on 
speculation and guesswork. Preliminary estimates place total economic 
damage in the neighborhood of $220 million. Regrettably, all of the 
costs and economic hardships associated with this decision will be 
borne solely by the people who live and work in the Klamath Basin, many 
of them veterans of World War II who were promised a permanent supply 
of water and land, and their sons and daughters.
  It is important to note that this is not simply a Klamath Basin 
problem. Nor is it a new problem, or one that is specific to the 
agriculture industry in general, or to federal project irrigators in 
particular. Small businesses throughout the Sierra Nevada mountains in 
California face potentially debilitating economic losses because of 
forest management restrictions associated with extremely dubious 
concerns about the status of the California Spotted Owl. Water users 
throughout California have faced extreme hardship as the Government has 
exercised what amounts to federal takings by reducing contractual water 
deliveries to a mere percentage of their contract amounts because of 
pumping or other water use restrictions driven by the ESA. A rural area 
in my northern California Congressional District has incurred millions 
of dollars in extra costs on critically important infrastructure 
improvement projects because of ESA-mandated mitigation. In this same 
area a much-needed high school continues to be delayed at taxpayer 
expense because of the ESA. There are many examples, but the fact 
remains that people are suffering economically because of the 
implementation of the ESA.
  These requirements and restrictions are, simply, an unfunded federal 
mandate. The federal government should not force some to bear the 
costs, but should bear the burden itself, or, if it cannot pay or is 
not willing to pay, then it should avoid the action altogether. Or, it 
must find some middle ground. That is simple accountability.
  For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce 
legislation--the ``Klamath Basin Government-Caused Disaster 
Compensation Act.'' It requires the Secretary of the Interior to fully 
compensate the individuals of the Basin who have been economically 
harmed as a result of the restrictions that have been placed on the 
operations of the Klamath Project. Such payments would come from within 
the Department of Interior's budget. This legislation sends a 
resounding message to Washington that if the federal government is 
going to force this kind of social and economic harm on rural America 
through its laws, it will be held accountable. And if it rebukes those 
costs as unacceptable, then it will face the question of whether this 
kind of species protection--recklessly imposing requirements that may 
or may not benefit species, but that will certainly carry significant 
costs to real people--is a goal all Americans truly want, and if so, 
whether they're willing and prepared to share the impacts.
  Ultimately, the ESA itself must be modernized if we are to ensure 
that people and communities come first. However, real people have been 
significantly harmed as the direct result of the federal government's 
actions in the Klamath Basin, and while the long-term social and other 
hidden impacts from this decision can never be fully mended, fairness 
and justice demand that the federal government step in to rectify the 
economic harm that it has caused.

                          ____________________