Biologists on Defensive in Klamath Water Fight

A pointed critique of the government’s handling of the Klamath water crisis has become Exhibit A in a tug of war over the federal Endangered Species Act.

The National Academy of Sciences document questioned the scientific basis for federal regulators’ dramatic decision last summer to slash water to farmers in the broad, flat Klamath Basin in an effort to protect endangered fish.

From agriculture fields to the halls of Congress, opponents of the Endangered Species Act--a cornerstone of the nation’s environmental laws--figured they had found their smoking gun. The report, they concluded, showed that federal wildlife agencies used junk science to unfairly favor endangered salmon and suckerfish over farmers. In it, they found proof of the need for broad reform.

Environmentalists counter that the findings have been twisted by spin artists in the Bush administration, which is eager to help beleaguered farmers and other rural industries hemmed in by environmental restrictions.

Several of the scientists on the 12-member National Academy panel expressed dismay that their report is being used to wage war on biologists at the National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife.

But damage has been done. Stewards of the Endangered Species Act are running scared, fearful for their jobs and reputations.

For them, the fracas offers new and disturbing evidence that the Bush administration has little regard for its own government scientists.

The Klamath report “is certainly going to embolden challengers to take on the evidence, to question the science,” said Dan Tarlock, a law professor at Chicago-Kent College of Law.

Already, fallout is spreading.

In Washington, Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) and Rep. Richard W. Pombo (R-Tracy) have introduced bills proposing tighter scrutiny of the biology behind endangered species rulings. Rep. Wally Herger (R-Marysville) has proposed dragging federal wildlife officials before congressional committees.

Meanwhile, Rep. Calvin M. Dooley (D-Visalia) asked Interior Secretary Gale Norton to push for a National Academy of Sciences review of hamstrung irrigation deliveries to the Central Valley, where the endangered Delta smelt has bedeviled farmers.

“It’s reprehensible when junk science is used to put farmers out of business,” Rep. John E. Peterson (R-Pa.) said. Federal land-use decisions should be based “on sound science and not political agendas.”

What remains to be seen is whether Congress and the administration will work in earnest to draft a solution to the Klamath crisis. Few inside the Washington beltway are offering predictions.

Farmers, meanwhile, have already launched a billion-dollar lawsuit against the federal government charging that it unfairly seized their water. Insiders say the National Academy report could provide them with valuable ammunition.

The fight in the Klamath Basin, a fertile mix of farms and wildlife refuges straddling the border of Oregon and California, erupted in earnest during last year’s drought.

In April, federal regulators announced steep irrigation cuts, diverting water to help two rare suckerfish species in Upper Klamath Lake and the threatened coho salmon downstream.

In a tense, summer-long showdown, anti-government protesters and western land-rights advocates rushed into Klamath to support farmers in the basin, which suffered a $130-million economic loss.

Protesters Restored Flow of Water

On several occasions, protesters stormed the main irrigation canal, prying open its steel gate in an act of civil disobedience. When local law officers wouldn’t step in, federal agents began patrolling the gates around the clock, adding to the tension.

A solid winter snowfall and the prospect of more abundant water seemed to cool tempers. But the report from the National Research Council, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, has fanned the debate anew heading into the spring planting season.

Opponents of the Endangered Species Act have focused on a key finding: Wildlife biologists had “no substantial scientific foundation” for irrigation cutbacks to maintain higher lake levels and river flows for the fish.

The report “exposed flawed decisions,” said Rep. Greg Walden, an Oregon Republican who represents the Klamath region. “Simply put, the government got it wrong.”

Officials at the key wildlife agencies were mostly mute in their own defense. “We’re not commenting on the report,” said Megan Durham, chief of public affairs for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Washington.

But environmentalists have rushed to their aid, contending that the National Academy report failed to consider the work of wildlife agencies in the proper context.

Under the law, wildlife biologists make recommendations based on the best available science, said law professor Tarlock. “A lot of times, the actual science behind these decisions is very subtle and it’s open to legitimate dispute.”

Jamie Rappaport Clark, director of the Fish and Wildlife Service during the last years of the Clinton administration, worried that any effort to paint her former peers as “a bunch of combat biologists trying to undermine a healthy economy” could hurt endangered species.

“There’s no such thing as complete science,” she said. “You do the best you can based on all the science out there.”

Several scientists on the National Academy panel also came to the defense of the wildlife agencies. William Lewis, chairman of the National Research Council committee, said the report should not be seen as an indictment. Further study may prove that biologists were right in calling for more water to protect the fish, and hence less for farmers, he said.

“They’re taking a beating and that’s not fair,” said Lewis, a University of Colorado professor of environmental science. In fact, though the report faulted the science used to justify more water for fish and less for farmers, it said all other aspects of the biologists’ work had “good scientific or technical support.”

Lewis said the scientific panel “found their work was generally impressive.”

The National Academy panelists noted that several recommended measures to help fish haven’t been carried out.

For instance, the Bureau of Reclamation that oversees water distribution still hasn’t installed a screen to keep fish from being sucked into the main canal that delivers irrigation water to Klamath farmers. The screen was required by federal wildlife regulators in 1992.

“Ten years to design a fish screen is a little ridiculous,” said Steve Pedery, a spokesman for WaterWatch of Oregon. “NASA can design satellites in less time than that.”

Plans Chronically Late, Activists Say

Environmentalists also say the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation has been chronically late in delivering assessments of its annual operational plans, shrinking the 135-day window for study by federal biologists. Over the last two years, environmental groups have launched or threatened lawsuits to accelerate delivery of the plans.

A final draft of this year’s assessment isn’t expected until late this week. That would give biologists less than 45 days before the April 1 start of irrigation season to complete their review--roughly one third of the time specified in federal guidelines. Such tight deadlines can put further strain on federal biologists in two federal agencies already hampered by funding and staffing shortages.

Though they have criticized the bureau in the past over the delays, officials at the National Marine Fisheries Service and Fish and Wildlife declined to comment last week.

Jeff McCracken, a Bureau of Reclamation spokesman, said his agency has worked cooperatively for years with wildlife biologists. Last year, planning was complicated by the drought, he said. This year bureau officials in Washington toiled over a more ambitious 10-year plan, which has been ripped by environmentalists.

Fish Screen Poses a ‘Design Challenge’

As for the fish screens, McCracken said the bureau has budgeted $3 million. The key barrier will be in place next year.

He said delays were caused as engineers attempted to devise a screen that wouldn’t kill fish.

“There was,” he said, “a design challenge.”

Even when in place, such fixes fall short of the comprehensive approach others suggest is needed to cure Klamath’s ills. Timber operations and farming upstream and downstream from the Klamath irrigation project cause problems but haven’t been dragged into the debate.

Peter B. Moyle, a UC Davis fisheries biologist who served on the National Academy panel, suggested the sort of approach that has played out in recent years in the Central Valley, where the state and federal governments joined in a process dubbed CalFed.

“Everyone declares a truce and tries to work together to find answers and solutions,” he said, “instead of resorting to name-calling and lawsuits.”