Print Version
Email this story
Comment
Politics and water - they do mix well
published August 13, 2003
Recently, several interests have professed to be shocked - shocked! - to discover that the Bush administration's chief political operative, Karl Rove, has been intervening in the Klamath Basin water struggle.
Such intervention leaves some people shocked - shocked! - because it supposedly substitutes "politics" for "science" in solving the Basin's water problems.
Baloney.
First, politics has been at work in the Basin's water issues from the get-go, and on all sides.
If farmers have friends in the Bush administration, it was just as true that environmentalists and the Klamath Tribes had friends in the Clinton administration and would have had the same friends in a Gore administration. In 2000, agriculture in the Basin came within a few thousand Florida votes of extinction. Because political fortunes shift, and rapidly, that threat is not extinguished.
Second, it was the Bush administration that intervened to inject scientific rigor into this debate. It asked the National Research Council for an impartial review of the biological work of its own agencies, which review found that the water cutoff of 2001 was not supported by sound science.
Further, it has been politicians friendly to farmers, including members of the administration, who have supported the notion that the scientific work of government agencies ought to be subject to peer review, which is a sensible and modest proposal, given the potential impact of government scientific findings on the fortunes of every resident of the Klamath Basin. It is the opponents of farmers who have opposed this effort to insure that government scientific work meets the same standards as academic science.
So, those such as New York Times editorial writers and West Coast environmentalists who are shocked - shocked! - at the politics of the Klamath Basin are simply hypocrites. If they were really interested in sound science, they wouldn't be maneuvering to keep the scientific work in the hands of people they believe are ideologically sympathetic.
Third, while sound science will be necessary to resolve the Basin's water crisis, it will not be enough. Politics, in its best sense, will be required.
It will be politics that supplies the conditions and atmosphere that results in an accommodation of all the interests in the Basin. Here again, the Bush administration has intervened politically, starting negotiations with the Klamath Tribes, to create one of the numerous conditions that could lead to a sustainable settlement of the Klamath Basin water struggle.
It is by no means certain that such a settlement will come about. Rove's intervention has done no more than to salvage agriculture in the Basin so that it may be part of a settlement, rather than a casualty that leaves the field entirely to those who are shocked - shocked! - at a modest political success. If this is "political," then bring on the politics.
The "H&N view" represents the opinion of the newspaper's editorial board, which consists of Publisher John Walker, Editor Tim Fought, City Editor Todd Kepple and Opinion Editor Pat Bushey.
Recently, several interests have professed to be shocked - shocked! - to discover that the Bush administration's chief political operative, Karl Rove, has been intervening in the Klamath Basin water struggle.
Such intervention leaves some people shocked - shocked! - because it supposedly substitutes "politics" for "science" in solving the Basin's water problems.
Baloney.
First, politics has been at work in the Basin's water issues from the get-go, and on all sides.
If farmers have friends in the Bush administration, it was just as true that environmentalists and the Klamath Tribes had friends in the Clinton administration and would have had the same friends in a Gore administration. In 2000, agriculture in the Basin came within a few thousand Florida votes of extinction. Because political fortunes shift, and rapidly, that threat is not extinguished.
Second, it was the Bush administration that intervened to inject scientific rigor into this debate. It asked the National Research Council for an impartial review of the biological work of its own agencies, which review found that the water cutoff of 2001 was not supported by sound science.
Further, it has been politicians friendly to farmers, including members of the administration, who have supported the notion that the scientific work of government agencies ought to be subject to peer review, which is a sensible and modest proposal, given the potential impact of government scientific findings on the fortunes of every resident of the Klamath Basin. It is the opponents of farmers who have opposed this effort to insure that government scientific work meets the same standards as academic science.
So, those such as New York Times editorial writers and West Coast environmentalists who are shocked - shocked! - at the politics of the Klamath Basin are simply hypocrites. If they were really interested in sound science, they wouldn't be maneuvering to keep the scientific work in the hands of people they believe are ideologically sympathetic.
Third, while sound science will be necessary to resolve the Basin's water crisis, it will not be enough. Politics, in its best sense, will be required.
It will be politics that supplies the conditions and atmosphere that results in an accommodation of all the interests in the Basin. Here again, the Bush administration has intervened politically, starting negotiations with the Klamath Tribes, to create one of the numerous conditions that could lead to a sustainable settlement of the Klamath Basin water struggle.
It is by no means certain that such a settlement will come about. Rove's intervention has done no more than to salvage agriculture in the Basin so that it may be part of a settlement, rather than a casualty that leaves the field entirely to those who are shocked - shocked! - at a modest political success. If this is "political," then bring on the politics.
The "H&N view" represents the opinion of the newspaper's editorial board, which consists of Publisher John Walker, Editor Tim Fought, City Editor Todd Kepple and Opinion Editor Pat Bushey.
 |
 |
|
| Keep Washington out of the schools | Agreement recognizes forest plan didn't work |
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of HeraldAndNews.com. Comment Disclaimer: The editors of heraldandnews.com reserve the right to refuse publication of any comment posted for consideration. We may refuse for any reason, including use of profanity, disparaging comments, libelous comments, etc. Any reader who notices a comment they believe is particularly offensive, should notify us at webmaster@heraldandnews.com.
RSS