Print Version
Email this story
Comment
The H&N view
published Oct. 23, 2003
There's something for everyone in the report by the National Research Council on the Klamath Basin water issue. But everyone will also find things not to like. And it's going to be hard to argue against those things while promoting the scientific validity of the "good" things.
The report has an "all-or-nothing" logic to it.
Two major points were made that ring true to local irrigators.
n The 2002 fish kill on the Lower Klamath River can't be attributed to the operation of the Klamath Reclamation Project. We knew that, or at least thought we did.
n There was no justification for cutting off the water to the Klamath Reclamation Project in 2001. We knew that, too, and so did a lot of other people.
We hope the California Fish and Game Department reads the report. It was quick to form a lynch mob for Klamath Basin farmers when fish started dying on the lower Klamath last year. Its take on the 33,000 dead salmon was that low river flows were to blame, and that the Klamath Reclamation Project should surrender its water for the good of the fish.
The cause of the fish kill remains undetermined, though the council points out that "neither the river flows nor the temperatures that occurred ... were unprecedented."
The report says that Fish and Game Department suggested that the channel of the lowest part of the Klamath River had changed because of high flows in 1997-98, "which caused fish entering the river to be unable to proceed upstream under low-flow conditions."
Another possibility, the council said, is "an unusual combination of temperature, flow and migration conditions...possibly in association with weather that prevented the river from showing nocturnal cooling" normally expected.
It'll be interesting to see how the department reacts to the report. But it should do so soon. Klamath Basin irrigators deserve to hear.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service apparently has a report in the works that says low flows were to blame for the fish kill. An early copy of the draft was obtained by the Times-Standard newspaper in Eureka.
The newspaper said that that the Fish and Wildlife Service report said that decreased river flow delayed the salmon migration, and the fish died of disease in the lower river's crowded conditions. Interesting that this draft report became public at the same time that the much-awaited National Research Council report and its contrary views were released.
As for the water cutoff to the Klamath Reclamation Project in 2001, the final report made plain what the preliminary report had already said: That there's no evidence that it was scientifically valid to short Klamath Basin farmers of irrigation water in 2001 so that more water could be used for suckers and salmon.
That was the preliminary opinion issued by the group in 2002, and it's the council's final conclusion now.
The council was formed by the National Academies, an umbrella science organization that is as good as it gets when it comes to peer review.
It acted at the request of the Department of Interior, to which the Bureau of Reclamation belongs, and the Department of Commerce, of which the National Marine Fisheries Service is a part. The Bureau runs the Klamath Project, and the Fisheries Service is charged with protecting and regulating fisheries.
There's a lot to digest in the report, and criticizing bad decisions that are now history is only part of it.
The report calls for major changes in the Basin ecosystem - big ones.
It wants Chiloquin Dam on the Sprague River removed to open up more spawning territory for suckers. There's widespread support for the move. We think it's a good idea, but only if away is found to fill the water needs of the 5,000-acre Modoc Point Irrigation District, which relies on the dam.
Beyond that, the report calls for restoration of more wetlands, screens on the Link River Dam to keep suckers from going through it, and replacing non-native fish species at Lake of the Woods with native suckers.
It recommends studying the removal of Iron Gate Dam located just south of the Oregon-California border on the Klamath River, along with other diversions and dams, to open up more salmon habitat. It also wants to study what impact shutting down the hatchery at Iron Gate for three years would have on native salmon populations. There's a fear that hatchery sal-mon are crowding out native salmon.
There's a lot in this report and much to be debated and discussed.
It goes way beyond the events of 2001 and 2002. And as we said near the top, it has an " all-or-nothing" logic to it.
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. Today's editorial was written by Bushey.
There's something for everyone in the report by the National Research Council on the Klamath Basin water issue. But everyone will also find things not to like. And it's going to be hard to argue against those things while promoting the scientific validity of the "good" things.
The report has an "all-or-nothing" logic to it.
Two major points were made that ring true to local irrigators.
n The 2002 fish kill on the Lower Klamath River can't be attributed to the operation of the Klamath Reclamation Project. We knew that, or at least thought we did.
n There was no justification for cutting off the water to the Klamath Reclamation Project in 2001. We knew that, too, and so did a lot of other people.
We hope the California Fish and Game Department reads the report. It was quick to form a lynch mob for Klamath Basin farmers when fish started dying on the lower Klamath last year. Its take on the 33,000 dead salmon was that low river flows were to blame, and that the Klamath Reclamation Project should surrender its water for the good of the fish.
The cause of the fish kill remains undetermined, though the council points out that "neither the river flows nor the temperatures that occurred ... were unprecedented."
The report says that Fish and Game Department suggested that the channel of the lowest part of the Klamath River had changed because of high flows in 1997-98, "which caused fish entering the river to be unable to proceed upstream under low-flow conditions."
Another possibility, the council said, is "an unusual combination of temperature, flow and migration conditions...possibly in association with weather that prevented the river from showing nocturnal cooling" normally expected.
It'll be interesting to see how the department reacts to the report. But it should do so soon. Klamath Basin irrigators deserve to hear.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service apparently has a report in the works that says low flows were to blame for the fish kill. An early copy of the draft was obtained by the Times-Standard newspaper in Eureka.
The newspaper said that that the Fish and Wildlife Service report said that decreased river flow delayed the salmon migration, and the fish died of disease in the lower river's crowded conditions. Interesting that this draft report became public at the same time that the much-awaited National Research Council report and its contrary views were released.
As for the water cutoff to the Klamath Reclamation Project in 2001, the final report made plain what the preliminary report had already said: That there's no evidence that it was scientifically valid to short Klamath Basin farmers of irrigation water in 2001 so that more water could be used for suckers and salmon.
That was the preliminary opinion issued by the group in 2002, and it's the council's final conclusion now.
The council was formed by the National Academies, an umbrella science organization that is as good as it gets when it comes to peer review.
It acted at the request of the Department of Interior, to which the Bureau of Reclamation belongs, and the Department of Commerce, of which the National Marine Fisheries Service is a part. The Bureau runs the Klamath Project, and the Fisheries Service is charged with protecting and regulating fisheries.
There's a lot to digest in the report, and criticizing bad decisions that are now history is only part of it.
The report calls for major changes in the Basin ecosystem - big ones.
It wants Chiloquin Dam on the Sprague River removed to open up more spawning territory for suckers. There's widespread support for the move. We think it's a good idea, but only if away is found to fill the water needs of the 5,000-acre Modoc Point Irrigation District, which relies on the dam.
Beyond that, the report calls for restoration of more wetlands, screens on the Link River Dam to keep suckers from going through it, and replacing non-native fish species at Lake of the Woods with native suckers.
It recommends studying the removal of Iron Gate Dam located just south of the Oregon-California border on the Klamath River, along with other diversions and dams, to open up more salmon habitat. It also wants to study what impact shutting down the hatchery at Iron Gate for three years would have on native salmon populations. There's a fear that hatchery sal-mon are crowding out native salmon.
There's a lot in this report and much to be debated and discussed.
It goes way beyond the events of 2001 and 2002. And as we said near the top, it has an " all-or-nothing" logic to it.
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. Today's editorial was written by Bushey.
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