Our Klamath Basin Water Crisis
Upholding rural Americans' rights to grow food,
own property, and caretake our wildlife and natural resources.
The County contracted with Sari Sommarstrom, Ph.D. to attend the science conference with Natural Resource Specialist Ric Costales and report back to the Board of Supervisors. “Science” in the Klamath Basin has been notoriously politically driven and often used to advocate for the particular point of view that financed the study. It has not been evenly representative of the different economic, geographic, cultural and resource use perspectives of the Klamath River Basin system. (For instance, the Yurok tribe has 80 federal and state-funded employees in their fisheries department. Certainly, the disadvantaged communities of the mid-Klamath area have lacked the finances and capacity to access science or to participate in much of the process. Our two local U.C. Extension Service Ag Scientists are seldom involved in the process.)
indicated that although the scientific content of the
Conference appeared to be “reasonably objective,” several
panelists and speakers made assertions and innuendos about
implied “stressors” and cause and effect relationships –
particularly criticisms concerning the Scott and Shasta
Valleys . These individuals did not even realize the bias
they displayed. In the past, scientists in the Klamath have
often failed to adhere to the universal scientific method:
(1) Ask a question; (2) Do background research; (3)
Construct a hypothesis (proposed explanation); (4) test the
hypothesis by doing an experiment; (5) Analyze the data and
draw a conclusion; and (6) Communicate results.
Sommarstrom pointed out that trust in the scientific findings can only be achieved through an open, inclusive and cooperative process engaging all stakeholders, decision-makers and the public. This is not the process that we have seen so far in the Klamath River Basin .
She indicated that the
scientists participating in the conference seemed to view
themselves as “above the fray and not needing to engage with
any public stakeholder, as that would be seen as tainting or
politicizing their research. Collaboration was fine among
federal, state and tribal agencies, but not explicitly with
local government or the public.” Sommarstrom pointed out in
her report, the importance of having the public and
decision-makers help to frame the questions for science to
answer and that it was important for scientists to listen to
those with practical on-the-ground experience. She
recommended that Siskiyou County have at least one
participating scientist at the table.
It appeared to be the
consensus of scientists at the Conference that the timeline
to complete all the proposed scientific studies for the
cost/ benefit analysis on dam removal prior to the decision
by the Secretary of the Interior was quite unrealistic.
Page Updated: Saturday March 05, 2011 02:21 AM Pacific
Copyright © klamathbasincrisis.org, 2010, All Rights Reserved