Klamath Water Users Association
2455 Patterson Street, Suite 3
Klamath Falls, Oregon 97603
Phone (541) 883-6100
FAX   (541) 883-8893  
kwua@cvcwireless.net 

George Bush

Continued on page 2

Just four days after a congressional field hearing in Klamath Falls focused on proposed improvements to how the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is implemented, the House Resources Committee passed two bills integral to the effort of modernizing the ESA. The following two stories, one that appeared in Ag Alert, and another culled from congressional press releases, summarize these important developments.

By Christine Souza
Assistant Editor, Ag Alert

Several hundred people met in Klamath Falls, Ore., on Saturday for a congressional field hearing where legislators discussed the pros and cons of the Endangered Species Act and the act's impact on the Klamath Project, one of the nation's oldest federal irrigation projects.

"Thirty years ago, Congress had the best of intentions when it passed the ESA. In 30 years, only seven species of 1,300 have been recovered and those are mainly due to other conservation laws. That means that the ESA has a success rate of less than 1 percent," said Rep. Ken Calvert, R-Corona,
chairman of House Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power. "Today represents a historic opportunity to right the wrongs of the past and bring
about positive change for the benefit of the American people and wildlife. We can bring the ESA into the 21st century while helping

communities in the Klamath Basin have economic and water certainty."

Members of the House Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power, including Congressmen Wally Herger, R-Chico; John Doolittle, R-Granite Bay; George Radanovich, R-Mariposa; and Greg Walden, R-Oregon, met in Klamath Falls for
the oversight field hearing on "The Endangered Species Act 30 Years Later: The Klamath Project."
 

Members of the subcommittee and invited witnesses discussed the application of the ESA and possible scientific solutions to updating and improving the
act. During the hearing the subcommittee also addressed the National Academy of Sciences report which may serve as a blueprint for change in the Klamath Basin and the nation.

"The field hearing is a great forum to focus the spotlight on preventing another injustice like the one that occurred in 2001 in the Klamath Basin,"
said Dan Keppen, Klamath Water Users Association executive director. "Constructive approaches can be taken to move in a new direction, and the road map that can take us there is the (National Academy of Sciences) report."

The Klamath Project was the subject of international coverage in 2001 when ESA regulations protecting suckerfish and coho salmon forced the bulk of the project to virtually shut down its water delivery system for almost the entire growing season. This action left 1,400 farm families without water for their crops and many were forced to go out of business. Local business leaders estimate that the termination of water deliveries in

Klamath Water Users Association
2455 Patterson Street, Suite 3
Klamath Falls, Oregon 97603
Phone (541) 883-6100
FAX   (541) 883-8893  
kwua@cvcwireless.net 

2001 inflicted $200 million worth of economic damage on the Klamath Basin community.
The National Academy of Sciences report on Klamath River fish, completed last year, questions some of the underlying endangered species science
behind the water shutoff of 2001. The report also recommends a watershed-wide approach to solving the fishery challenges of the Klamath
Basin in its solution, Keppen said.
 

Since the Klamath Project water shutoff of 2001, the ESA of 1973, meant to protect species in danger of becoming extinct, has been at the heart of the
controversy in the struggle for water among farmers, environmentalists, Native American tribes and fishermen. The controversy was still evident on
Saturday as varying interests came together for a rally outside the Ross Ragland Theater just prior to the hearing.

Comprised of farmers and other community members, the group outside the theater was peaceful as they listened to speakers talk about the need to
revamp the ESA. But the peaceful mood at the rally changed when members of the Klamath tribes marched loudly toward the front of the theater, sounding drums and shouting over those speaking in front of the theater. Nonetheless, invited speakers continued to deliver their messages about the ESA.
California Farm Bureau Federation President Bill Pauli was one of about 10 speakers at the rally, as well as Oregon Farm Bureau Federation President
Barry Beshue. Pauli emphasized the need for interested parties to work together.

"It is great that we can be here to talk about the issues that all affect us collectively. As farmers and

ranchers, and as Native Americans, I think we'd
rather not be here today. We'd rather be back home with our families," Pauli said. "It is important that we be part of the process because through the
process we will come together to find a solution to protect species, recover species and have jobs and opportunity for all of us in our community."
Part of the solution, Pauli said, is using science and peer review to improve the recovery of a species.
 

"The actions that we have taken in the Klamath Basin and the subsequent National Academy of Sciences analysis highlight the need to reconcile the
ESA's legal framework and its scientific foundation," Pauli said. "According to the NAS, the current structure of the ESA creates a situation where the agencies, those people from outside of our communities, can make ESA decisions that satisfy the demands of the ESA with an analysis that would not satisfy the demands of scientific review or peer review that is needed in modern science today. The Klamath Basin provides a unique opportunity to utilize the best science and the best minds to represent all of us to find
common solutions for species, people-including tribes and farmers and ranchers."

When polled individually, every witness on the hearing panel agreed that peer review is necessary.
Jim Lecky of the National Marine Fisheries Service and Steve Thompson, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regional director, both acknowledged that as the ESA is currently implemented, the agencies are making decisions that are not necessarily science based.

"These (ESA decisions) aren't scientific decisions

Klamath Water Users Association
2455 Patterson Street, Suite 3
Klamath Falls, Oregon 97603
Phone (541) 883-6100
FAX   (541) 883-8893  
kwua@cvcwireless.net 

necessarily. We are often required to make decisions in the absence of science," Lecky said.
 

"There's no reason why we can't acquire by law independent, peer-reviewed science for every major aspect of the ESA and use that science to make the
best informed decisions in the decision-making process," Calvert said. "Everyone should support this effort if they truly care about protecting and recovering endangered species."

"There needs to be outside independent peer review of decisions to list or delist a species, work on recovery programs and consultations. We do this
(peer review) in many areas. The Food and Drug Administration has 30 peer review groups," Walden added.

Walden stated that some indicate that peer review would be too costly to implement. The question of whether peer review should be required was posed
to William Lewis, who chaired the National Research Council's Committee on Endangered and Threatened Fishes in the Klamath River Basin.
Lewis expressed that he does not believe every decision needs to be peer reviewed, but added a fresh pair of eyes would be beneficial to see if the
agency is headed down the right track. The difficulty, Lewis said, is agencies are often required by law to make a decision where there is no
scientific information at all.

Dave Vogel, Natural Resource Scientists Inc. senior scientist, who has worked on the fisheries issues of the Klamath Basin for a number of years, gave his thoughts about independent peer review.

"Biological opinions are inconsistently applied
 

throughout the United States. Peer review would be a tremendous start," Vogel said.

In the Klamath Basin, the science associated with the species evolved, but the ESA did not adapt or incorporate that science, Vogel said.

"At the time of the 1988 listing of the suckers as endangered species, the information on population status, geographic distribution and recruitment
was either in error or the sucker population has demonstrated a remarkable improvement over the past decade. I believe it was a combination of both,"
Vogel said. "The two sucker populations are now conclusively known to be much greater in size, demonstrating major increases in recruitment, and are found over a much broader geographic range than originally reported in the 1988 ESA listing notice. Despite this indisputable empirical evidence,
current implementation of the ESA does not provide the flexibility necessary to down-list or delist the species."

Deb Crisp, Tulelake Growers Association executive director, attended the field hearing and said she believes it was a great success.

"The hearing brought to light the devastation to rural communities that can be caused by the abuse of the Endangered Species Act. I believe it is a goal
of the committee to implement constructive changes to the ESA that protect species but allows agriculture to provide a safe domestic food supply,"
Crisp said. "I hope our members of Congress can now go back and influence their fellow representatives to pass Greg Walden's bill, HR 1662, which calls for independent peer review."

Klamath Water Users Association
2455 Patterson Street, Suite 3
Klamath Falls, Oregon 97603
Phone (541) 883-6100
FAX   (541) 883-8893  
kwua@cvcwireless.net 

The House Committee on Resources on Wednesday passed two bills integral to the effort of modernizing the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Specifically, the committee approved H.R. 2933, the Critical Habitat Reform Act, sponsored by Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-CA) and H.R. 1662, the Sound Science for ESA Planning Act, sponsored by Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR).

Signed into law 30 years ago by President Nixon, the ESA was intended to conserve and recover species identified as threatened or endangered to healthy populations. The mechanics of the ESA have not been updated since. After thirty years, the law has recovered 12 of 1300 listed species, for a cumulative success rate of .01%.

"Despite this law's noble intent, the ESA has recovered less than one percent of the species on its list in the last thirty years," Chairman Richard W. Pombo (R-CA) said. "Unintended consequences have rendered it a failed managed-care program that checks species in, but never checks them out. These bills will modernize the law to improve our results for recovery, and in that regard, there is certainly nowhere to go but up."

"Some have asserted that these bills would somehow gut or weaken the Endangered Species Act," Pombo continued. "To them I ask, how could we possibly make this law any weaker than its unintended consequences have - and its results show - over the last thirty years? A few environmental groups may have a financial stake in the status quo, but clearly, species recovery is what is at stake if we do not modernize this law for the 21st century.

The Cardoza legislation adjusts the deadline under which the FWS is required to designate critical habitat, giving the agency more time to collect useable data.

"We are reforming a flawed process responsibly with bipartisan support," Rep. Cardoza said on Wednesday. "Today's passage brings us one step closer to making critical habitat designations work."

The Walden legislation is intended to strengthen the scientific foundation of species recovery efforts by integrating a peer-review tool into ESA decision-making processes. Unlike laws such as the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and numerous laws that affect the Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Education, and the Department of Labor, and the Department of Commerce, the ESA currently has no peer review requirement.

"I am proud that H.R. 1662 is moving forward and appreciate the support shown by my colleagues," said Rep. Greg Walden. "By modernizing the 30-year-old ESA to include field-testing and peer review, we can ensure that sweeping policy decisions are based on sound science, representing the best interests of species, people and communities. Peer review is a practice used by the FDA, medical and scientific journals, Health & Human Services and the Department of Education. It just makes sense that we employ the same practice when talking about decisions that could drastically impact entire species."

- Source: House Resources Committee Press Release, July 19, 2004 -