Here are my comments which were sent to
Sonken relative to the ESA Oversight Hearing
05/09/2007
To: Lori
Sonken
From: Rudy
Hiley
Re: Hearing
Oversight – “Endangered Species Act
Implementation: Science or Politics?”
Please include
the following comments in the hearing
record:
The ESA
brought much hope and promise when it became
law. Unfortunately it seems to have become
less like the means of reasonable protection
which it was intended to be and more like a
mirror image of our current legal system; a
system where the truth could be likened to a
ping pong ball in the middle of a long table
surrounded by vacuum nozzles - each trying
to budge it their way. Add to that the
current questionable nature of scientific
inquiry upon which most ESA legal decisions
are based and one finds that science has
become something which sucks at the truth as
well. The bottom line is that law and
science as respects this important amendment
have sadly left their intended station and
have devolved into something more akin to
agenda driven patrician politics.
I firmly
believe in patrician wrangling as it is far
better to work things out through words than
steel. Still, if our adversarial system of
governance fails to honorably uphold and
protect the rights of American citizens
(which should always be at the center of
their debate) then it is time for those
involved to cease warring against the
citizenry and do the right thing!
I, like so
many others in the Klamath
Basin and across our great nation have
suffered loss and despair because of the
strategic engagement of political science
and social science in lieu of legitimate
scientific reasoning as interpreted by what
appears to be the law of the land. Science
appears to have been carefully combined with
the legal power of the ESA so as to placate
something besides truth, fairness and
constitutional rights. If used aright the
analytical discovery process could have
ramped into the sort of evenhandedness which
naturally stems from qualified scientific
and legal inquiry and its potential relative
certainties. Yet quite honestly I am
sickened by the seemingly shameful and
dishonest faux science/legal process which
has been used against our irrigation
community and those whom their effort and
risk support.
Yes, I find
the ethical breeches against the citizens of
the Klamath region to be beyond neglect or
incompetence and verge well into the
territory of treason. How is it possible
that a balanced scientific opinion and its
legal affirmation could be arrived at in the
Klamath Basin without noting
the need and taking the time to gather DEEP
core samples? Samples which could
definitively reveal verifiable hydrologic
and geologic history of the vicinity! Maybe
such would stand in the way of opinions and
resultant court decisions which seem to
obscure truth and justice and lead to
oppression! Maybe the villainy accused upon
Klamath irrigators would be turned into
heroics if complete scientific research was
utilized and accepted? What if the
“scientifically” established and ESA
mandated “historic” Klamath Lake and River
levels were unjustifiably high and/or a
complete falsification?
I find it
pathetic if not criminal to allow and
legally protect the growth of thirsty trees
and vegetation in tributary stream and
spring watersheds which deplete and reduce
what was once an approximate (cold and
clear) 85% of Klamath River flow. How can
it be that such a pure and natural water
source is reduced to a mere 15% or so whilst
the irrigation community is assigned blame
for poor basin and river water quality?
How can it be, that in this de facto way a
choice has been made between trees and water
and thus trees and fish, and no one in
authority seemed to notice? In the
United States of America how can that
be?
I find it
criminal (many, many, many civil rights have
been offended) if not pathetic that no
credit is allowed to the irrigation
community for providing the dam which has
enabled Klamath Lake to NOW contribute 85%
or so of river flow, on a volcanically
degraded quality yet continual and
consistent basis – a basis which was not
possible under NATURAL CONDITIONS! Would
one be fair and just and honest to consider
that hydroelectric power production would
not be feasible without said dam? Have
Basin irrigators found justice there either?
You may even
wonder why it has taken so long to see a
scientific acknowledgement of the fact that
deep area lakes and valleys were filled in
when Crater Lake was formed
and other area volcanoes loosed their mass.
A mass which includes that natural algae
producing fertilizer known as phosphorous!
Maybe it is just too difficult to get around
the documented records of early Basin
visitors and explorers and surveyors who
complained of putrid water conditions?
Maybe some have been just vocal enough about
that informational deficit to inspire some
action?
The list goes
on and on and still there does not seem to
be the essential balance within the
application of the ESA as it now stands to
justly consider the possibility that the
Klamath etc. project irrigators are not
ultimately culpable for poor area water
depth and quality, or even to the contrary
that they may have actually improved
conditions. As some of you may be aware,
they were falsely accused (by some) of
causing fish kills as well.
I am still
wondering how it can be that the findings of
the National Academy of Sciences have been
thrown out in the process of understanding
the big Klamath ESA picture.?. Maybe they
prefer stream flow studies which have been
shown to be faulty, yet consistent with
their desired findings? Maybe the Academy
made the mistake of honestly declaring that
the 2001 irrigation water shut off was
scientifically unjustified? Facts are not
always ALLOWED to get in the way of a social
and/or political agenda it seems.
Yes, something
is seriously wrong with the ESA! Like it
or not, the ESA has managed to provide
certain individuals, groups and departments
etc. with grievously hostile and dangerously
unrestrained power! It has become
destructive to certain guaranteed pursuits!
The Endangered Species Act must be rectified
because it has fallen from an intended means
of protection and balance, to one of
insurgent destruction aimed at honest and
productive citizens of the Untied States of
America. That goes against
everything which this Nation stands for!
Respectfully
submitted,
Rudy
