It's hard to believe ten years has come and gone since the Klamath Basin Water Crisis of 2001. The problem began with a very dry year. Water levels were far below normal. But the real crisis came when a Federal Agencies and Judges decided that the survival of fish was more important than anything else — including people. The result was no water to farmers and all available water was sent downstream.
But in November 2002 a report by two Oregon State researches concluded that the 2001 federal decision to withhold water from Klamath Basin farms was unjustified is laden with errors and has mainly served to fuel resentment of environmental laws.
The Lesson of 2001: Just because someone, even a scientist, claims an idea is scientific, doesn't mean that it is scientific. Science is a methodology that let facts drive conclusions, not opinions. Hypothesis are made. Theories are tested, over and over. Those ideas that are repeatable again and again become scientific principles. The others are deemed as just theories or incorrect. The key question is will the Klamath Basin be subject to facing the same lesson just ten years later?
We are being asked to accept the science of federal agencies such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife whose mission statement states,
“The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.”
And it's this (biased) agency (U.S. Fish and Wildlife) whose at the center of the science being gathered and interpreted on why dams must be removed to save and preserve fish. There is nothing in their mission statement that says they will temper their mission to the concerns of businesses or livelihood. They can always claim "More fish is better for people of all races and creeds, while farming or manufacturing serves a much smaller and narrower group of people."
Klamath residents, wake up and realize the deck is being stacked against us. The bureaucrats are once again trying to use the same kind of science to place the importance of fish over farmers as was done in 2001. The removal of dams will only bring higher power rates to farmers, ranchers, manufacturers and residents of the Klamath basin. Meanwhile it is unprovable that fish of the Klamath basin will return to some utopian level no matter how hard men may try. Even if fish increase in some form or number, how will that help the farmers that can no longer afford to farm their land?