In the new WP article about Cheney's excess of partisan zeal in reducing our environment to a polluted, hothouse mess, we find this scenario:
'Let the water flow'
There was, as it happened, an established exemption to the Endangered Species Act.
A
rarely invoked panel of seven Cabinet officials, known informally as
the "God Squad," is empowered by the statute to determine that economic
hardship outweighs the benefit of protecting threatened wildlife. But
after discussing the option with Smith, Cheney rejected that course. He
had another idea, one that would not put the administration on record
as advocating the extinction of endangered or threatened species.
The thing to do, Cheney told Smith, was to get science on the side of the farmers. And the way to do that was to ask the National Academy of Sciences to scrutinize the work of the federal biologists who wanted to protect the fish.
Smith
said he told Cheney that he thought that was a roll of the dice.
Academy panels are independently appointed, receive no payment and must
reach a conclusion that can withstand peer review.
"It
worried me that these are individuals who are unreachable," Smith said
of the academy members. But Cheney was firm, expressing no such
concerns about the result. "He felt we had to match the science."
Smith
also wasn't sure that the Klamath case -- "a small place in a small
corner of the country" -- would meet the science academy's rigorous
internal process for deciding what to study. Cheney took care of that.
"He called them and said, 'Please look at this, it's important,'" Smith
said. "Everyone just went flying at it."
William
Kearney, a spokesman for the National Academies, said he was unaware of
any direct contact from Cheney on the matter. The official request came
from the Interior Department, he said.
It was Norton who announced the review, and it was Bush and his political adviser Karl Rovewho traveled to Oregon in February 2002 to assure farmers that they had
the administration's support. A month later, Cheney got what he wanted
when the science academy delivered a preliminary report finding "no
substantial scientific foundation" to justify withholding water from
the farmers.
There
was not enough clear evidence that proposed higher lake levels would
benefit suckerfish, the report found. And it hypothesized that the
practice of releasing warm lake water into the river during spawning
season might do more harm than good to the coho, which thrive in lower
temperatures.
Norton
flew to Klamath Falls in March to open the head gate as farmers chanted
"Let the water flow!" And seizing on the report's draft findings, the
Bureau of Reclamation immediately submitted a new decade-long plan to
give the farmers their full share of water.
When
the lead biologist for the National Marine Fisheries Service team
critiqued the science academy's report in a draft opinion objecting to
the plan, the critique was edited out by superiors and his objections
were overruled, he said. The biologist, Michael Kelly, who has since
quit the federal agency, said in a whistle-blower claim that it was
clear to him that "someone at a higher level" had ordered his agency to
endorse the proposal regardless of the consequences to the fish.
Months
later, the first of an estimated 77,000 dead salmon began washing up on
the banks of the warm, slow-moving river. Not only were threatened coho
dying -- so were chinook salmon, the staple of commercial fishing in
Oregon and Northern California. State and federal biologists soon
concluded that the diversion of water to farms was at least partly
responsible.
Fishermen
filed lawsuits and courts ruled that the new irrigation plan violated
the Endangered Species Act. Echoing Kelly's objections, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the 9th Circuit observed that the 10-year plan wouldn't
provide enough water for the fish until year nine. By then, the 2005
opinion said, "all the water in the world" could not save the fish,
"for there will be none to protect." In March 2006, a federal judge
prohibited the government from diverting water for agricultural use
whenever water levels dropped beneath a certain point.
Last
summer, the federal government declared a "commercial fishery failure"
on the West Coast after several years of poor chinook returns virtually
shut down the industry, opening the way for Congress to approve more
than $60 million in disaster aid to help fishermen recover their
losses. That came on top of the $15 million that the government has
paid Klamath farmers since 2002 not to farm, in order to reduce demand.
The
science academy panel, in its final report, acknowledged that its draft
report was "controversial," but it stood by its conclusions. Instead of
focusing on the irrigation spigot, it recommended broad and expensive
changes to improve fish habitat.
"The
farmers were grateful for our decision, but we made the decision based
on the scientific outcome," said the panel chairman, William Lewis, a
biologist at the University of Colorado at Boulder. "It just so
happened the outcome favored the farmers."
But
J.B. Ruhl, another member of the panel and a Florida State University
law professor who specializes in endangered species cases, said the
Bureau of Reclamation went "too far," making judgments that were not
backed up by the academy's draft report. "The approach they took was
inviting criticism," Ruhl said, "and I didn't think it was supported by
our recommendations."
So, they threw $75 million at the problem, had the worst fishkill in history anyway, and the problem remains and will get worse as the glaciers in the american west disappear and global warming dries out the breadbasket of North America.
How much does it cost to build a desalination plant?? How many could we have built with $75 million and a functioning army corps of engineers?
Recent Comments