|
 ll
most farmers near Klamath Falls, Oregon wanted was a little water.
In most years, farmers in the area receive water to irrigate their
crops from the Klamath Basin Project, but not last year. Drought
conditions dropped water levels below normal. To make matters worse,
in April federal officials shut off the flow of irrigation water
from Upper Klamath Lake lest releasing water to farmers would imperil
endangered fish. Last week, the farmers learned it was all for naught.
The Klamath
Basin Project contains a series of lakes, dams, and rivers overseen
by the federal Bureau of Reclamation. The area is home to some 1,400
farmers, many of whose families were first lured to the area by
promises of water from the federal government between the turn of
the last century and the end of World War II. The area is also home
to several species of endangered fish. The shortnose sucker and
Lost River sucker live in Upper Klamath Lake, and coho salmon spawn
in the Klamath River. All three are protected under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA).
On April 6,
the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) issued a Biological Opinion
declaring that there was too little water in Upper Klamath Lake
to release anything to the farmers. Lowering the water levels, FWS
biologists claimed, would threaten the suckers' survival. In addition,
the FWS determined that any water that was released would need to
go to coho salmon in Klamath River. This finding forced the Bureau
of Reclamation to cut off the farmers' water because the ESA prohibits
federal agencies from engaging in activities that could jeopardize
the survival of endangered species. The Bush administration expressed
concern for the farmers' plight. So long as the science suggested
releasing water would imperil the fish, however, there was nothing
else they could do.
Klamath farmers'
livelihoods were destroyed to save fish from the brink of extinction
— or so it seemed. Last week, the National Academy of Sciences
(NAS) released a preliminary report suggesting the water restrictions
were all for naught. The NAS report found no evidence that withholding
water from the farmers helps protect the fish and concluded that
"there is presently no sound scientific basis" for the
water restrictions imposed by the FWS. Indeed, the NAS noted that
some evidence suggests that the fish might be better off were the
lake level lowered and less water diverted for Klamath River coho.
Upon release of the study, House Resources Committee Chairman James
Hansen (R., Utah) said her was "appalled" that the FWS
"withheld desperately needed water from farmers . . . based
on sloppy science and apparent guesswork."
The NAS report
comes on the heels of allegations that government scientists falsified
evidence that Canadian lynx occupied national forests. As initially
reported by the Washington Times, several biologists submitted
fur from captive lynx and a stuffed bobcat, claiming the samples
were found in national forests. The biologists deny any wrongdoing,
claiming that they were just testing the lab to see if it would
catch the fake samples. Others are not so sure, noting that had
the tampering gone undetected, the evidence of lynx habitation could
have been used to limit logging, snowmobiling, and other activities
on federal lands. Congressional hearings and an official investigation
are to follow.
Poor endangered
species science is nothing new. Of the first 27 species removed
from the endangered species list, at least one-third were delisted
due to scientific errors. Either the species was misidentified or
miscounted. Some Western lawmakers fear that environmental activists
and government scientists manipulate research findings regarding
endangered species to trigger regulatory controls. Government officials
have little choice but to impose regulatory controls once an endangered
species is found. In this fashion, environmental activists have
used the ESA to restrict resource development since the law's enactment
in 1973.
Years of litigation
under the National Environmental Policy Act couldn't prevent completion
of the Tellico Dam in Tennessee, but discovery of a little fish
called the snail darter could. In 1978, the Supreme Court held that
the ESA barred federal officials from finishing the dam because
federal scientists believed it would imperil the darter by destroying
its only habitat. As it happens, the scientists were wrong. The
darter had other habitat and the eventual completion of the dam
(after Congress intervened) did not drive it to extinction.
For those who
oppose development, the incentive to skew scientific findings is
strong. Beginning in the 1980s, environmental groups sought to prevent
logging in the Pacific Northwest by finding species that could be
listed as endangered. The northern spotted owl was the first —
and most prominent — such "surrogate," in the words
of Andy Stahl of the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund (now known as
Earthjustice). After environmental groups successfully sued to get
the owl listed, they could sue to shut down timber operations in
national forests. For them to be successful, however, they needed
science to support their desired result. As Stahl explained, "thank
goodness the spotted owl evolved in the Northwest, for if it hadn't,
we'd have to genetically engineer it." After the lynx episode,
some fear federal scientists are doing the next best thing by "engineering"
evidence that endangered species occupy coveted lands.
The ESA is
supposed to ensure that conservation decisions are to be based upon
neutral and sound scientific research. Once biologists conclude
action is necessary, the ESA's regulations kick into gear. There
is relatively little room for agency discretion in imposing restrictions.
Control of the science brings control over regulatory decisions
— and as the Klamath farmers found out, ESA regulations can
be quite severe. As a result, the ESA places tremendous pressure
on scientific research to reach politically determined conclusions.
Yet when political manipulation of scientific research is uncovered,
it undermines faith in the scientific process and erodes support
for truly necessary conservation measures.
Interior Secretary
Gale Norton told reporters she was "concerned by the weaknesses"
in FWS science exposed by the NAS report. She has ordered FWS to
reevaluate its Biological Opinion in light of the new study and
submit new recommendations by the end of this week. According to
an Interior Department spokesman, Norton seeks to ensure that "the
people affected by these decisions and the public at large has confidence
in that the department is using accurate and reliable science."
This will require review of more than the Klamath decision. As things
stand, the ESA itself may be endangering wildlife science.
|
