Klamath Water Users Association 

While Klamath Project irrigators and federal agencies greeted last week’s release of the 2004 Klamath Project operations plan with a sense of renewed optimism, farming critics are already forecasting doom for the region’s national wildlife refuges. Bob Hunter, staff attorney for WaterWatch, an Oregon-based environmental group, in late March brought together Washington Post reporter Blaine Harden and Klamath Basin Refuge Complex refuge managers for a story that was featured in the April 4^th edition of the Post. Harden’s article, entitled "A Wildlife Sanctuary Withers", provided Hunter with an opportunity to resurrect an accusation that is regularly leveled at the Klamath Project by environmental activists. This argument suggests that agriculture is harmful to waterfowl and other wildlife and is wholly inconsistent with the purposes of wildlife refuges.

"You don't have logging in Yellowstone, and you shouldn't grow potatoes in this special place," Hunter told The Post.

Local water user representatives sent letters to The Post to express their concern regarding the paper’s coverage of this issue. Particular focus was placed on the omission by Harden of the unique relationship that exists between wildlife and farming on the Lower Klamath refuges.

"Congress itself has recognized the dual benefits of the lease lands within the Klamath National Wildlife Refuge Complex in the 1964 Kuchel Act, a fact not mentioned in Mr. Harden’s story," wrote Klamath Water User Association Executive Director Dan Keppen in an April 7^th letter to The Post. "For nearly 100 years, farmers and ranchers of the Klamath Basin have coexisted with immense populations of wildlife. Many wildlife species, especially waterfowl, are familiar visitors to their highly productive farms and ranches. Of all the lands in the Klamath Basin, the Kuchel Act Lands may best epitomize the truth of these statements."

KWUA President and Klamath Project farmer Steve Kandra – who was interviewed by Harden for the Post story – also objected to the final story.

"The tens of thousands of snow and white front geese that are now grazing my farm for thirty to forty days during the spring migration appreciate the symbiotic relationship between wildlife and agriculture," wrote Kandra in his April 8^th letter to the paper. " Mr. Harden’s article does a disservice to the farmers and ranchers providing food and habitat to wildlife in the Klamath Basin."

Recent Klamath coverage in other papers has also featured criticism of Project irrigators, even from activists who purport to speak for coastal fishing interests. Glenn Spain, of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Association, recently commented on the refuges from his inland base in Eugene, Oregon, claiming that wildlife refuges are getting only a modest boost in water this year.

"They're borrowing (water) from the refuges to keep the irrigators from having to share the cost of drought," Spain recently told a Redding, CA paper.

Factoring in this year’s Klamath Project water bank, local farmers and ranchers have undertaken management actions that will free up over 150,000 acre-feet of water to meet the alleged needs of three fish species protected under the Endangered Species Act. (The KWUA letters to The Post follow).

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) are hosting a water quality workshop for the Upper Klamath Basin (Basin) on May 4-5, 2004. The purpose of the workshop is to provide all those interested in Basin water quality an opportunity to discuss existing date sets, current and future data collection activities, data gaps, data base management, and prioritize needs for long-term monitoring.

The first day of the workshop will focus on data collection in the Upper Klamath Watershed including the Sprague River, Williamson River, Klamath River (above Keno Dam), and tributaries. The second day of the workshop will focus on data collection in the Lost River Watershed.

Prior to the workshop, all interested participants are asked to fill out and send back a brief water quality questionnaire or send a copy of sampling plans, if applicable. This information will be compiled and distributed at the workshop for discussion.

The meeting location is tentatively scheduled to be at Oregon Institute of Technology, College Union building. If you are interested in participating in this workshop, please RSVP by April 16, 2004 to:

Ron Larsen (USFWS) – ron_larson@r1.fws.gov

Phone: 541-885-8481

Jason Cameron (USBR) – jcameron@mp.usbr.gov

Phone: 541-880-2563

Davine Lieberman (USBR) – dlieberman@do.usbr.gov

Phone: 303-445-2223

Chris Holdren (USBR) – children@do.usbr.gov

Blaine Harden’s recent article on the Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuges ("A Wildlife Sanctuary Withers", April 4, 2004) captures the sense of challenges that face various interests competing for water in our area. However, it does not fully address the primary reason that is driving those challenges facing Klamath Basin wildlife refuge managers: that is, federal fishery agency-imposed regulations that keep lake levels and river flows artificially high, with results that have been questioned by the National Academy of Sciences. Mr. Harden did not mention a U.S. Interior Department solicitor’s opinion that puts perceived Endangered Species Act (ESA) and tribal trust water needs above those of Klamath Project irrigators and the national wildlife refuges. In essence, according to this opinion, farmers get the water that’s left over after lake and river level conditions are met, and the refuges get what’s left over after that.

When the farmer’s water is taken away, the refuges also suffer, as was plainly evident in 2001, when, for the first time in 97 years, Upper Klamath Lake irrigation supplies were curtailed at the beginning of the growing season. The 2001 cutoff tragically underscored the vital linkage that exists between irrigated farmland and wildlife. Water that would normally flow through farmland habitat was directed instead towards three species protected under the federal act. The vitality of over 430 other wildlife species was threatened when subjected to the same fate as farmers.

Mr. Harden’s article leaves the reader with the impression that is consistently hoisted upon the media by extreme environmental activists: "Agriculture is harmful to waterfowl and other wildlife and is wholly inconsistent with the purposes of wildlife refuges." In fact, Congress itself has recognized the dual benefits of the lease lands within the Klamath National Wildlife Refuge Complex in the 1964 Kuchel Act, a fact not mentioned in Mr. Harden’s story. For nearly 100 years, farmers and ranchers of the Klamath Basin have coexisted with immense populations of wildlife. Many wildlife species, especially waterfowl, are familiar visitors to their highly productive farms and ranches. Of all the lands in the Klamath Basin, the Kuchel Act Lands may best epitomize the truth of these statements.

As I write this, thousands of snow geese are currently consuming alfalfa grown on the fields adjacent to the refuges owned by Steve Kandra, the farmer who was quoted in Mr. Harden’s article.

The farmers that are being targeted by certain environmental groups are among the most proactive conservationists in the country. Last year, KWUA, who represents these irrigators, was awarded the 2003 Agriculture Progress Award for "Leadership in Conservation" by the State of Oregon. Tulelake Irrigation District was also recently presented with the prestigious F. Gordon Johnston Award in recognition for their innovative canal-lining project, which eliminates water losses near the refuges. This effort to develop solutions designed to comply with ESA requirements while enabling farmers to continue to farm and to continue to support wetlands and wildlife is a delicately balanced activity. Environmental exaggerations scare the public and make us more likely to spend our resources and attention solving phantom problems while ignoring real and pressing issues.

PLF Calls for True Accounting of ESA Economic, Human, and Social Costs

Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) earlier this week called for a true accounting of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), pointing to a study showing that billions of dollars in costs spent enforcing and complying with the ESA are not being reported to Congress or the American people. The study, Accounting for Species: Calculating the True Costs of the Endangered Species Act, was conducted by the Property and Environment Research Center (PERC). PERC researchers found that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) "grossly underreported" federal and state ESA costs in its recent report to Congress, and completely ignored the private economic and social costs of ESA compliance, which together total billions of dollars a year.

The ESA requires the USFWS to report to Congress annually on ESA expenditures by federal agencies and states receiving grants under the Act. In December, 2003, USFWS released its Three-Year Summary of Federal and State Endangered Species Expenditures, Fiscal Years 1998-2000, to account for three years of missed reports from 1998-2000.

PERC researchers found that the USFWS report does not provide an accurate or comprehensive assessment of the true costs of the ESA. For example, the USFWS reports that in 2000, state and federal expenditures totaled $610.3 million. PERC estimates that the actual government costs annually are as much as four times greater—or $2.4 billion. USFWS also reports that in the 11 years from 1989 to 2000, just over $3.5 billion of taxpayer dollars was spent on ESA-related activities. According to PERC, the actual cost of protecting species, adding private costs to government expenditures, may easily reach or exceed $3.5 billion per year.

"PERC’s study shows that the government has no idea what the ESA is truly costing, but it does give us an idea of the enormous human costs of ESA regulation—and they’re often devastating. People have lost their jobs, businesses, homes, farms, and even their lives to protect plants, insects, and fish," said Emma Suárez, an attorney with Pacific Legal Foundation, a public interest legal organization that is a national leader in the effort to raise awareness of the ESA’s impact on people.

"We’re asking the government to account to the people for a failed law that ignores human values," added Suárez.

"The USFWS report does not come close to accounting for the true costs to taxpayers and consumers of complying with the ESA," said report Dr. Randy Simmons, a Senior Associate at PERC and a political science professor at Utah State University, and Kimberly Frost. Dr. Simmons has studied the Endangered Species Act extensively and is the author of a book on endangered species written for high school students.

"We’ve spent trillions of dollars on the ESA and the few species that have been delisted were not removed because of ESA protections. Taxpayers deserve to know if we’re getting what we pay for. An honest public dialogue about the value and effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act must take into account the costs incurred by taxpayers and the people being regulated. The government is ignoring the human costs in the ESA equation," added Simmons and Frost.

According to PERC’s study, USFWS omits the following critical information in its 2003 cost report:

• Actual costs to taxpayers; only estimates are provided.
• Government-wide costs.
• Costs to taxpayers of litigating ESA cases.
• Costs to state and local entities of implementing species recovery.
• Additional costs to local governments from ESA-caused interference with building schools, hospitals, roads, and other infrastructure projects.
• Costs to private landowners.
• Private costs such as development projects being denied, delayed, or their scope reduced, which result in higher home prices.
• Lost jobs, lost business, and lost tax revenue.
• Costs of protecting foreign species.

Notably, costs from regulatory burdens placed on agricultural production, water use, forest management, and mineral extraction are omitted. The costs of ESA regulation to private industry are enormous and are passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices for food and other products. The costs to individuals who earn their livelihoods in these industries are devastating. For example, it has been estimated that farmers and their communities in the Klamath Basin lost between $130 million and $200 million in 2001 when their irrigation supplies were cut off to protect the suckerfish and coho salmon.

Salmon Costs Top the List

According to PERC, 50% of the total expenditures reported by the FWS for 2000 are for the top seven species, or just 0.6% of the ESA list. Salmon species are by far the costliest, accounting for the top five most expensive species in 2000. Fish make up a full eight of the top ten.

"The fact that salmon protection is eating up the bulk of ESA spending is particularly outrageous in light of recent court decisions finding that the coho salmon has been undercounted and illegally listed by the government," said Suárez. "Many dollars have been wasted and people's lives have been devastated for fish that are not endangered."

This article was printed with permission from PLF, a nonprofit, public interest legal organization that is a national leader in the effort to reform the Endangered Species Act and raise awareness of the Act’s impact on people. PERC is a nonprofit institute dedicated to improving environmental quality through the markets.

Tuesday, April 20, 2004 – KWUA Power Committee Meeting. 7:00 p.m. KWUA Office, 2455 Patterson Street, Suite 3, Klamath Falls, Oregon.

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

KBC Home

KWUA Home

Contact