Document text
NAS report will go to Congress But the oversight committee will hear only the panel's view of the Klamath Basin water issue, and not from the scientists involved By MARK FREEMAN Mail Tribune Capitol Hill will be the next venue for scrutinizing whether biology backed the government's decisions to choose Klamath Basin fish over farmers while doling out water during last year's drought. A congressional oversight committee will convene Wednesday to probe a National Academy of Sciences interim report claiming there was no scientific proof that cutting water to 200,000 acres of farmlands last summer was justified to protect the basin's endangered suckers and threatened salmon. The House Committee on Resources will hold the hearing at the request of Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., who believes the NAS report over the Klamath Basin water wars highlights shortcomings in applying the Endangered Species Act. "There's definitely a buzz on Capitol Hill," said Dallas Boyd, a Walden aide. "It's certainly acting like a catalyst to raise awareness in how much communities can be impacted by application of the ESA." The hearing comes six days after an NAS panel looking into the Klamath Basin science met in Medford and was criticized for setting scientific standards that were too high and undefined in judging last year's actions. Some of that criticism came from the state, federal and tribal scientists whose studies were scrutinized in the NAS' interim report. Based on a threshold of "best available science," the government shut off 80 percent of the Klamath Project's farmers to keep Upper Klamath Lake levels high for two endangered suckers and also boost lower Klamath River flows high enough to save threatened coho salmon. A joint study by Oregon State University and the University of California at Berkeley estimates that the regional economy has lost $134 million to date as a result of the actions. The Bush administration asked the panel to determine whether the science used by the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service supported the agency's decisions. In its interim report, the panel last month declared those decisions not scientifically justified. A final report is due next year. In Medford, some scientists who supplied the NAS panel with information said the panel used incorrect and incomplete information, made assumptions and set standards that were too rigid. But the House Resources Committee, on which Walden sits, will not hear from those critics in Wednesday's hearing. That miffs WaterWatch attorney Bob Hunter, who believes an oversight hearing is fine for this issue - as long as appropriate criticisms aired in Medford are also raised in the hearing. "It's not going to be the same kind of input as the academy had (here), and that's unfortunate," Hunter said. Walden said the hearing should give his fellow congressmen a good idea of how the application of the Endangered Species Act is not so smooth. "This oversight hearing provides an ideal forum to address the problems Congress must confront to ensure another tragedy like this doesn't happen again," Walden said in a prepared statement. "The key to preventing a similar situation from occurring elsewhere in the country is to educate lawmakers about the shortcomings of the administration of the Endangered Species Act." Reach reporter Mark Freeman at 776-4470, or e-mail [email protected] Mail Tribune Home | Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. | Dow Jones & Co., Inc. | Privacy | Contact Us Copyright � 2001 Mail Tribune, Inc.