I've bben kinda out of it lataly, so my apologies if this story has been posted.

"People Suck"

There's one born every minute, so how can this fish be endangered?

The Wall Street Journal

Wednesday, May 16, 2001 12:01 a.m. EDT

George W. Bush came to office promising to restore rationality to environmental policy, and his first months have showed promising signs. Unfortunately, his team just missed an opportunity to take a bold step against junk science, the very root of bad environmental policy.

That missed opportunity rests in the Klamath Basin along the Oregon-California border, part of an irrigation project set up by the federal government to lure homesteaders West. Farmers agreed to till the high desert; the government, in a contract signed in 1909, agreed to provide water. It was a beautiful trade-off until a month ago, when the Bureau of Reclamation broke the contract, leaving 90% of the farms--some 200,000 acres of land--without water.

What caused the U.S. government to condemn 1,500 farms, a $250 million industry, to oblivion? To save sucker fish, a bottom-feeding scavenger that got on the Endangered Species Act in 1988. The sucker inhabits Upper Klamath Lake. And with the Northwest experiencing the second-worst drought on record, environmentalists claim the sucker (and nearby coho salmon) need more water. Ergo, the area's farmers get put out of business to save suckers.

The Bureau of Reclamation is hiding behind biological opinions issued in April by the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service that say the sucker needs more water. But the Bureau's maddening folly is that it abides by science already proven an abject failure in that other great Northwest fish story: salmon.

Way back when scientists first started trying to understand why Northwest salmon populations were declining, they hit on the more-water theory, also known as "flow augmentation." The idea was that greedy man used too much water, making it difficult for juvenile fish born upriver to travel down to sea. Dam facilities were to set aside water and then spill it over at key times, sparing fish the hydroelectric turbines and flushing them out to the ocean. The more-water theory became a cure-all, a deafening environmental cry. Agency scientists (those very ones writing biological opinions) made it official policy. It was nice to have one bogeyman to blame, rather than admit they didn't yet understand the complex factors affecting salmon. Environmentalists then saw this was a perfect way to pursue their broader antigrowth agenda--to force farmers off the land, blow up dams, get rid of barges.

Two decades and $3 billion in salmon recovery efforts later, we know one thing: Flow augmentation doesn't work. Currently, not a single endangered salmon run in the Northwest's Columbia basin is in recovery. Yet rather than admit failure, environmentalists demand more water: Blow the dams. Further adding to scientists' mystification has been this year's salmon run, the largest in six decades; some fish seem to being doing just fine with the water available.

New voices are finally being heard. Marine biologists say ocean temperatures may affect stocks. Karl Dreher, the head of Idaho's Department of Water Resources, co-authored a significant report saying that while good (natural) flows of water certainly matter, man-made attempts to augment flow aren't significant. (He also notes that average daily flows in the Snake River have been the same since 1916, well before dams.) Fish biologists are starting to pay more attention to what role water velocity, temperature and predation play in salmon survival.

In short, we've got a lot of learning to do. Indeed, this is the unexplored reality of modern environmentalism: Nature is pretty darn complicated. And yet scientists and politicians, unwilling to admit they don't have the answers, stand by as debunked science becomes law, or treaties, throughout God's creation.

The Klamath Water Users Association, which represents the farmers, has been turned down by a federal judge for an injunction against the cut-off; the judge cited the biological opinions. KWUA commissioned its own report from respected scientists that says not only are suckers not in trouble, but can be delisted as endangered. It notes persuasively that more water may kill off suckers. Though the species act requires agencies to use the "best scientific and commercial data available," this report has been ignored.

The Bush Administration bears culpability. Interior Secretary Gale Norton signed off on the decision by the Bureau of Reclamation, which itself is hiding behind the species act, saying the law mandates that it save the suckers. In truth, the act offers opt-out provisions, which can be granted by a group of Presidential appointees called the "God Squad." A meeting could be called immediately, and an opt-out granted. Better yet, the BOR could simply reverse its decision, label the junk reports for what they are, and bring in real scientists.

The Bush Administration has laudably reversed some of the worst environmental decisions of its predecessor. But we look forward to the Administration's own reforms. The Klamath Valley mess would be a good place to start. Not only would Mr. Bush save 1,500 farms, but he'd let it be known junk science will no longer be allowed to ruin ordinary people's lives.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), June 06, 2001

Answers

And then there's ELF who has been burning down University labs and God knows what. What jerks, what absolutely pathetic jerks.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), June 06, 2001.

Eve:

I was just in that region. It is my opinion that the writer doesn't know what in "hell" they are talking about. Then, I have come to expect that from the WSJ on any item not dealing with the "street".

I won't argue the point. One thing that I've learned here is not to agrue with people who think that Ayn Rand is a great thinker and writer *<)))

Short time at home and must leave again.

Best Wishes,,,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), June 06, 2001.

GOD BLESS the scietist's that work with nature and not againt GODS blessing to mankind.

-- al-d. (dogs@zianet.com), June 06, 2001.

al-d, my old friend:

I shouldn't ask this since I didn't spell argue correctly, but what is a scietist's *<)))

Best Wishes,,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), June 06, 2001.

Thus Spake Z. (Kindly wait for most appropriate soundtrack to download.)

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), June 06, 2001.

David; me ol' friend:

To some extent you have it right. My position is such that I must make the final decision. I have developed an approach that requires me to listen to all sides, not give my opinion, but then make a final decision. In my position, there are no appeals to the final decision; I must be careful to be correct.

I probably reflect that attitude here. Sorry.

Best Wishes,,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), June 06, 2001.

My dictionary defines scietist's as a portion of visecal meat slightly larger than a vorotonmouth but smaller then a scacnadnengel. LOL!

-- jammy (jammin@with.jammy), June 06, 2001.

Dumbass can't figure out what a scietist is, then has the nerve to say the WSJ doesn't know what they're talking about.

-- rotfl (Z suffering from @ inflated. head syndrome), June 06, 2001.

Hi guys,

I said,

"I've bben kinda out of it lataly"

Lol -- well, with the spelling here, combined with what I said -- I just hope y'all don't think I've been on drugs or anything.:)

While we're on the subject, I recall an instance where a farmer accidentally ran over an endangered rodent with his tractor and was thrown in jail. This was several years ago. Any of y'all remember that one?

Hey -- maybe we should do a new "Farm Aid" concert. I play guitar. Anybody up for it?

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), June 07, 2001.

"I've bben kinda out of it lataly"

LOL Eve!

Must admit, when I opened this thread and saw that I thought for sure it was Sumer off on another drinking binge!

-- hee hee (get@well.soon), June 07, 2001.