_________________________________ While environmental activists will argue that the Hardy flows represent the "best available science" and that activating those flows could have prevented the 2002 lower Klamath River fish die-off, one must remember: A DRAFT report cannot constitute the "best available science". The draft Hardy Phase II Report does nothing to address prevention of a fish die-off. Judge Saundra Armstrong in May 2002 ruled that the Hardy Phase II report – which plaintiffs claimed then (and now) is the "best available science" – could not be relied upon as such, since it only existed in draft form. Rather, the Court ruled that the Interim Report prepared by the National Research Council (NRC) Committee on Endangered and Threatened Fishes in the Klamath River Basin was the best available science."The Court finds that the NRC Interim Report is the best science available, particularly in light of the April 30, 2002 clarification letter." "The Court is unwilling to rely upon the Hardy Phase II draft report as the best science available...at present, the Hardy Phase II report exists only in draft form. As the report states on each page, its conclusions, and most importantly, its recommended flow levels are subject to change." Reference to Judge Armstrong's 2002 Decision: Federal Defendant's Opposition and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, PCFFA v. USBR. Since Judge Armstrong’s decision, the Hardy Phase II Report has not been finalized, nor has NRC completed its final report, which is due to be finished in May or June of this year. Judge Armstrong on April 29th will again consider the DRAFT Hardy Phase II Report in a decision that could once again threaten the water supplies of Klamath Project family farms. The Best Available Science argument supported by Judge Armstrong last year still holds.The draft Hardy Phase II Report does nothing to address prevention of a fish die-off. Tribal biologists and environmentalist advocates refer to the draft "Hardy Phase II" report to support their arguments that increased Iron Gate Dam releases would have prevented the fish die-off located more than 170 miles downstream. In fact, The draft Hardy Phase II report contains no data, analyses, or discussion applicable to prevention of a fish kill in the lower Klamath River. Instead, the draft Hardy Phase II report was based on a computer modeling exercise and field work to recommend instream flows for physical habitats for salmon (e.g., spawning and rearing).
Klamath Water Users Association |
Content and Logo: Copyright
© Klamath Water Users Association, 2002 All Rights Reserved