|
Congressman Walden Shares Views with the NWRA on Improving
Endangered Species Act,
July 20, 2004
_________________________________
Home
Congressman Greg Walden (R-OR) speaks to NWRA about his
legislation, H.R. 1662, a bill to improve the quality of science used in the
administering the Endangered Species Act.
Congressman Greg Walden (R-OR), sponsor of the “Endangered Species Data
Quality Act of 2004” (H.R. 1662 and formerly titled the “Sound Science for
Endangered Species Act Planning Act of 2003”), discussed Endangered Species
Act issues and the mark-up of his legislation by the House Resources
Committee with the National Water Resources Association (NWRA). Below is a
transcript of the July 20 interview:
NWRA: Congressman, it is our understanding your legislation, H.R. 1662, the
Sound Science for Endangered Species Planning Act of 2003, will be marked up
Wednesday. What would you like to tell our members about this bill? How will
your bill improve the Endangered Species Act?
CONGRESSMAN WALDEN: The legislation will improve the Endangered Species Act
in at least two ways, first it requires peer review. This is a requirement
we have in research and projects done by the FDA, by the EPA, even the No
Child Left Behind Act requires peer review and sound science. These are
principles that we’ve used in developing research and health care, medicine,
and in many other areas of science. It seems incredible to me that we don’t
require that basic scientific principle in peer review in the decision as to
whether or not a species is going to live or die; whether or not a
community, economically, may live or die, based on the consequences of
decisions. So the first important improvement is requiring independent peer
review. The National Academy of Science signs on decisions to list, or
de-list a species, recovery programs, and consultations. The second point is
that we set up standards for the science to make sure that the data used
conform to standard scientific principles, and give preference to field data
and peer review data. So, that when decisions are made under the Endangered
Species Act we give the highest credence to the data that meet the highest
standards: field gathered, tested, and peer reviewed. So those two
principles, I think, are really important improvements to the Endangered
Species Act, to make it work better for the species and for the people.
Finally, we open the door for greater availability of the data to the
public. The data that we use in making these decisions - too the often the
public doesn’t have access to the data upon which the decision is based. And
second, we give a greater opportunity for affected landowners to submit
their own data and have it considered as well. Finally, we also give a role
for states to participate in the decision making process. We have some
extraordinary capabilities at the state level through fish and wildlife
departments, departments of environmental quality and other scientific
services at the state level that could play a very valuable role in
determining the decisions that should be made under the Endangered Species
Act. All too often they’re not consulted. So, I think we fix the data to a
higher standard, we give greater credence for data that’s peer reviewed and
meets a high standard. The object here is to get the best possible science
from as many sources as possible, get the best minds in America to review
that data and make sure we’re making decisions good for the future of the
species, and good for people.
NWRA: Once your bill is reported, are you hopeful enough time remains to
move your bill to the floor?
CONGRESSMAN WALDEN: I’m hopeful, and I think we’ll have that opportunity. I
also recognize that this is a long-term process. The Endangered Species Act
has not been improved in thirty years. . It’s hard to get change in an Act
that can be so polarizing politically. But, just as we took the time to get
improvements in how we manage our forests by passing the Healthy Forests
Restoration Act, we can get this done as well.
NWRA: Last Saturday, on the 17th, there was a field hearing in Klamath Falls
on the Klamath project’s water situation. How did the field hearing go? Were
you happy with it?
CONGRESSMAN WALDEN: I was pleased with the hearing. We had an excellent
turnout of members. There were five of us there from the Resources
Committee, which, for a field hearing is a huge turnout. We had a great
panel of witnesses from a diverging set of viewpoints, but all agree that
peer review is something that they could support, and we got into some local
issues on Klamath. The reason I wanted the hearing in the Klamath Basin was
that there was no clearer view of the need to fix the Endangered Species Act
than the view that came out of what happened in 2001 when the water was cut
off without proper refund payments. What happened there should not happen
anywhere ever again. We had two biological opinions, one from the Fish and
Wildlife Service and one from the National Marine Fisheries Service. They
collided in a drought year and the result was that no water went to the
farmers. When those principle decisions were reviewed, at my request and
others, by the National Academy of Sciences, the council came back and said
these two big decisions that resulted in the water cut-off weren’t based on
sound science, didn’t rely on historical facts, and should not have been
made. It struck me then, and it’s been my passion since, that that shouldn’t
happen again and that we should change the Act so that you get a second
opinion. Similarly, if you go to the doctor and the doctor says ‘I’m going
to have to cut off your right leg,’ you’d probably get a second opinion. You
usually get second opinions for something that dramatic and, in the
Endangered Species Act; there is no opportunity for a second opinion. They
just cut you off at the knees. Certainly there will be instances where
judgment will prevail, judgment based on scientific background. I realize
that’s going to happen here and sometimes it has to happen quickly. We need
to figure out how to manage that, but these judgments need to be based on
better science than what they’re based on today, and they need to be peer
reviewed.
NWRA: Your farmers and the Klamath Water Users Association have done a lot
since 2001 to conserve water for fish. What needs to be done now?
CONGRESSMAN WALDEN: There is a long list of things that need to be done, but
let me narrow it to two that I think are the most important. One is the
removal of Chiloquin Dam, which is a broken-down, diversion dam that diverts
water into the canal from Modoc Point Irrigation District The whole dam is
in really bad shape: Two of the three fish ladders are down to just metal
rebar…little hard for the fish to climb up rebar…; it blocks ninety-five
percent of the habitat for the Suckers and is the principle reason the
Sucker Fish were listed in 1988; and it was cited in the biological opinion
of 1993 as the main impediment to the Sucker recovery. I got language in the
Farm Bill in 2002 for a one-year study to figure out what to do about the
problem. We brought groups together and the consensus is that we need to do
something about fish passage at the dam - we all knew that.
We need to hold the irrigators harmless in this process. I believe we need
to set up some sort of fund so that people can contribute to the pumping
cost. It does save the maintenance of five or six miles of canal, but it’s a
critical element to restoring a healthy Sucker habitat. And without that
you’re going to be trapped in ESA problems forever.
Second, after Chiloquin Dam, is storage. That is probably the biggest issue
we face - how do we increase storage in the basin? A few years ago, we
passed legislation calling on the Bureau of Reclamation to study
conservation and additional storage. There are some opportunities in the
basin to add to storage. Some of that can be done along the lake, where you
could store up to three hundred thousand acre feet of water, and have it
available to use at appropriate times.
Some of what we need to do, in addition to storage and fish passage at
Chiloquin Dam, is improve some of the marsh areas, which will improve
habitat. And we probably need to work on restocking the fishery as well. And
then there are issues downstream in California to promote fish passage, as
well as some additional storage opportunities there. What we want to end up
with is, not only adequate stream flows, but the right water. And warm water
out of Klamath Lake in the summer actually hurts the fish, not helps them.
We need cold water, and there are areas where we can enhance the cold water
storage availability.
NWRA: How much storage do your farms need?
CONGRESSMAN WALDEN: It’s not just the farmers that need the storage. It’s
the harbors, it’s the refuge, it’s the whole system. I think that if we can
get an additional three or four hundred-thousand acres of storage
capability, we would meet the needs of the basin.
NWRA: Do you feel the respective federal agencies have been sufficiently
pro-active in solving this problem?
CONGRESSMAN WALDEN: They have gotten much better under the Bush
Administration, I will tell you that. Under the Clinton Administration, it
felt like the goal was to shut down the Project and eliminate agriculture
from the basin. The incoming administration had barely been on the job a
couple of months, and they were trapped. They had to shut the water-off, a
decision teed-up from the prior eight years. Since that time, the President
has made it a huge priority of his. He formed the second cabinet-level
working group in his administration to focus specifically on problems in the
Klamath Basin and they stepped up efforts to screen the A Canal that had
been languishing for years. Getting that done now prevents tens of thousands
of Sucker larvae from going into farmers’ fields, but staying in the river
system instead. The Administration has been a big help on the Chiloquin Dam
studies as well. They’ve been a big partner, trying to bring relief money
into the basin, trying to bring disaster aid into the basin. We couldn’t
have done it without this administration.
NWRA: Finally, Congressman, what would you ask of NWRA members, what can we
do to help you resolve the Klamath situation, as well as with your
legislation?
CONGRESSMAN WALDEN: I think the most important thing we can do is educate
members of Congress who lack an understanding of the need to fix the
Endangered Species Act. Having peer review, putting in place standards where
science and data are already used elsewhere in the government only
strengthens the Act. We’re strengthening it by adding another set of eyes
and better parameters around the data. And although I always enjoy talking
to members, I’m already leading this fight and am on their side. They need
to talk to members of Congress who are not with us and try to educate them
that is what’s most needed.
NWRA: Species are too important to give up.
CONGRESSMAN WALDEN: They are, and that’s been the trouble over the course of
this debate. Some groups out there say that any change to the ESA is
‘gutting it.’ It’s tragic that, where we use peer review for all these other
issues from No Child Left Behind, to clean water, to food and drugs, to the
National Institutes of Health, that we wouldn’t use peer review science to
save a species from extinction. Why not? I can’t answer that one because it
seems to go against common sense. Hopefully we’ll find a balance and we’ll
get this done. I’m optimistic and I’m not going to quit until we succeed.
Klamath Water Users Association
2455 Patterson Street, Suite 3
Klamath Falls, Oregon 97603
Phone (541) 883-6100
FAX (541) 883-8893
kwua@cvcwireless.net |