FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Can the Klamath be Restored?

This week state, federal, tribal and local biologists, restorationists, politicians and bureaucrats, as well as agricultural and fishing interests, will gather at the Holiday Inn in Redding, California for the three-day Klamath Basin Watershed Conference. The Conference title–Sustainable Watersheds Bring Sustainable Communities–will be pursued through three themes presented on successive days: 1.) We Are One Basin, 2.) Progress in the Basin, and 3.) Moving Toward Sustainability.

These themes, confirmed by the conference agenda indicate that the emphasis will be positive and future oriented. You can bet there will be heaps of praise for cooperative and collaborative restoration. In fact, the Conference is likely to be a love fest. That’s because almost everyone present will represent an organization or agency that has been the recipient of taxpayer financed restoration funding and hopes to secure a stream of that funding on into the future.

That all sounds good–who can argue with working together for sustainable communities! But something is missing from the Conference Agenda. Even though the 20-year federal-state-local restoration partnership which began with passage of the Klamath Act in 2006 is ending, a hard-nosed, scientific assessment of what has been accomplished will not be presented.

Whether the measure used is the size of salmon runs, the state of the Basin’s water quality or the amount of water flowing in Klamath River Basin streams and rivers, the 20-year effort to restore the Klamath River and its fisheries has failed. Salmon runs now are at greater risk of extinction, fishing is more restricted and water quality is more degraded than when “restoration” began in earnest 20 years ago. Most importantly, the dewatering of major Klamath tributaries–including the Scott and Shasta Rivers–has continued unabated during those 20-years.

What should be going on in Redding this week is an honest, practical and hard nosed assessment of failures as well as successes and a probing analysis of why so much taxpayer money has been spent with so little positive impact. Such an analysis by those responsible for future restoration could result in positive changes in how restoration is planned and restoration projects are selected. Those insights could then be incorporated into federal legislation under development for a new 20-year round of restoration. Lessons learned could also be incorporated into California Department of Fish and Game restoration rules and priority projects lists.

This sort of practical, hard nosed reality check will not take place this week in Redding. Instead there will be yet another attempt to promote the ideology of collaboration that dominates restoration politics and practice not only on the Klamath but throughout the West. Sometimes that ideology has produced results. In Oregon’s Deschutes Basin, for example, collaboration is actually returning water to streams and fisheries may actually be restored. This is not true in the Klamath River Basin, however. In the Klamath Basin only lawsuits have reallocated water and irrigators remain determined to take restoration funds for anything and everything except reallocating water to increasing river and stream flow. Even worse, irrigators in the Upper Basin, Shasta Valley and Scott Valley want restoration funds spent paying them on an annual basis to put water into streams so that fish can survive. While the sustainability of taxpayer-funded annual water rentals for fish is questionable, of more concern is the precedent that will be set if irrigators are paid for water that by law and right should never have been removed from the streams and aquifers in the first place.

It has been well stated that those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it. Judging from the love fest planned this week in Redding, this old adage will once again prove true. But there is a better way. Instead of treating restoration funds as political pork to be dolled out among the various interests, it is possible to build a restoration program that will take on the tough issues of water reallocation and water sharing which are essential to restoring Klamath River Basin aquatic ecosystems. That, however, would require those who meet in Redding this week coming to grips with how their own past behavior has contributed to current problems. Collective amnesia is the easier course. But taking that easy road will inevitably lead to continued decline of Klamath River Basin aquatic ecosystems and ultimately to more bitter and intractable conflicts over water in the future. Let’s hope those meeting in Redding reassess reality and take the tougher road.

FELICE PACE has lived in the Klamath River Basin since 1975 and has been involved in Klamath River restoration efforts since 1986. He currently resides in Klamath, California near the mouth of the Klamath River.

 

More articles by:

Felice Pace is a longtime environmental activist in northern California. You can find his writings online at Bearitude in Black.

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

June 26, 2019
Melvin Goodman
The U.S.-Iran Imbroglio: Dangerous Lessons To Be Learned
Paul Street
Reflections and Correspondence at the Abyss
John Laforge
Trump’s Ministry of No Information
Paul Edwards
Fool Me Twice
Rob Hager
Warren and Sanders: Compare and Contrast
John Steppling
The Monkey’s Face
Evaggelos Vallianatos
A World of Shadows
Jaspal Kaur Sadhu Singh
Correcting a Colonial Injustice: The Return of the Chagos Islands to Its Natives
Binoy Kampmark
Violent Voyeurism: Surveillance, Spyware and Human Rights
Jonah Raskin
Reflections on Abbie Hoffman and Joshua Furst’s Novel, Revolutionaries
Dave Chapman
The Hydroponic Threat to Organic Food
June 25, 2019
Rannie Amiri
Instigators of a Persian Gulf Crisis
Patrick Cockburn
Trump May Already be in Too Deep to Avoid War With Iran
Paul Tritschler
Hopeful Things
John Feffer
Deep Fakes: Will AI Swing the 2020 Election?
Binoy Kampmark
Bill Clinton in Kosovo
Kenneth Surin
Brief Impressions of the Japanese Conjuncture
Edward Hunt
Is Mexico Winding Down or Winding up the Drug War?
Manuel E. Yepe
Trump’s Return to Full-Spectrum Dominance
Steve Kelly
Greed and Politics Should Not Drive Forest Policy
Stephen Carpa
Protecting the Great Burn
Colin Todhunter
‘Modified’: A Film About GMOs and the Corruption of the Food Supply for Profit
Martin Billheimer
The Gothic and the Idea of a ‘Real Elite’
Elliot Sperber
Send ICE to Hanford
June 24, 2019
Jim Kavanagh
Eve of Destruction: Iran Strikes Back
Nino Pagliccia
Sorting Out Reality From Fiction About Venezuela
Jeff Sher
Pickin’ and Choosin’ the Winners and Losers of Climate Change
Howard Lisnoff
“Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran”
Robert Fisk
The West’s Disgraceful Silence on the Death of Morsi
Dean Baker
The Old Japan Disaster Horror Story
David Mattson
The Gallatin Forest Partnership and the Tyranny of Ego
George Wuerthner
How Mountain Bikes Threaten Wilderness
Christopher Ketcham
The Journalist as Hemorrhoid
Manuel E. Yepe
Yankee Worship of Bombings and Endless Wars
Mel Gurtov
Iran—Who and Where is The Threat?
Wim Laven
Revisiting Morality in the Age of Dishonesty
Thomas Knapp
Facebook’s Libra Isn’t a “Cryptocurrency”
Weekend Edition
June 21, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Brett Wilkins
A Brief History of US Concentration Camps
Rob Urie
Race, Identity and the Political Economy of Hate
Rev. William Alberts
America’s Respectable War Criminals
Paul Street
“So Happy”: The Trump “Boom,” the Nation’s Despair, and the Decline of Joe Biden
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Ask Your Local Death Squad
Dr. Vandana Shiva
Fake Food, Fake Meat: Big Food’s Desperate Attempt to Further the Industrialisation of Food
Eric Draitser
The Art of Trade War: Is Trump Winning His Trade War against China?
Melvin Goodman
Trump’s Russian Problem
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail