From The Oregonian, Nov. 2, 2002, p A1

Klamath findings fail to get into print
Reports that say water for fish would be more valuable than using it
for irrigation are being suppressed, a co-author says

By MICHAEL MILSTEIN, The Oregonian
The Bush administration withheld reports that concluded buhing out
farms in the Klamath Basin and leaving their irrigation water int he
Klamath river would create a thriving downstream fishery and expanded
recreation with a value that far exceeds that of the farms, a
co-author of the reports said Friday.
Three reports by U.S. Geological Survey economists andother
researchers were completed last year and went through review by
outside scientists. But their submission to scientific journals has
been delayed by high administration officials, said Andrew Sleeper, a
consulting statistician who helped write one of the reports.
"They are basically holding it up for publication for some internal
political reasons," he said. "He said it's unclear who is blocking
release of the reports, except that it's "someone high up in the
Department of Interior."
Federal officials Friday denied suppressing the reports.
The delay coincides with the historic die-off of more than 33,000
migrating adult slamon in the lower Klamath river. The kill is linked
by government biologists and others to the diversion of water to
upriver farms, although Bush administration officials say that linkage
is not scientifically supported.
The Geological Survey's reports emerge less than a week since a
biologist with the National Marine Fisheries Service alleged the Bush
administration overroad his recommendations to leave more water in the
Klamath River for salmon.
Farmers in the Klamath Project on the oregon-California line who last
year lost their water to salmon and other protected fish received a
full supply this year. But that left less water for the fishn, and
September's massive die-off put the Klamath region back in the
spotlight.
Federal officials acknowledged that the reports, weighing the value
of fisheries and recreation, may well have been finished more than a
year ago and undergone peer review. But because the reports involved
the controversial Klamath Basin, they said, the findings faced an
additional "policy review" in which officials at the field, regional
and national level must approve them.
"Klamath is a senstive subject both politically and scientifically,
so anything involving it goes through the extra steps," said Doug
Posson, director of the Geological Survey's Fort Collins Science
Center in Fort Collins, Colo., where the reports were written.
He said the policy review ensures the findings do not advocate a
particular positiona nd offers a "heads up" to high-level officials
and affected groups, such as Klamath farmers. The extra steps are
unlikely to add more than a few weeks to the review process, he said.
But Sleeper said he last worked on his portion of the reports in June
2001 and is puzzled that they have not made it into print. The Wall
Street Journal on Friday revealed their existence.
"I did work on this paper, and my business as a consultant depends on
having my information out there," Sleeper said Friday. "I'd like to
have it out so people can see it and weight it and decide if they
agree or disagree."
The reports rely on surveys of people visiting the Klamath River and
its tributaries to calculate the value to the regional economy of
fishing and boating, along with other recreational activities. The
reports put a high price on the value of the time people spend in the
region, which may raise questions about the resports' findings, Posson
said.
The goal of the studies was to attach dollar values to restoration of
the Klamath system so federal agencies could make more informed
decisions about how to allocate water, Sleeper said. But Sleeper said
the studies reveal that federal decisions routing limited water to
farmers may overlook the dollar value of leaving th water in the
Klamath River to support healthy fish runs.
"I think people have underestimated the economic impact of not just
the water itself, but also the recreational activities that depend on
it," he said.
The reports studied the cost of buying out farmland in the Klamath
Project, creating reserves alongside rivers and streams, and letting
water flow freely around Klamath River dams. They also looked at
leaving less water in the Trinity River, a Klamath tributary largely
diverted to California's Central Valley.
Together, those and related actions would cost about $5 billion. But
the eventual benefits would total some $36 billion in increased
fishing opportunities and recreational spending, the reports say.
Recreation now generates an estimated $800 million each year,
compared with about $100 million in farm revenue, the reports say.
Klamath farmers and Oregon State University researchers, however, have
placed farm revenue as high as $250 million.
But a spokeswoman for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, which decides
how to allocate Klamath water, said the agency has to comply with its
legal obligations to provide water to farms and tribes before it can
weigh such far-reaching economic impacts.
"I don't think it's up to us to decide what's economically beneficial
to a community," said Trudy Harlow, the spokeswoman. "We simply have
to comply with what the courts and the law, and the other constraints
we have, tell us we have to do."
Farmers and their allies in the Klamath Basin questioned why the
reports ame to light only days after the allegations that the
administration overruled the calls of biologists and in the wake of
the salmon die-off. Biologists attribute the die-off to a combination
of low river levels, high temperatures and disease, but the
administration maintains the cause is not clear.
"It's another stone they're throwing at the Klamath Basin," said Bob
Gasser, a fertilizer dealer in the town of Merrill. "People are saying
here's one more way to get rid of the farmers, and they're taking
another shot at us. We don't want to get bought out, but they didn't
ask us."

Comment by poster: When does political embarrassment overrule
scientifically reviewed, peer-reviewed studies? Answer: Now.

Daniel B. Wheeler
www.oregonwhitetruffles.com