04-11-2002, 05:41 PM
|
|
|
Klamath Water study alledgedly suppressed
In article ,
writes:
From The Oregonian, Nov. 2, 2002, p A1
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.
Not just questions, they invalidate the survey entirely. The reports
assign a full economic value to people's recreation time based on what
they say their hourly rate at work is. The entire dollar amount stated
in the report is nothing but a fantasy. Nobody actually spent that
money, or even a small percentage of that money, in the Klamath basin.
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.
An honest report would have compared the current recreational revenues
with potential enhanced revenues if additional water was released.
Instead, the report implies that if farmers continue to irrigate,
recreation will not exist.
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.
It would take a century to pay back a $5 billion investment from
recreation revenues. The river recreation industry in the Klamath Basin
(fishing, hunting, camping, swimming) only generates $300 million
annually, and would only increase fractionally with increased water flow.
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.
It looks like somebody is cooking the books again. Are they adding golf
courses to their recreation figures, or what?
[...]
"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."
Nobody will ever ask Bob, because nobody proposes buying out the
businesses that depend on agriculture, like fertilizer and farm implement
dealerships. Bob and his family will just turn into displaced people and
his business will be driven into bankruptcy. The entire economy of the
Klamath Basin is based on agriculture, but they don't propose to buy out
Mom's Diner. Mom can just hit the road.
Comment by poster: When does political embarrassment overrule
scientifically reviewed, peer-reviewed studies? Answer: Now.
It looks to me like they just decided not to propagate a bunch of ill
conceived propaganda with phony numbers.
--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc
|