PNP comment: I stopped copying the article at a paragraph that is such a blatant lie, I can hardly stand to even post this on PNP. Gee wiz. The Feds pulsed Trinity River with cold water that brought up chinook salmon from the Pacific Ocean (not endangered species) in a hot August during the natural drought of 2002.

Also, locals claim a meth lab dumped its garbage in there; and I talked to someone who arrived at the scene of the dead salmon in 2002, who said that “everything” was dead, not just salmon from a salmon disease.

Oh, and guess how long it took the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to show up to investigate?  Yep, 10 days!  And it was not much more than an hour’s drive from their Eureka, CA. office. That incident was so stinkin’ fishy. No pun intended. They did then test the water and found no chemicals and only took one fish to examine. Looked to me like they didn’t want to find anything, but the lies they spewed.

Oh, and under the Karuk Treaty with the U.S. government in 1851, they have no fishing rights except at Ishi Pishi Falls.  The Yuroks do have a fishing right under their Treaty, which is 50 percent of the returning salmon. And the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service contracts with the Yuroks to count the fish, who nearly always cry there is not enough. Hum, looks like the fox is watching the hen house. — Editor Liz Bowen 

  By Tony Barboza,

Los Angeles Times

PNP comment: There has been a BIG push by Greenies, Tribes and fed agencies to push the KBRA in large, well-known newspapers recently. They make it sound like it is a DONE DEAL. 

It is NOT.

Bottom line: There will be millions of dollars in “restoration” monies for these Greenie groups, several Tribes and government agencies to continue a welfare existence. Even though taking out the dams will kill the fish, wildlife, destroy water quality for years and dump huge amounts of toxic sediment into the Klamath River and allow the unfiltered spread of noxious weeds, whereever water recedes.

Also, the salmon have swam 191 miles up the Klamath River, when they reach the first dam — Irongate Dam. They typically have sores and are ready to spawn and die, which they do in the Irongate Fish Hatchery. If we need more fish, they can certainly increase the number to release from the hatchery. 

So our mantra remains:

 SAVE the dams and we will SAVE the fish, wildlife, streambeds and water quality. Simple. — Editor Liz Bowen

The Wall Street Journal

Landmark 2008 Pact to Aid Region Remains in Limbo as a New Drought Hits

By JIM CARLTON

KLAMATH FALLS, Ore.—One of the most bitter water wars in the West is erupting again.

This past week, the Klamath County Commission in southeastern Oregon and Gov. John Kitzhaber both declared a drought emergency to help make farmers eligible for federal subsidies to alleviate any losses. The agricultural county of 70,000 has been dealing with unusually dry conditions for the past four months, with farmers and ranchers saying they face potentially crippling water cutbacks by federal agencies.

If “they shut water off here, there could be some violence,” said Tom Mallams, a rancher and member of the Klamath County Commission. The drought declaration “will help defuse some of the tensions—I hope, anyway.”

The move is the latest attempt to quell water concerns in the 6,135-square-mile county of rugged sage and timber land, where one of the West’s most heated water wars broke out in 2001. At the time, federal officials shut off irrigation to thousands of acres of farmland in Oregon and California to protect endangered fish during another drought. In the aftermath, federal marshals had to be called in to stop angry farmers from reopening locked irrigation gates.

The squabbles resulted in a landmark 2008 agreement to end the fighting, including a provision by PacifiCorp, a Berkshire Hathaway  BRKB +2.21% Inc.-owned utility based in Portland, Ore., to remove four dams on the Klamath River by 2020. The agreement was unique because it brought many of the warring parties to the negotiating table, including PacifiCorp, the U.S. Interior Department and California and Oregon. At the time it was signed, many looked at the agreement as a model for resolving other water disputes in the West.

But in the five years since, the agreement has hit stumbling blocks, showing how difficult it remains to settle Western water disputes, even after the feuding sides have come together. And the recent dry conditions have renewed water tensions over who gets what. This past week’s drought declaration was partly an attempt to help protect mostly ranchers not covered by the 2008 agreement.

One big issue hindering the 2008 agreement is that the deal’s provisions have yet to be approved by Congress. The pact is languishing amid resistance in the Republican-held House to nearly $1 billion in projected federal costs to meet key goals, such as restoring wetlands.

In Klamath County, the agreement also has faced local opposition to dam removal among residents who believe it would reduce water further in the basin. In addition, locals who oppose the 2008 deal have risen in power. Last year, Mr. Mallams—a rancher who said the agreement favored farmers’ water rights over ranchers’ rights—was elected to the three-member Klamath County Commission. The commission, which had signed the 2008 agreement, voted last month to withdraw its support for the deal.

READ more:

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424127887324763404578428962610094212-lMyQjAxMTAzMDIwMTEyNDEyWj.html?mod=wsj_share_email

Hi Bruce (editor of Redding.com) … every time I try to respond to one of your editorials your system kicks me out and fails to recognize my email address, so I’m just going to take this approach to this morning’s editorial about the “Klamath Dams are going to go…”

 From Frank Galusha

This is a case of junk in and junk out.

There is no science that supports dam removal. The Hardy Flow Studies upon which the KBRA was based used a very wet period as the model, a period far removed from anything like we’ve had for about 75 years. That study was not even questioned. The reporter who digs out the facts on that one part of this fiasco will deserve a Pulitzer. Two very distinguished professors, Moyle and Mount of UC Davis told us just before the KBRA was announced there was no proof whatsoever dam removal would help the salmon or the steelhead. I have their letter – which was totally suppressed by the USFWS. There is no proof salmon ever made it beyond Keno Dam and a good deal of evidence they didn’t; no wonder the Klamath Indians revered the sucker fish. The Klamath has always been upside down, hot at the top and cold at the bottom. Even if salmon could make it to Upper Klamath Lake they would be so beat up and the water so hot they could not survive. UKL is a swamp; it is not hundreds of miles of great habitat, another lie you help spread. The algae is the result of naturally occurring phosphorous in that volcanic region. The algae feed on it, which is why the first explorers found the Upper Klamath to be pea-soup green and shallow enough to walk across and even non-existent at times during dry periods in late summer prior to building the dams. We also know TMDL data was jiggered by our own Water Quality Control Board so PacifiCorp had no choice but to sign the KHSA. We also know the river and the lake are totally unsuited for Coho Salmon, a coastal species that cannot survive in a Mediterranean-like climate such as we have in the Upper River, Scott/Shasta and the Klamath Basin – they never did and they never will – they are only there now because we started planting them as mitigation for putting in the dams in the late 1960’s and they have been falsely listed under the ESA – a bad law that needs fixing. Old-timers have told me repeatedly they never caught a Coho prior to the late 60’s or early 70’s in the Upper Klamath. We also know we had a record Chinook run in the Klamath last year, despite having the dams, which proves our salmon population fluctuations are due to conditions primarily beyond our control; namely, ocean conditions where Chinook spend about 5/6^th of their lives. Even if we destroyed the dams, which could destroy the Chinook run totally, we would at best only be giving the fish a few more miles of habitat, not even as much than we are giving the Sac Run in South Battle Creek – a sensible solution that everyone backs. Bruce, what we have had in the Upper Klamath for years has been a full employment act for the tribes, the environmentalists and other assorted special interest groups especially lawyers, who are thriving on government/taxpayer money or funds donated by naïve do-gooders to whom you have fed lies for years. If you want to save the fish, start advocating for no gillnetting by the tribes or the use of science to clean up the water behind the dams. Hell, Bruce, if we can make sewage water potable surely we can reduce the toxic algae build up behind the dams and find a way to eliminate the deadly fish diseases in the Upper Klamath that will only be worsened by dam removal. I’ll bet we could do it for a fraction of the money spent so far promoting lies about the dams, including the lie that blue green algae are harmful to humans. In all of this you are complicit. That’s right! You do nothing but spread big lies, something which is absolutely unforgiveable in a journalist. Paul Houser revealed the lies being told and he was railroaded and you went along with the purge. An entire team of KB scientists were let go because they dared to tell the truth – and you backed the inquisition. And you continue to support the lying DOI and other agencies and organizations that have everything to gain and nothing to lose if dams are removed. Losing green hydropower means nothing to you but it is killing agriculture and ranching just a few hour’s drive from your easy chair. I’m ashamed of you and my daily paper.  Frank

By TIM HEARDEN

Capital Press

Posted: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 11:50 AM

YREKA, Calif. – A former U.S. Bureau of Reclamation senior science adviser is criticizing the Interior Department’s review of his scientific integrity complaint about the Klamath River dam removal process.

Paul Houser, who reached a settlement with the government in December after claiming he was fired last year for speaking out, argues the government has failed to evaluate the full scope of his complaint.

Houser alleged last year that officials wrote a summary and news release to elicit support for dam removal while downplaying negative remarks from scientists that were in the full reports.

A panel assembled to investigate Houser’s allegations reported it did not find evidence that a communications official had “deviated from the standard practice” of the department, although it did conclude “the issue of how scientific uncertainty is represented in press releases needs to be addressed” by officials.

“The end result is that my scientific integrity complaint has been dismissed without being fully investigated or even cogently considered, and continues the department’s record of never finding itself in violation of its own scientific integrity policy,” Houser wrote in a rebuttal.

Houser, 42, became a darling of Klamath dam removal opponents and tea party activists after he went public about his February 2012 departure from Reclamation, over which he filed federal whistleblower and scientific-integrity complaints.

In a speech to a local group here last May, he said it appeared top Interior officials had already decided they wanted the dams out and were seeking the science to back up their decision.

A George Mason University professor and former National Aeronautics and Space Administration scientist, Houser was hired by the bureau in 2011 to oversee the scientific studies on the Klamath project, which would include the removal of four dams as well as numerous river-restoration efforts.

Houser reached a settlement with the agency over his whistleblower complaint after mediation with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel. Terms of the agreement required that neither side disclose specifics about the outcome.

Houser’s allegations that scientific data about the project was manipulated for political purposes was investigated separately. Interior officials have said a scientific integrity website was added to demonstrate the department’s commitment to transparency.

Agency spokeswoman Jessica Kershaw declined to comment about Houser’s rebuttal, saying in an email the panel’s report “really should speak for itself.”

Online

Summary of scientific integrity panel report: http://www.doi.gov/scientificintegrity/closed-cases.cfm

Paul Houser rebuttal: http://www.peer.org/assets/docs/doi/3_25_13_Houser_rebuttal.pdf

PNP comment: We are so digusted that a government agency no longer has checks and balances. There is no REAL over-sight — just continued cover-up for lies and fraud. We support Dr. Paul R. Houser and his findings. — Editor Liz Bowen

Complaint Deemed Factual but Inaccuracies Excused as “Normal Practice”
Published on Mar 25, 2013 – 1:51:39 PM

By: Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER)

http://yubanet.com/california/Interior-Denies-Spinning-Klamath-Science.php#.UVR7cFdj8pG

Washington, DC March 25, 2013 – The U.S. Interior Department has rejected a complaint from one of its own Scientific Integrity Officers that it presented distorted summaries of studies on the effects of a still-pending decision to remove dams in the Klamath River.  Interior’s review confirmed the substance of the complaint but concluded that blatant inaccuracies and critical omissions did not constitute scientific misconduct, according to a response posted today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

Dr. Paul Houser, a hydrometeorologist, took leave from his university position to become a Science Advisor to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and to serve as its Scientific Integrity Officer.  In September 2011, he was asked to look over a draft press release and a summary of analyses on expected effects of removing four dams from the Klamath.  The release described only positive aspects, omitting a number of major contingencies, uncertainties and possible negative effects.  He elevated these concerns to the Secretary’s office.  Although Reclamation’s technical staff seconded his objections and the release was ultimately changed, two weeks later he was put on probationary status and the Department took numerous related retaliatory actions.  In February 2012, his position was terminated. Dr. Houser then filed a complaint that the actions against him violated the core tenets of the Interior Scientific Integrity Policy that he was formerly administering.

To help review the complaint Interior hired a consultant firm; the firm convened a three-member panel and produced a report in August that was only released last week.  The panel concluded that the complaint was factually correct but did not amount to misconduct for some very curious reasons.  For example –

·         Instances of “false precision” (where a summary has a finding that does not exist in the studies it purports to summarize) are dismissed because they are “not inconsistent” with the underlying studies;

·         Repeated inaccuracies – all slanted in one direction – in these short documents are excused by a panel finding that it is “normal practice” for press releases to exhibit hyperbole or falsities; and

·         Explicit efforts to prevent these concerns from being put into writing were discounted because the panel found them “not sufficiently unusual” to be “automatically alarmed” by them.

“By blessing abuse as ‘standard practice’ this review stood Interior’s scientific integrity policy on its head,” said Dr. Paul Houser, who also filed a whistleblower retaliation complaint which has since been resolved. “I feel like I fell through the looking glass into a world propelled by circular reasoning.”

Although the panel interviewed no witnesses, did not question Dr. Houser nor did any kind of actual investigation, it made findings about motives and intent of several of the actors inside Interior.  Rather than conduct its own inquiry, Interior’s Scientific Integrity Officer, Dr. Suzette Kimball, accepted the panel’s conclusions as “definitive” and formally declared the complaint to be “Not Warranted.” Her ruling came in a January 29, 2013 letter which did not include a copy of the report on which it was based.

“It is becoming obvious that Interior’s scientific integrity process suffers from a glaring lack of integrity,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, noting that no scientific misconduct complaints filed under Interior’s integrity rules have been found to have merit.  “These rules were created at the behest of President Obama to root out rampant political manipulation of science yet in more than two years Interior has managed not to find a single instance of it.”

Read Dr. Houser’s rebuttal

Revisit the original complaint

See the consultant report

View Interior’s adoption of the report

Look at Interior’s dismissal of every scientific misconduct complaint

See resolution of Dr. Houser’s whistleblower retaliation complaint

This involves Klamath Dams, power rate hikes to pay for these ‘conservation plans’ and activities.

* COMMENTS DUE -PacifiCorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project Proposed Interim Operations Habitat Conservation Plan for Lost River and Shortnose Suckers
Interim means until the Klamath Settlement is terminated or the Klamath dams are destroyed
“PacifiCorp is funding long-term …water quality monitoring to support dam removal…”
PacifiCorp has already contributed $millions for land acquisitions and restoration to flood former ag lands in the Klamath Basin
PacifiCorp contributed and will contribute hundreds of thousands $ to The Nature Conservancy restoration projects. National Fish and Wildlife Foundation will administer Sucker Conservation Fund
PacifiCorp will recover costs through rate hikes to customers

* NEWS RELEASE – Draft environmental assessment of PacifiCorp’s Habitat Conservation Plan available for public comment – comments due March 29, 2013

NEWS RELEASE: Siskiyou County challenges critical habitat designations for Northern Spotted Owl, Siskiyou County, posted to KBC 3/24/13

www.klamathbasincrisis.org

Klamath County Commissioners withdraw from KBRA 

/12/13 Order by Klamath County Commissioners to withdraw from KBRA/Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement.

                        Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement/dam removal agreement; Can they do that?, H&N 3/10/13.
Followed by:

What does KBRA say about opting out?

What’s next for the KBRA?

Will the commissioners decision effect dam removal?

Reactions to the commissioner’s decision?

How to guarantee water?

KBC News Note- in a nutshell: Klamath County ousted 3 pro-KBA commissioners in the past 2 elections and voted in 3 commissioners who oppose the KBRA.

Citizens were denied a vote on whether they supported or opposed the KBRA so they voted for these 3 men to represent them. KCC voted to withdraw from the KBRA. Herald and News supports the KBRA, and the the above link contains their stories.

Siskiyou County was allowed a vote and they voted to oppose it.

Dozens of environmental groups, government agencies, tribes and Klamath Water Users Association are demanding Klamath County remain in the controversial dam-removal KBRA against the wishes of their constituents.

www.klamathbasincrisis.org

PNP comment: We stand by Tom Mallams. The KBRA is an “agreement” not a contract. It is called the “Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement.” The Greenies are just angry they can not threaten Mallams and the other two Klamath County Commissioners into submission. — Editor Liz Bowen         

3/3/13 – James 3:13-18, “Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show by good conduct that his works are done in the meekness of wisdom. But if you have bitter envy and self-seeking in your hearts, do not boast and lie against the truth. This wisdom does not descend from above, but is earthly, sensual, demonic.

For where envy and self-seeking exist, confusion and every thing evil are there. But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy. Now the fruit righteousness is shown in peace by those who make peace.”

– sent by Frank Tallerico

                        Thomas Allen Robison, Tulelake 1951-2013. (Includes the story of Tom’s parents).

Addressing KBRA a good first move, H&N letter by Al Jones, Dairy, posted to KBC 3/2/13. “The message became especially clear when both of the newly elected individuals, as citizens, were known to be against the KBRA as it is written. So do not try to tell me that the KBRA plan as currently written is supported by a majority of county voters.”

At home in Oregon’s House, First term Rep. Gail Whitsett knows her way around the Capitol, H&N, posted to KBC 3/2/13

President Obama nominates Sally Jewell for DOI Secretary – A jewel or a lump of coal? SAWS News, posted to KBC 3/2/13. “Sally Jewell, current CEO of Seattle based REI, was recently nominated by President Obama for the Secretary of the Department of Interior…REI’s bigger influence, however, has come from funneling money to radical groups via the Conservation Alliance…Alliance has contributed more than $11.2 million to grassroots conservation groups throughout North America…. Alliance funding has helped save more than 42 million acres of wildlands; protect 2,748 miles of rivers; stop or remove 25 dams; designate five marine reserves; and purchase nine climbing areas.”

www.klamathbasincrisis.org