Dr. Paul R. Houser
* Scientist and whistleblower
* expert on ‘Scientific Integrity’
* highest level scientist in the Bureau of Reclamation
* only scientist in the D.C. office
FIRED for exposing scientific fraud by Interior

Dr. Paul R. Houser biography

Klamath KBRA scientist, Dr. Paul Houser, whistleblower letter to Siskiyou County Supervisors, posted to KBC 2/27/12

Allegation of scientific and scholarly misconduct and reprisal for a disclosure concerning the biased summarization of key scientific conclusions for the Klamath River dam removal Secretarial determination process, from Dr. Paul R. Houser, Science Advisor and Scientific Integrity Officer, Bureau of Reclamation, Washington D.C., to Office of the Executive Secretariat and Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Interior, posted to KBC 2/27/12.

Dr. Houser attachments to letter to Siskiyou Supervisors, posted to KBC 3/2/12

or click here:   http://www.klamathbasincrisis.org/settlement/science/klamathhouserwhistleblowertoSiskSups022412.htm

KBC NEWS 3/19/12 – Dr. Paul R. Houser, hydrometeorologist, and expert scientist on “Scientific Integrity,” was the highest level scientist in the Bureau of Reclamation, and the only scientist in the D.C. office. Houser, whistleblower, was fired for exposing the Secretary of Interior’s “intentional falsification,” “bias,” and  “predetermined intention” to destroy the Klamath dams. 

HERE for Dr. Houser’s biography

Here for Dr. Houser’s KBC webpage.

KBC News asked Dr. Houser his opinion of Interior’s  peer review report  also of the peer reviewers?”

HERE is Dr. Houser’s review.

Dr. Paul R. Houser, Hydrometeorologist,

Review of Interior’s Klamath Dam Removal

EIS/EIR Peer-Review and Peer-Reviewers

Dr. Paul R. Houser, hydrometeorologist, and expert scientist on “Scientific Integrity,” was the highest level scientist in the Bureau of Reclamation, and the only scientist in the D.C. office. Houser was fired for exposing “intentional falsification,” “bias,” and Interior’s “predetermined intention” to destroy the Klamath dams.

HERE for Dr. Houser’s biography

Here for Dr. Houser’s KBC webpage.

KBC News posed the following question of Dr. Houser:  What is  your opinion of Interior’s peer review report of Klamath Dam Removal Overview Report pdf, and also of the peer reviewers?”

Following is Dr. Houser’s response:

“Here is my review of the review.

I note that comment 3-5: “The Summary and Findings section does not sufficiently express the uncertainties in the responses to restoration options” is generally consistent with my concerns over the September 21, 2011 “Summary of Key Conclusions” expressed in my September disclosure. Note that the summaries included in the draft EIS/EIR are more detailed than the Summary of Key Conclusions, but still have bias.

Also note Comment 4-2: “Make the process of evaluating the scientific information clearer (e.g., in Section 3) and ensure that the Secretary understands the scientific limitations of the advice provided by its expert panels.” For example, the expert panels conclude that most issues could be answered only qualitatively rather than quantitatively, as would be hoped for from scientific information. As put succinctly by the final Coho/Steelhead panel report: “… a decision to proceed with the [dam removal] projects should be understood as a decision to pursue a hypothesis of increased fish production, for which there is evidentiary support for qualitative responses, but whose quantitative outcome is largely unknown” (p. 71).

Further comments of note:

Comment 5a-1: “The Overview Report does not discuss the range of potential outcomes and associated unknowns to the degree expressed in the original technical reports”.

Comment 5b-1: “The KBRA includes discussions on fish restoration and several other key factors associated with dam removal. The document does, however, acknowledge that specific implementation processes have not been thoroughly developed. Because of this, some uncertainty exists about the overall effectiveness of implementation efforts”.

Comment 7a-1: “The risks and uncertainties of dam removal are not as clear, particularly in the Executive Summary, as they should be. Certain aspects of the system response to restoration are better defined (more certain) than others. Such distinctions are important. Recommendation: Edit the Overview Report to highlight the distinction between what is known with confidence and critical uncertainties”.

The reviews also point out inadequate discussion and accounting for the impact of reservoir sediment transport or contaminants. This is a critical omission that could have devastating effects on the current healthy downstream fisheries.

Finally, I am concerned about a peer-review with pre-determined questions. It is possible that the peer-reviewers may only address the questions they are presented, rather than looking at the broad credibility of the report. Peer reviews of scientific papers usually do not have such specific questions, so the reviewers are more broadly tasked with assessing the technical validity of the science presented. The peer reviewers are certainly impressive scientists. However, I note that they include a history professor, a power regulatory consultant, a senior scientist for the Nature Conservancy, a dam-removal engineer, and a salmon recovery professor. This appears to not be an impartial panel, and one with a number of obvious conflicts of interest.”

Best Regards, Paul

Dr. Paul R. Houser, Hydrometeorologist

Mobile:301-613-3782 | Fax:410-970-6643 | prhouser@gmail.com

====================================================

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

Great radio show last Sunday, March 11, 2012

Paul R. Houser Ph.D. questions integrity of science — it was his job and Dept. of Interior fired him.

He was told the Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar wanted the Klamath dams removed.  “I was concerned about the science.”

 Click on the right side the date:  March 11, 2012  The Dam Whistleblower  Dr. Houser

http://www.teapartymedia.net/20120311/index.htm

Then listen to Scott Valley POW supporters Mike Adams and Tom Pease talk about more Siskiyou issues.

This is a two hour show.

Newsletter from Senator Doug Whitsett

Dr. Paul R. Houser is the whistleblower who was recently fired by the United States Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau) for publicly expressing his concerns regarding the integrity of the science being used to justify the removal of the four PacifiCorp hydroelectric dams on the Klamath river.

Houser is a PhD professor that teaches advanced degrees at George Mason University. He worked for three years as an award winning scientist for the United States Geological Survey and for eight years at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center studying the hydrometerology of outer space. He has written one of the largest portfolios of peer reviewed and refereed scientific papers that I have ever seen attributed to a single scientist.

Dr. Houser was employed by the Bureau in April of 2011 to serve as the agency’s top ranked scientist and was one of the highest ranking scientists in the entire federal government. He was hired to be the Bureau’s Science Advisor and Scientific Integrity Officer. It was his job to review and insure the scientific veracity, honesty, reliability and reproducibility of the agency’s scientific conclusions and publications.

Dr. Houser’s first allegation is intentional falsification motivated by Secretary Salazar’s 2009 public statement that the Klamath Dam removal “will not fail” indicating a predetermined intention to issue a Secretarial determination in favor of removing the four dams on the Klamath River. He alleges this intention to spin or incompletely report the scientific results was later confirmed by his supervisory Deputy Commissioner’s declaratory statement that “the Secretary wants to remove those dams”. He further states that the Summary of Key Conclusions: Draft EIS/EIR and Related Scientific/Technical Reports “intentionally distorts and generally presents a biased view of the Klamath River dam removal benefits. It intends to present only the positive, without the uncertainties or negatives. This is ascertained by comparing the summary with the underlying Klamath River Expert Panel Reports compiled by Atkins”.

Specific examples include:

Climate changes are projected to play an important role in fish recovery but climate change is never mentioned in the summary.

The summary section on Chinook Salmon recovery projects an 81.4 percent recovery, but says nothing about the nine contingencies summarized in a June 13, 2011, Klamath River Expert Panel Final Report that could completely negate that projected recovery.

The summary states that Coho salmon reclaim 68 miles of habitat but says nothing about the Klamath River Expert Panel Report stating that the difference between the proposed action and current conditions is expected to be small especially in the short term. Intentionally omitting information in the summary distorts and falsifies the science.

The summary states that dam removal will likely reduce salmon disease, but does not properly state the Klamath River Expert Panel Final Report concern about the very high uncertainty of the conclusions.

The summary also spins an optimistic outlook for Steelhead trout, providing access to 420 miles of historic habitat but does not adequately mention the Klamath River Expert Panel Final Report findings that this success would be contingent on improving water quality to meet the standards of the Total Maximum Daily load on the Klamath River. Failure to meet those unattainable standards would result in no detectable response.

Several other Bureau employees confirmed Dr. Houser’s stated concerns and one Assistant Regional Director specifically agreed that the summary lacked integrity and presented a biased description to the public. He also expressed deep concern that the Bureau’s attorneys were so heavily involved in writing the scientific reports!

Dr. Houser’s second allegation accuses the Bureau of “intentionally circumventing policy that ensures the integrity of science and scholarship and actions that comprise scientific and scholarly integrity”. He alleges that when he made his concerns known to the Bureau’s press officer and to his supervisors those concerns were not only substantially ignored but significant efforts were made to suppress those concerns from the public. Dr. Houser’s stated concerns were not substantially included in the Bureau’s published summary. Further, he was repeatedly advised to not transmit his report allegations by ‘discoverable record’ email. In fact, he specifically alleges that the Deputy Area Manager, Klamath Basin Area Office, Bureau of Reclamation “pointed out that the Klamath River dam removal is not my job, and warned against creating discoverable records”.

Dr. Houser “was concerned if the department was summarizing the science in a biased manner, that the same bias may infuse the March 2012 Klamath River dam removal Secretarial determination”. He alleges that when he tried to do the job that he was hired to do his report was ignored, suppressed and denigrated. Further, he was eventually fired for submitted his report in a “discoverable record” that would be subject of Freedom of Information Act disclosure.

Department of Interior Secretary Salazar indefinitely postponed his Secretarial determination on the Monday following the Friday public disclosure of Dr. Houser’s allegations of scientific and scholarly misconduct and reprisal.

The Bureau had previously commissioned another report on the Klamath River dams by Camp, Dresser, and Mckee, Inc. entitled “Evaluation and Determination of Potential Liability Associated with the Decommissioning and removal of the Four Hydroelectric Dams on the Klamath River by Any Agent”. In my opinion, the very many potentially significant adverse findings in that report also have been suppressed, ignored, and denigrated by the Bureau.

Dr. Houser’s report appears to describe a systemic culture of intentional falsification of scientific findings within the Bureau for the purpose of confirming the validity of predetermined political intentions. He describes a culture that fears to challenge that ethos for trepidation of reprisal and fear of being fired and prevented from finding further government employment. He describes a near complete nullification of the true scientific method where challenges are invited and freely and truthfully answered. How can a valid peer review process survive in the chilling culture that he describes?

I believe that no less than a full Congressional hearing of this matter is warranted wherein the actors in these alleged activities are subpoenaed to testify under oath and penalty of perjury.

Please remember, if we do not stand up for rural Oregon no one will.

Best regards,

Doug

State election regulations prohibit the use of state media facilities by a candidate within sixty days of an election. That blackout period begins March 16^th and ends at the May 15^th primary election. Therefore, I will not be publishing my e-newsletter at this site during that period. Please check my website @ www.dougwhitsett.com for further commentaries during the blackout period.

Doug

LOS ANGELES –  NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory has landed robotic explorers on the surface of Mars, sent probes to outer planets and operates a worldwide network of antennas that communicates with interplanetary spacecraft.

Its latest mission is defending itself in a workplace lawsuit filed by a former computer specialist who claims he was demoted — and then let go — for promoting his views on intelligent design, the belief that a higher power must have had a hand in creation because life is too complex to have developed through evolution alone.

David Coppedge, who worked as a “team lead” on the Cassini mission exploring Saturn and its many moons, alleges that he was discriminated against because he engaged his co-workers in conversations about intelligent design and handed out DVDs on the idea while at work. Coppedge lost his “team lead” title in 2009 and was let go last year after 15 years on the mission.

Opening statements are expected to begin Monday in Los Angeles Superior Court after two years of legal wrangling in a case that has generated interest among supporters of intelligent design. The Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian civil rights group, and the Discovery Institute, a proponent of intelligent design, are both supporting Coppedge’s case.

“It’s part of a pattern. There is basically a war on anyone who dissents from Darwin and we’ve seen that for several years,” said John West, associate director of Center for Science and Culture at the Seattle-based Discovery Institute. “This is free speech, freedom of conscience 101.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/03/11/former-nasa-specialist-claims-was-fired-over-intelligent-design/#ixzz1ovHy591s

March 10, 2012 from 11 am – 12   Saturday

Dr Paul Houser is whistleblower on DOI corruption in releasing true science on Klamath dam removal. Houser was top scientist for Bureau of Reclamation

http://www.kykn.com/   listen live

AUDIO HERE – Scientist Dr. Paul Houser, Klamath Dam removal whistleblower, 45-minute interview on I Spy On Salem Radio Show. In 2009 Secretary of the Interior Salazar said the effort to remove the Klamath hydro dams “WILL NOT FAIL.”

Houser, a renown scientist who has earned many awards, the highest level scientist in the Bureau of Reclamation, was fired because he exposed the proven agenda of the Obama administration.

His boss who fired him, Deputy Commissioner of the BOR Kira Finkler, was promoted to her position from TROUT UNLIMITED by the President into the Obama Administration’s 2nd top position in DC for the Bureau of Reclamation.

Trout Unlimited in an environmental group that is a voting member on the KBRA/Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, that demands the destruction of the Klamath dams.
HERE for Dr. Houser Page

Limited Government - Fiscal Responsibility - Adherence to the Constitution

Live on Sunday mornings 8 – 10 AM

KCNR 1460 AM Shasta/Redding

If you miss the show or live outside the listening area:

WeThePeopleRadio.us

Streaming live & chatting on Sundays -or- Listen to previous shows anytime

Dr. Paul Houser 

Ph.D Hydrometeorology

Professor of hydrology at George Mason University

How’s this for starters … 

SHORT BIOGRAPHY

Dr. Houser is an expert in local to global land surface-atmospheric remote sensing, in-situ observation and numerical simulation, development and application of hydrologic data assimilation methods, and global water and energy cycling. He received his B.S. and Ph.D. degrees inHydrology and Water Resources from the University of Arizona in 1992 and 1996 respectively.

Don’t miss this show! Catch it live or later in the archive!

Paul Houser, an associate professor of hydrology at George Mason University, told the Record Searchlight newspaper he was fired by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation after questioning the positive spin U.S. Department of Interior officials were putting on scientific studies that supported dam removal.

Klamath KBRA scientist whistleblower letter to Siskiyou County Supervisors

Dear Supervisors Cook, Valenzuela, Kobseff, Bennett, and Armstrong,

I know you are concerned about the Klamath Secretarial determination process, so I wanted to bring to your attention to an allegation of scientific and scholarly misconduct and reprisal for a whistleblower disclosure I made concerning the biased summarization of key scientific conclusions for the Klamath River dam removal Secretarial determination process.

An example of this intentional biased (falsification) reporting of scientific results by the Department of the Interior is contained in the September 21, 2011 “Summary of Key Conclusions: Draft EIS/EIR and Related Scientific/Technical Reports”. There are many other examples of integrity issues outlined in the attached allegation.

I made this disclosure when I held the position of Science Advisor for the Bureau of Reclamation. Unfortunately, as a result of the disclosure, I have faced systematic reprisal and termination of my employment. I have opened a case with the Department of the Interior, Office of the Inspector General (OIG) and I plan to file the attached scientific integrity allegation. I also plan to appeal the termination of my position to the Office of Special Council (OSC) and the Merit Systems Protection Board
(MSPB).

I hope that this situation is of interest to you, and if so, I am hoping that you would be willing to advocate on my behalf and/or on behalf of good science-informed decision making in the Klamath Basin. I have been treated wrongly by the Department of the Interior, but m decisions about the Klamath dam removal process are being compromised by scientific integrity issues.

Best Regards, Paul

Dr. Paul R. Houser, Associate Professor | George Mason University

Dam release whistleblower said Siskiyou County leaked case to press – Yreka, CA – Siskiyou Daily News

http://www.siskiyoudaily.com/news/x1785605255/Dam-release-whistleblower-said-Siskiyou-County-leaked-case-to-press

Dam release whistleblower said Siskiyou County leaked case to press

By John Bowman

Siskiyou Daily News

March 2, 2012

Yreka, Calif. — The former Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) employee who filed a whistleblower complaint against the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) this week told the Daily News that he never intended to go public with his allegations.

On Feb. 24, Paul Houser, former scientific advisor for the BOR, filed the complaint against the DOI alleging scientific misconduct regarding a September 2011 press release for the Draft EIS/EIR for Klamath Facilities Removal. In addition to filing the complaint, he also sent a letter to the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors asking for its support in his fight against DOI.

“I didn’t intend to go public with these allegations,” Houser told the Daily News Thursday. “It was Siskiyou County that leaked it to the press.”

He said that made him “a little nervous,” but said so far he feels that the press coverage has been fairly accurate.

Houser – who said in his official complaint that reviewing press releases was not in his job description – said he was given the release “casually” by a co-worker.

Upon reviewing the release, Houser says he was concerned that it did not adequately convey the inherent uncertainties of dam removal and instead focused too heavily on the possible benefits.

In an official statement regarding Houser’s accusations, DOI stated, “It is important to note that nobody is questioning the integrity of the science itself, and nobody is questioning the fact that all of the studies, reports and data are available for anyone and everyone to see, review and draw their own conclusions.”

Houser said he didn’t have complaints about the underlying science.

“The expert panel reports look pretty good,” he said, adding that  he was primarily concerned with the way DOI was summarizing the findings for its press release.

For example, Houser said he was concerned about the release omitting the expert panel’s warnings that projected salmon population increases after dam removal would be largely contingent upon the successful implementation of the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA).

The complete expert panel reports, along with the Draft EIS/EIR, have been publicly available since Sept. 21, 2011 – the day the press release was issued.

On Feb. 8, Finkler was given a notice of termination.

“The Department of the Interior does not comment on personnel matters due to privacy concerns of the individuals involved,” a DOI press release regarding the incident said.  “We look forward to the result of any independent review of the facts and believe all actions will be proven to be fully justified.”

Houser reiterated that his motivation was not to save the dams.

“I’m not an advocate for keeping the dams in,” Houser told the Daily News. “I’m an advocate for scientific integrity. I can see pros and cons for taking the dams out, but taking them out does seem kind of extreme.”

Though he is not an expert on Klamath River fisheries or dam removal, Houser said he thinks a compromise solution might be best. He said he would suggest taking one or two dams out and using high-tech fish ladders on the others.

In his allegation statement Houser says, “The construction of PacifiCorp’s hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River combined with irrigated agriculture, both beginning in the early 1900s, contributed to declines in fisheries and water quality as well as to detrimental impacts to tribal resources and culture throughout the Klamath Basin.”

Houser told the Daily News that in June 2011, during a half-day tour of the Klamath dams with BOR and PacifiCorp scientists, the conversation was “open and free.” He said the scientists talked about the difficulties and tensions surrounding the proposed dam removal and told him a story about past threats of violence against visiting BOR officials.

At the time of his September 2011 disclosure of concerns, Houser said he was aware of the existing allegations by Siskiyou County and other dam removal opponents regarding possible bias by DOI.

“I knew about Salazar’s statement that dam removal should not fail,” Houser said, “and I studied the documents on the web and found out about Siskiyou County’s opposition. I had a few conversations and read a few articles. But I didn’t know what I was walking into.”

After the allegations were filed and the board of supervisors letter was sent, Houser said he received a call from Siskiyou County Counsel Tom Guarino “checking to see if I am who I say I am.”

He said he also received “a couple of supportive emails from the supervisors thanking me for fighting back.”

Houser said that’s the extent of his communications with the county so far.

Regarding Houser’s claim that Siskiyou County was responsible for leaking his accusations to the press, District 1 Supervisor Jim Cook said, “It wasn’t our intention to leak it to the press, so I’m not sure who did that.”

District 5 Supervisor Marcia Armstrong said she did not give the information to any press outlets, but added that Houser’s communications did not identify the information as confidential.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit
research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

This information and much more that you need to know about the ESA,
the Klamath River Basin, and private property rights can be found at The
Klamath Bucket Brigade’s web site – http://klamathbucketbrigade.org/index.html –
please visit today.

Capital Press

Posted: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 1:40 PM

REDDING, Calif. (AP) — A scientist who advised a federal agency on ethical issues that included removing Klamath River dams has filed a whistleblower complaint over his firing.

Paul Houser, an associate professor of hydrology at George Mason University, told the Record Searchlight newspaper (http://bit.ly/wP3kXP ) he was fired by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation after questioning the positive spin U.S. Department of Interior officials were putting on scientific studies that supported dam removal.

Department of the Interior spokeswoman Kate Kelly says Houser’s complaint is being reviewed.

PacifiCorp wants to remove its four aging hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River rather than pay to upgrade them to meet modern salmon protections.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced this week he can’t make the decision on dam removal until Congress gives him the authority.

Read it at:

http://www.capitalpress.com/newsletter/AP-klamath-whistleblower-022912

___

Information from: Record Searchlight, http://redding.com