http://pioneer.olivesoftware.com/Olive/ODE/HeraldandNews/

Newsmakers: Husband and wife team could bridge chambers gap

By Devan Schwartz

H&N Staff Reporter

December 14, 2012

Rep.-elect Gail Whitsett, R-Dist. 56, is no stranger to Salem, having served as chief of staff for her husband, State Sen. Doug Whitsett, R-Dist. 28. But becoming a state representative will be a big change.

“I’ll have staff now instead of being staff,” Whitsett said this week. She won a two-year term to replace retiring Republican State Rep. Bill Garrard in District 56.

Her priorities are private sector job growth, ensuring reliable delivery of water and properly connecting her constituents to available resources to improve their quality of life.

Whitsett said it’s interesting learning different protocols for legislators and staff. For example, staffers have a delineated path they must walk to get to their desks, whereas representatives and senators can cross the aisle and enter more freely.

With eight years experience as her husband’s chief of staff, Whitsett also notes differences in the two chambers. In the Senate, she said, there is a roll call by name for voting. But in the House, a general announcement is made and representatives must vote by pressing a buzzer, with only a 30-second window.

Called to Salem this week for a special session that convenes today, Whitsett has used her time to prepare for her new job while having one last hurrah as chief of staff.

“It’s been very good, enlightening,” Whitsett said, adding that it’s also been quite tiring. “I didn’t think there was that much I didn’t know — but I’m learning it now.”

Side Bars

Grounded and well-rounded

It may be an unlikely path to politics, but representative-elect Gail Whitsett draws on years of experience in geology and horse-breeding.

Blachelor’s and master’s degrees from Oregon State University led to her being recruited as a petroleum exploration geologist in a Rocky Mountain region called the Overthrust Belt.

Later, Whitsett became a petroleum consultant in North Dakota. This is the location of the Bakken Formation, an oil boom area through which the Keystone XL Pipeline is slated to run.

Also knowledgeable about horse-breeding and still the proud owner of five active mares, Whitsett’s life experiences have attuned her political expertise.

When committee assignments are given out for the upcoming session, Whitsett hopes for three committee assignments reflective of her expertise: Agriculture and Natural Resources, Transportation and Economic Development, and Energy, Environment and Water.

Government in her blood

When she was a student at Henley High School, young Gail Whitsett worked as a page for State Rep. Gary Wilhelms. She also took part in the YMCA Youth and Government Program, in which students run model governments. A prominent co-participant in the YMCA program was current Klamath County Circuit Court Judge Cameron Wogan.

And when Whitsett won a statewide Elks competition to visit our nation’s capitol, she ran into another future politician: Rep. Greg Walden (R-Dist. 2). She said they now joke about the photographs showing the congressman back when he had hair.

“I always had a real interest in government,” said Whitsett, who will be sworn in for her two-year term on Jan. 14. The session begins in February and will last about six months.

Husband and wife team

“You’re up here and you realize there haven’t been good relationships between the Senate and the House,” said Gail Whitsett, who will transition from chief of staff for her husband, State Sen. Doug Whitsett (R-Dist. 28), to a state representative of District 56.

Longtime legislators have told Whitsett they’re excited for her new position, and think she and her husband can build a bridge between the two chambers, which have been largely uncommunicative.

Whitsett has spent the last few days getting to know the “freshmen class” of incoming legislators, as well as existing colleagues from both the Republican and Democratic parties.

Husband and wife team

“You’re up here and you realize there haven’t been good relationships between the Senate and the House,” said Gail Whitsett, who will transition from chief of staff for her husband, State Sen. Doug Whitsett (R-Dist. 28), to a state representative of District 56.

Longtime legislators have told Whitsett they’re excited for her new position, and think she and her husband can build a bridge between the two chambers, which have been largely uncommunicative.

Whitsett has spent the last few days getting to know the “freshmen class” of incoming legislators, as well as existing colleagues from both the Republican and Democratic parties.

Legislative priorities

Though she won’t be sworn in until Jan. 14 and the next session doesn’t begin until February, Representative-elect Gail Whitsett is clear about her priorities.

Whitsett plans to first and foremost assist the private sector in job creation, especially in forestry and agriculture. This includes encouraging the development of sustainable logging.

Web exclusive: Former chief of staff finds new staff members

Gail Whitsett has eight years of experience as chief of staff for her husband, who must now find someone to fill her shoes as she makes the transition to State Representative.

State Sen. Doug Whitsett (R-Dist. 28) has hired Judy Trego, a former staffer for both himself and for Rep. Greg Walden (R-Dist. 2). With her experience and connections in federal politics, Gail Whitsett thinks Trego will make a great chief of staff.

For her own staff chief, the representative-elect has found Sarah Dressler, a UCLA graduate and computer expert. Dressler, who lives in Bend, will relocate to Salem during legislative sessions and other busy times involving meetings or other work.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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.

The combined annual economic output of agricultural production, food processing and related services from irrigated agriculture exceeds $128 billion in the seventeen western states. The economic output from irrigated lands attributable to the beef cattle industry ranks either first or second in fourteen of those seventeen western states.

Only 18 percent of Oregon’s more than 10 million acres of agricultural lands are irrigated. However, $3.2 billion, or 66 percent, of Oregon’s entire agricultural economic output is derived from those irrigated lands. Last year, irrigated agriculture contributed a total of nearly $3.6 billion to household income in Oregon. To put that number into perspective, it calculates to nearly a thousand dollars for every resident of our state.

The economic output attributable to Oregon’s beef cattle industry ranks second, while hay production ranks third and our dairy industry ranks fourth. The combined economic output of beef, dairy and hay production simply dwarfs any other sector of Oregon’s agricultural enterprise.
Yet irrigated agriculture and especially the ranching communities in Oregon are under siege. It is little different in the sixteen other western states.

Each year, ever more water used for crop production and processing is being purchased, leased or transferred to in-stream use for the benefit of fish and other aquatic species. In Oregon, more than twice as much water is protected in-stream for fish and recreation as is diverted for irrigating crops and growing cattle. Irrigators are compensated for these leases and transfers; however, the water will virtually never again be available for crop production once transferred to in-stream use.

Each year, ever more water used for crop production and processing is being reallocated by state and federal governments to what they consider to be more important beneficial uses.

Water used for irrigation is routinely reallocated to provide habitat for alleged threatened or endangered species. Since water supplies are not being enhanced, the only possible outcome is a diminished supply of water for irrigators. This usually occurs without compensation to the producers who have had their valuable and legal right to use that irrigation water taken from them.

Both state and federal government agencies have taken the designation of wetlands to a new art form. Virtually any land that experiences seasonal standing-water for any reason, in any amount, is in jeopardy of being named a wetland and excluded from any other use by penalty of law. Owner compensation for the loss of the use of their land through wetland designation is unheard of.

Creation of new wetlands, as well as the expansion of existing wetlands and emergent marshes, by government agencies and non-government organizations is causing the evaporation of ever more water formerly used for irrigation. An emergent marsh or wetland in Oregon may be expected to evaporate and evapo-transpire about four acre-feet of water per acre each year. The amount of water lost from a wetland or emergent marsh is nearly twice the amount used by the typical irrigator to grow an acre of hay or pasture for an entire season. The water that is lost to evaporation is no longer available for irrigation. No compensation for their property loss is generally available to the former users of that water.

Both the state of Oregon, and the federal government, have created, and continue to make more stringent, water quality standards. The water quality requirements often exceed the historical background levels before European man arrived in Oregon. These standards are not now, and never have been achievable. Never the less, they are enforced by draconian fines as well as the threat of imprisonment.

Strict enforcement of the new standards will force irrigators to stop flood irrigation in most areas. Alternative irrigation methods require significantly more energy and may be too expensive to be economically feasible, especially for pasture management. State and federal environmental policies are driving energy prices out of the reach of many agricultural enterprises. Farmers and ranchers have no choice other than to cease operations when their costs exceed their production returns.

America’s beef cattle herd is now at the smallest number it has been since the early 1950’s.

Our nation’s ability to produce inexpensive food may be the single most important reason for American prosperity. In 2010 the average American family spent only 6.7 percent of their disposable income on food costs. In contrast, food costs in the United Kingdom are at nearly ten percent of the disposable income, more than twenty percent in China and more than thirty percent in Russia.

Americans enjoy so much food security that we are able to spend more than 93 percent of our disposable income on other commodities. That ability drives our economy and sets us apart from the people of all other nations.

Unfortunately, our farmers and ranchers are growing older. They now spend as much as half of their time attending meetings and hearings attempting to secure the right to continue to make a living in agriculture. Two generations of their children have witnessed the unrelenting state and federal attack on their way of life and their rights to continue to produce food on their land. These young adults have largely chosen to seek other means of supporting their families.

It is not too late to change the government policies that are driving this migration out of, and away from, agricultural production. It is past time to stop the government persecution of are farming and ranching families.

The United States Constitution’s Fifth Amendment guarantees that no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. Isn’t it time to recognize and preserve the constitutional rights of our farming and ranching families. Isn’t it time to take action to exchange misplaced and unsustainable social progressive environmental agendas with common sense management of our agricultural resources. It has been my experience that America’s farmers and ranchers are the true stewards of our land and water resources.

In my opinion, our food security and our prosperity, as well as the rule of law, are in serious jeopardy if we fail to make the needed changes in the near future.

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

Best regards,

Doug

Hundreds of legislative proposals are drafted (LC Draft) for Oregon State Agencies by the attorneys at Legislative Counsel each legislative session. This year, the Oregon Water Resources Department (Department) has asked for LC drafts on six or more legislative proposals. At least three of the concepts should be of significant interest to all those who use the waters of the state.

LC 657 proposes to establish Department authority to change the name on a water right certificate and to establish a fee to fully pay for that service.

The name on a water right certificate is usually the name of the person, or entity, that first claimed the water right, and that originally made the improvements required to receive the permanent certificate. It has long been understood that water rights appurtenant to the land are transferred to the new land owner when the land is sold. However, the name on the certificate is usually not changed when the land irrigated by that water right is purchased.

A recent Oregon Supreme Court decision suggests that the owner of the water right is the name of the person or entity on the certificate, rather than the owner of the land to which the water right is appurtenant.

The proposed change would allow current landowners to pay to secure the water right certificate appurtenant to their land in their own name. The LC draft is not entirely clear whether the Department would have authority to change the name on a certificate without being requested to do so, or what course the Department would take if the requested name change is contested.

The change would also better enable the Department to communicate with water right holders, to improve compliance with water measurement requirements, and to clarify where to send the bill for the Department’s proposed new tax on the use of water.
LC 659 would establish a water right management tax to be charged to each of Oregon’s 85,000 holders of Oregon water rights. The tax would apply to all agricultural, industrial, municipal and in stream water rights.

The Department expects that a significant number of privately owned water rights will be abandon by their holders rather than pay the new annual tax on water. The draft is not clear on who would pay the fee for Oregon’s myriad in-stream water rights.
This tax would extract about $12 million per biennium from Oregon water users. The revenue is to be used to generally support the Department’s activities.

The concept assumes that anyone holding a permit, certificate or decree would be subject to an annual fee of $100 per water right, with a cap of $1,000 for all but municipal customers. Apparently the tax cap would not apply to municipal water rights because municipal systems have a base of rate payers that allows them to pass the cost of the water tax on to their customers.

LC 661 would expand the current water right transaction fee-schedule and then make it permanent.

The draft language increases the current fee schedules by about 13 percent across the board. It also adds a couple of additional new fees “to bring consistency” to the overall fee schedule. The Department alleges that the double digit fee increase is needed to account for increased Department costs.

In the event that this bill does not pass, a sunset clause in the current fee schedule authorization would automatically cause the fees to revert back to the amounts charged by the Department in 2003.

The recent adoption of Oregon’s Integrated Water Resources Strategy has the potential to significantly increase the regulatory activities of the Water Resources Department. Many irrigators and legislators have wondered how the Department planned to fund those activities. The answer appears to be double-digit fee increases and a new perpetual tax on the use of the waters of the state.

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

Best regards,

Doug

Last Thursday, I toured parts of the Barry Point Fire near Lakeview. The wildfire consumed more than 145 square-miles of timber and grazing resources. The devastation is truly incredible. In places the fire was more than ten miles wide. It ran for about 30 miles, crossed the state-line, and burned more than 10 miles into California.

The fire was ignited by a lightening-strike on Barry Point in the Winema-Fremont National Forest. It was reported by a lookout in mid-afternoon at about one-quarter acre in size. Within minutes it had grown to several acres and began to crown.

State forestry had a pumper on the fire within fifteen minutes. It dispatched a total of seven pumpers, two helicopters, two water-scooping airplanes and two hand crews totaling thirty firefighters that same afternoon. The fire simply exploded away from them due to extreme fuel loads, tinder dry conditions and high winds.

The fire burned extremely hot, totally consuming nearly 40,000 acres of forest and causing up to 75 percent mortality on an additional 35,000 acres of forest land. High winds fanned flames several hundred feet high and caused burning debris to start spot-fires often half a mile in front of the fire’s head. In total, it burned nearly 60,000 acres of federal forest, and more than 33,000 acres of privately owned lands.

Thankfully, there was no loss of human life, only a few minor injuries and no structures burned in the wildfire. However, the loss of public resources was immense. Additionally, more than fifty private landowners experienced significant loss of timber and grazing resources including livestock killed and injured as well as hundreds of miles of fencing destroyed. Collins Timber Company alone had more than 20,000 acres of timber plantations incinerated, mostly in California

I travelled with Lake County Commissioner Dan Shoun, Winema-Fremont Supervisor Fred Way, Oregon Department of Forestry’s Greg Pittman, and several other state and federal forestry staff members. We met with a number of the affected landowners on their property and engaged in quite candid conversations regarding the fire and its aftermath.

All of the landowners we spoke with acknowledged that the fire behavior was often extreme and that atypical winds made it more difficult to control. They expressed their sincere gratitude to all those who worked so hard to help them finally control the wildfire.

However, the fact of the matter is that many are looking at the near total destruction of the value of their property, through no fault of their own. There is virtually no chance that they will be compensated for the losses caused by the fire that originated on federal forest land.

Federal, state and private foresters alike all expressed their deep concerns regarding the non-management of the federal forest resources that lead up to this disastrous event. That lack of management has caused extreme accumulation of ground and ladder fuels that virtually ensure a fire holocaust under dry and windy summer conditions. The foresters all agree that these virtually uncontrollable wildfires will continue to occur until those management policies are meaningfully changed.

Many of the landowners voiced what appeared to be valid concerns regarding how the fire suppression effort was prosecuted.

They pointed out numerous perceived lost chances to curtail or control the fire. Opportunities to help them build close-in fire lines and burn-out were disregarded and passed over. Several owners believe action on these opportunities could have saved both private and federal resources as well as potentially achieving containment at a much earlier and less destructive time.

One consistent observation was the general lack of timely communication between federal and state employees with private land interests.  Affected landowners were not kept informed of planned fire suppression efforts either on private or public land. Private land was routinely trespassed. In some cases, private land was burned by setting backfires without either notification or permission. They believe that some of these set fires potentially endangered people and livestock.

Several owners expressed their perception that large blocks of forest and grazing resources were needlessly destroyed by igniting large backfires that did little if any good. They said there appeared to be reluctance by the federal fire team to get in close and stop the fire even during periods when the fire was laid down and moving slowly if at all.

Landowners felt their knowledge of terrain, access and wind behavior was routinely not only ignored but simply disrespected. Their privately owned fire suppression assets were too often neither solicited nor utilized in a coordinated manner.

Landowners are deeply concerned that the potential firebreak afforded by the four hundred foot wide cleared right of way above the Ruby Pipeline was not effectively utilized to stop the southern spread of the wildfire into California. In fact, two landowners observed that the federal fire overhead team made virtually no effort to stop the fire the night it crossed over that pipeline right of way. No one could tell us if the potential firebreak was even manned that night.

Many landowners conveyed concerns regarding their ability to find markets for their harvestable salvage timber. They worried about the cost of harvesting the timber and how much they would be charged to haul the salvaged logs over forest service roads.

They voiced the need to change current Oregon Forest Practices rules requiring replanting their harvested acreage. They pointed out that these costs may well exceed the value of the harvestable timber preventing them from even starting restoration efforts on their land.

Landowners also voiced concerns regarding their lost grazing resources and the delays that may be forthcoming in being allowed to resume the use of their federal grazing permits. Some commented on how quickly federal accommodations were made in California’s Region five to provide relief access to undamaged CRP and refuge grazing resources while no such accommodations were made or offered in Oregon’s region 6.

The loss of private and public timber, grazing, wildlife and watershed resources is immense. Untold numbers of elk, deer and other forest animals were killed and ancient eco-system habit destroyed. It will be generations before that vast burned-out scar will be restored. Unfortunately, the Barry Point fire is just one of dozens of similar situations in Oregon and other western states.

Our nation’s timber and grazing resources are routinely being wasted. At the same time our timber industry infrastructure is vanishing due to lack of access to public timberlands. Virtually complete management failure of federal land results in huge accumulations of grass, brush and diseased and dying trees. The predictable outcome is even more wildfires that will develop into uncontrollable holocausts that result in ever more generational losses of resources.

The status quo is simply unacceptable. I plan to work with Commissioner Shoun in his crusade to use the Barry Point fire as an example of how our state and federal policies must be changed and why common sense management must be restored.

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

Best regards,

Doug

Last week, the United States House of Representatives passed legislation that would prohibit federal agencies from encouraging people to complete government surveys by sending cash in the mail. The legislation was adopted in response to a nationwide Department of Interior sponsored survey designed to measure public opinion on the destruction of the Klamath River dams.

The Department of Interior wanted to create a full accounting of the value of restoring the Klamath River to its free flowing state. They determined a comprehensive effort must include the alleged benefits to society that are associated with non-use of the river. Non-use values include those perceived to benefit the public even though they may have never visited the Klamath Basin, never consumed Klamath River fish or otherwise ever used the resources of the Klamath River Basin.

The Department paid more than $850,000 to employ a national private agency to develop and implement the “Klamath Non-use Valuation Survey”. That Survey was mailed to more than 10,000 households nationwide. Many of the mailings included a two dollar bill as an incentive to complete the survey. A letter to those who failed to respond promised an additional $20 would be mailed if the survey was completed and returned by a specific deadline.

Congressman Scott Tipton, the legislation’s sponsor explained:
“Enticing survey responses with cash incentives to prove a societal need for a project is wrong on so many levels. First and foremost, it’s a blatant waste and abuse of taxpayers’ dollars. Collecting data this way is disingenuous, and a downright sneaky move by this administration’s cadre out-of-touch bureaucrats.”

I strongly agree with the Congressman’s observations. What is more, I believe that that this Survey represents yet another attempt by the Department of Interior to create and foster the perception that the public supports the destruction of the Klamath River dams.

The Final Report on the Klamath Non-use Valuation Survey was released to the media at about the same time that the Department’s draft Environmental Impact Statement on dam removal was published. The release of both documents appeared to be timed to set the stage for Secretary of Interior Salazar’s scheduled announcement of his decision on dam removal. It was widely anticipated that the Secretary’s decision would be to destroy the dams.

According to Dr. Paul Houser, the summary of the Environmental Impact Statement was intentionally biased to support the destruction of the dams. He alleges the document emphasizes the alleged positive aspects of taking out the dams while simply ignoring the many potential negative aspects of dam removal. Houser also alleges that the document was written by Bureau of Reclamation attorneys and was designed to support the Secretary’s predetermined conclusion that removal of the Klamath River dams is the best alternative.

Dr. Houser was the Bureau of Reclamation’s top scientist. He was hired to insure the validity and the integrity of the science employed by the Bureau. His employment was terminated by the Bureau after he made his concerns public. Dr. Houser claims that he was fired for doing the job he was hired to perform.

I believe that the Klamath Non-use Valuation Survey was also intentionally biased to persuade respondents to support the destruction of the dams.

The questionnaire provided the respondent with a series of choices between an action plan and a no-action alternative.

The action plan included the removal of the four Klamath River hydroelectric dams, river restoration and water reallocation. The wording of the questions appear to emphasize the alleged benefits of removing the dams while completely ignoring significant and costly disadvantages.
For instance, the dollar value of the more than 550 gigawatts (billion watts) of hydroelectric generation that will be lost by the destruction of the dams was not quantified. The cost of replacing that lost generation capacity with more expensive alternative renewables was not calculated.

The Survey did not describe the approximately 20 million cubic yards of sediment sequestered behind the dams. It did not discuss the near certain ecological disaster that the release of that toxic sediment will cause downstream on the Klamath River or the significant problems that have resulted from previous smaller dam removal projects such as the Condit Dam or the dams on the Rogue River.

Further, the wording of the Survey questions appeared to assure the respondents that endangered species will continue to decline, and may even become extinct in the event that the no-action plan is adopted. It appeared to advise respondents that the no-action plan would include no fish restoration projects and failed to describe either the current hatchery programs or alternative fish passage options.

Both PacifiCorp and the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors wrote letters to the Department of Interior expressing their significant concerns regarding the Survey methodology and the conclusions of the Final Report. The letters were comprehensive, detailed and precise. They advised the Department of many specific Survey inaccuracies and omissions.

Both parties filed Requests for Corrections based on those inaccuracies and omissions that they claimed would skew the opinions received from Survey respondents. PacifiCorp actually wrote a second letter reiterating their objections and concerns. Unfortunately, the Department of Interior distributed the Final Report without making the requested corrections and appeared to encourage its use to represent public support for the destruction of the Klamath River dams.

The Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors was blunt in their criticism. They stated in their letter that the fact the Survey was distributed and utilized, in spite of the Requests for Correction, emphasizes that the Survey was designed to secure opinions contrary to the opinions of citizens of Siskiyou County.

The visceral opposition of Klamath Basin voters to the destruction of our nation’s hydroelectric infrastructure appears to have been made clear during recent elections. I am convinced that Department of Interior’s ongoing attempts to manipulate public opinion, regardless of how overt or how costly those attempts may be, will not change that voter sentiment.

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

Best regards,

Doug

www.dougwhitsett.com

http://pioneer.olivesoftware.com/Olive/ODE/HeraldandNews/

I have accomplished much while in Salem

Herald and News

Letter to the Editor

May 4, 2012

   As a fiscal conservative Republican, I take seriously my state senate oath to protect and conserve the Constitution and to work for all citizens in the district and state. I believe in, and work to   achieve, the smallest, least expensive and least intrusive government that is able to adequately provide essential services.

   Having served in the minority for my entire legislative career, I have learned to form lasting bipartisan relationships that have served our rural communities well.

   Through my seat on the powerful Ways and Means Committee, Klamath County has benefitted from nearly $145 million directed toward state Highway 97 and Highway 140 construction projects. Nearly $90 million has been secured for OIT and KCC campus expansions. The SB 81 Rate Shock bill that I introduced has resulted in Klamath County irrigators saving nearly $40 million in electricity pumping costs.

   Public safety has benefited from my work to put more than 110 new Oregon State Police officers on our highways and from sponsorship and funding for local drug court, juvenile court, veterans’ court, significant community corrections grants and cross-border police protection.   Public participation is a critical component for a government of the people. We work hard at communicating with those who I represent through weekly newsletters, radio commentaries and open access to our home telephone numbers. Our senate office is open to anyone regardless of party affiliation or subject matter. We travel nearly 30,000 miles per year in the district attending events, meetings and listening to learn local perspectives. It has been my privilege to have been elected to represent Senate District 28 for nearly two full terms. Getting to know the people of this vast district, their ideas, concerns and needs has been a wonderful experience. I am asking for your vote so that I may continue to represent you.

   Doug Whitsett

   Klamath Falls

   Editor’s note: Doug Whitsett is the incumbent state senator from District 28

PNP comment: TMDL stands for “Total Maximum Daily Loads” of a negative that will be allowed (Permitted eventually) the the Regional Water Quality Control Board. It is all smoke and mirrors to control water. — Editor Liz Bowen

Read Senator Whitsett’s comment:

Non-Point Source Water Regulations, Senator Doug Whitsett, posted to KBC 4/29/12

Dr. John W. Menke’s response:

Dr. Steve Kaffka (my former colleague at UC Davis) did a multi-year water quality study on the Tulelake Irrigation District in the late 1990s and published it in 2001 or 2002.

He came to the conclusion that the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board’s TMDL assessment was “not rational”–temperature and phosphorus impairments in the Upper Klamath Basin cannot be fully mitigated.

 Agricultural practices on the TID results in cleaner water accretion to the upper Klamath River than source water for that irrigation district.  In effect, TID sequesters phosphorous in crop exports from the Upper Klamath Basin.

Agriculture in this case is a mitigation tool for Nature’s wrath–natural high phosphorus parent materials and spring water, and landscape-level point source concentration of phosphorus by Nature’s waterfowl.

 The Oregon statute is obviously a way to get Oregon law applied through the court system like it is Federal law, and that process is proceeding according to Senator Whitsett’s information. 

I know from friends in Yamhill, OR that horse owners in Oregon cannot put a horse manure pile on the surface of the ground, it must be contained on concrete or an impermeable fabric, and the effluent from manure piles has to be managed regardless how small the pile.

 Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality is in bed with the enviros and urban dwellers in Oregon.

Eliminating flood irrigation as presented in the Whitsett statement would take away the best management practice for maintaining cold ground water accretion to streams especially during hot summer periods in sub-basins like Scott Valley.  Flood irrigated pastures in Quartz Valley, for example, are the primary reason for successful rearing of coho salmon.

 Shasta Valley, not being primarily stream-alluvium-derived does not have as beneficial a cold water accretion process working, thus coho salmon cannot be successfully reared in that system except possibly in the Big Springs area with its very isolated cold water source from Mt. Shasta lava tubes.

The Clean Water Act was adopted by Congress 1972. The purpose of the Act was to clean up our nation’s fresh water resources. It was designed to identify, and mitigate, water pollution from both point-sources, such as discreet discharges from a pipe, and from non-point sources, such as precipitation flowing from a field or forest.

The Act appeared to recognize that water pollution from point- sources generally are related to the activities of man. Most of these discreet sources of water pollution can be adequately addressed resulting in a cleaner water supply. For that reason regulations were adopted making identified mitigation procedures for point-sources mandatory and enforceable.

The Act also appeared to recognize that non-point sources of water pollution are less likely to be under the control of man and are more difficult to address. For these reasons the Act required that non-point sources of water pollution must be identified and that water quality management plans must be created to attempt to address those more diffuse water quality problems. However, the Clean Water Act did not require mandatory compliance with the water quality management plans because that compliance is often neither physically nor economically possible.

Over the past forty years, implementation of the Act has made significant progress toward cleaning up our nation’s fresh water supply.

In the early 1990’s the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission began legal efforts to expand the mandatory compliance to non-point sources of water pollution. Largely in response to that action, the Oregon Legislature adopted Senate Bill 1010 in 1993 that established the agriculture Water Quality Management Act . The EPA ultimately did not prevail in their attempt to enlarge their regulatory authority.

However, Oregon’s one of a kind state Agriculture Water Quality Management Act remains Oregon law. It is administered by the Oregon Department of Agriculture under the control of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. The law set up nearly forty separate state planning areas for water quality management.

The law provided for the appointment of Local Advisory Committees for each area. Those committees were tasked with identifying local water quality problems, and determining opportunities to improve that water quality. Each committee adopted rules designed to make progress toward better water quality within their local watershed.

The Administrative Rules the committees adopted have the full force of Oregon law. Each committee developed rules that they believed were appropriate for their particular area. However, all Local Advisory Committees were required to adopt one rule by the Oregon Environmental Quality Department.

That Rule was Oregon Revised Statute 468B. That statute defines all of the regulations that apply to water pollution from point-sources. Virtually every Local Advisory Committee in Oregon objected to adopting that rule, because it appeared to apply the mandatory regulations for point-source water pollution to the non-point source run-off that the committees were addressing.

The committee members knew that no way exists to meet those standards when applied to run-off from fields and forests. Committee members were concerned that the citizen lawsuit provision of the Clean Water Act would result in a third party bringing suit to force compliance with the 468B rule. Notwithstanding the plain wording of the ORS 468B rule, the Oregon Department of Agriculture assured committee members and producers that moving toward achievement of water quality standards would be sufficient to comply with those rules.

Unfortunately, the committee members were correct to be deeply concerned. The Northwest Environmental Advocates did sue the EPA, and various other federal agencies, to enforce the provisions of Agriculture Water Quality Management Act as they apply to the Clean Water Act. The suit appears to be focused on attainment of compliance with the ORS 468 B rule.

In a ruling last month, Federal Magistrate John V. Acosta appears to imply that making progress toward achievement of the Water Quality Management Plan rules is not sufficient. My reading of his decision appears to suggest that the water quality standards actually must be achieved to comply with the Water Quality Management Plan rules in order to provide adequate habitat for threatened and endangered species

Many of these water quality standards, such as water temperature and water phosphorous concentrations, cannot be achieved. They cannot be met because the standards significantly exceed the normal background levels. Water in the streams often exceeds those standards without any influence by man.

The result is that water diverted from a stream for irrigation may already exceed the water quality standards. For that reason, it cannot be returned to the stream because the return flow exceeds the arbitrarily established standard for clean water.

Unfortunately, after nearly twenty years, the committee members’ greatest fears have become reality. A third party lawsuit has resulted in a court ruling that appears to apply point-source water quality regulation to agricultural practices. The ruling has the potential to virtually eliminate flood irrigation practices in much or Oregon when that irrigation practice results in any surface water return flow to the stream or river.

It is my concern that Federal Magistrate Acostas’ ruling, if not successfully appealed, has the potential to virtually eliminate centuries old irrigation practices in much of Oregon.
Please remember, if we do not stand up for rural Oregon no one will.

Best Regards,

Doug

Doug Whitsett needs people at a meeting with him and Karl Scronce Wednesday April 11 at 6:00 PM at the Klamath County Government Building.

For an experience, check out Karl`s facebook page.  The likes are pretty clearly pro-KBRA.   Reports from several people with direct experience from the contacts report Occupy Movment people are going door to door for him.

Again, this is of no great surprise to anyone, but we should spend some effort to get to the Courthouse.  The more rational people that show up, the less likely we are to have a pro KBRA advocate elected.  This indicates the pro-KBRA crowd is kind of desperate and are pulling out the stops to elect one of their own.

The Whitsett`s need our help.
–
Steve Cheyne

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