Klamath Gothic

By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL

Once again, the environmentalists in Oregon's Klamath Basin are throwing tantrums and filing lawsuits over water and fish. The difference this time is that the grown-ups are back in charge at the federal agencies.

In April of 2001, scientists from the Fish & Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service issued reports saying that the area's endangered sucker fish and salmon needed more water. Over the years, the Clinton administration had filled these agencies with scientists who weren't above issuing junk science in service of green political aims.

The Klamath reports were the latest example: Like clockwork, the environmental community took the reports to court and convinced a federal judge to shut off water to the Klamath farmers. Some 1,500 farms lost their water that month, which ultimately cost the tiny community 2,000 jobs and $74 million in revenue.

Interior Secretary Gale Norton (Grown-Up #1) had only been confirmed a few months before the cutoff, and she inherited a zoo. Protests. Lawsuits. Counterlawsuits. But as the controversy rolled on, the Bush appointee did something shockingly professional: She demanded good science. She took the unheard-of step of submitting the reports to the National Academy of Sciences for peer review.

And what do you know? In February, the academy reported that there had been "no sound scientific basis" for cutting off the water. In response, a chastened Fish & Wildlife and NMFS issued new reports that hewed more closely to the academy's findings, and today both farmers and fish are again getting adequate water.

In fact, it just about looked like the whole mess had been put to rest, when two weeks ago thousands of chinook salmon began showing up dead on the Klamath River. Within a day, the environmentalists were back to blaming the farmers, claiming that low, and therefore hot, water flows had killed the fish. A coalition of groups, led by Earthjustice (motto: "Because the Earth Needs a Good Lawyer"), banged out another lawsuit.

The press was busy working itself into full environmental hysterics when, magically, the new Bush director of Fish & Wildlife, Steve Williams (Grown-Up #2), appeared for an update last Wednesday. And he too did something amazing: He acted like a scientist, rather than an advocate. Mr. Williams explained that there was limited data so far, and "until we can gather and analyze facts, it would be premature to speculate" on what caused the die-off. He then gave a rundown of what we did know:

Between 20,000 and 30,000 fish are dead, but the die-off is slowing. More than 95% of the fish were adult chinook salmon -- which is not an endangered fish. It appears that most of the salmon died of bacterial infections. Water temperatures were warm, but not unusual for this time of year. And water volume was higher than in three of the previous 11 years.

Mr. Williams then laid out dozens of unknowns -- including what might have triggered the disease or whether water quality or habitat played a role -- that the agencies would investigate. "We really want to base any decision we make now or in the future on solid science," he explained.

In other words, there is no way of knowing yet what happened. This, of course, is not what the environmentalists want to hear, and indeed they spent the rest of the week hissing that the Bush administration was "avoiding responsibility." But like it or not, this is how the unbiased process of gathering facts and analyzing data (i.e. science) works. And it shows very clearly just how uninterested the so-called environmental groups are with finding real causes and helping the fish.

What they are interested in is getting the farmers off the land; they have admitted it. As a result, any report, study, or theory they advance is toward that goal, regardless of its scientific merit. You'd have thought that the green groups would have applauded the fact that the nation's leading scientists had come together at the academy to investigate Klamath. But since the final report did nothing to return farmland "to nature," they dismissed it out of hand.

The good news is that the current lawsuit isn't likely to result in another frivolous cutoff. By making good science their primary goal, and by asking for peer review, the grown-ups have restored some legitimacy to the agencies and made it harder for courts to intervene. The last time around, a federal judge was asked to decide between wildly conflicting theories; she sided with the environmentalists. To order a cutoff right now, a judge might have to say she knew more about fish than the academy.

Sadly, many people today feel that all science is subjective and political. But that view comes from a decade of watching our own government bend facts and conclusions -- whether it be with regard to endangered species, global warming, or pesticides -- to suit its objectives. Ms. Norton and Mr. Williams are restoring some objectivity. That's bad news for extremist enviros, but good news for the rest of us.

Ms. Strassel is an editorial page writer at the Journal.
 

Copyright 2002 Wall Street Journal