Data tell truth of Klamath River saga.

Byline: Guest Viewpoint By Dan Keppen For The Register-Guard

Media outlets throughout the country in recent weeks have taken a cue from environmental activists and are carrying accounts of alleged high-level government mismanagement and environmental devastation in the Klamath River watershed. These accounts reflect a complete acceptance of activist-driven myth-making rooted in an unfortunate natural resources crisis that occurred in late 2002 on the lower Klamath River.

Traditional advocates of high mainstem Klamath River flows quickly concluded that a fish die-off last fall was due in large part to Klamath Project operations - despite the fact that the fish died below the confluence of the Klamath and Trinity rivers, 200 miles downstream of the Klamath Project. Environmental activists have since exploited the die-off with legislation, litigation and press attacks aimed at removing Klamath Project farmers and ranchers from their land.

One natural explanation for the fish die-off - ignored by activists and tribal interests in their zeal to link the fish deaths to Bush administration environmental policy - was the temperature of the Klamath River. The adverse effects of high water temperatures on salmon are well-known, but curiously, many have refused to address this natural phenomenon. The issue is important because of how water project operations can, or cannot, affect water temperatures in riverine areas important to salmon.

During late summer and early fall of 2002, Dave Vogel, a fisheries biologist with 28 years experience, measured main stem water temperatures hourly just before and during the fall-run Chinook salmon migration season. He found that water temperatures in the upper Klamath River downstream of Iron Gate Dam during September of 2002 were unsuitable for adult salmon, a finding that was similar to that of previous studies.

Vogel also found that large numbers of salmon entered the lower Klamath River earlier than usual and were exposed to two dramatic and uncharacteristic cooling and warming conditions, causing a disease outbreak from warm water and crowding. According to Vogel, the combination of these factors is the most plausible reason for the fish die-off.

These data indicate that September 2002 was unusual, but not for the reasons portrayed by those who wish to attack the Klamath Project.

Recent articles and editorials resurrect the conclusions quickly reached by anti-farming interests last year, despite the fact that a judge recently ruled that the cause of the die-off was a "triable issue of fact." Based on the conflicting evidence, the judge could not link the fish die-off to Klamath Project operations.

That hasn't stopped a coalition of well-funded environmental groups and other anti-farming interests from launching a crusade to eliminate farming as a way of life in the Klamath Basin. At the core of the attacks is the allegation that Klamath farmers killed those fish.

Environmental advocates and tribal biologists do not articulate how increased releases from Iron Gate Dam could have prevented the fish die-off more than 170 river miles downstream. If the primary cause of the fish die-off was warm water, it was physically impossible for Iron Gate Dam to cool the river down to tolerable levels.

According to environmental activists' mythology, 2002 was unique because there was a large salmon run and low river flows. In fact, 1988 had a much larger salmon run, and river flows were similar. In September of 1988 the lower Klamath River flow was 2,130 cubic feet per second, the salmon run numbered 215,322 and there was no die-off. In 2002, the September flow was 2,129 cubic feet per second, the salmon run was 132,600 fish, and 33,000 fish died. These facts provide empirical evidence that the environmentalists' theory is invalid.

California Department of Fish and Game spokesmen and California Resources Secretary Mary Nichols also concluded within days of the fish die-off that operations of the Klamath Project were somehow to blame. Unfortunately, CDFG's draft report - released just two months later - contains several major errors.

In its most amazing finding, CDFG asserts that toxic substances could not have caused the fish die-off, even though it admits that water samples were not taken until seven days after the onset of the fish die-off. That potential source of mortality is still in question.

We must attempt to better understand all of the complexities that led to last year's unfortunate fish die-off. Quickly jumping to conclusions and assigning blame - especially in the absence of critical data and analyses - does nothing but polarize stakeholders and further delay the work that must be done to improve our watershed.

Dan Keppen of Klamath Falls is executive director of the Klamath Water Users Association.