Endangered Species Act threatened.

Byline: GUEST VIEWPOINT By Jim McCarthy For The Register-Guard

In 1973, a Republican president, Richard Nixon, signed the Endangered Species Act into law. The act declared - for the first time - that we would not ignore the extinction of America's natural legacy.

Regrettably, today's Republican Party, dominated by anti-environmental politicians backed by powerful development interests, is relentlessly working to disassemble the act, one piece at a time.

Now, Oregon's Rep. Greg Walden and Sen. Gordon Smith have introduced so-called ESA reform bills in Congress that would undermine the scientific foundations of wildlife conservation. The act's proven scientific processes already have helped to stave off the extinction of America's majestic bald eagle and playful sea otter. But Smith and Walden's bills attempt to burden scientists and decision-makers with mountains of red tape, making action to prevent the irretrievable loss of species - such as the Pacific Northwest's salmon - almost impossible.

To justify their attacks on the act, both politicians point to events in the Klamath Basin.

Walden claims federal actions to protect threatened salmon and endangered lake fish during 2001's record drought were based on "unsubstantiated science" and led to "a scientifically unjustified decision" to reduce river diversions to the Klamath Irrigation Project. Smith has characterized the efforts to provide water to drought-imperiled fish as "decisions based on bad science."

According to Walden and Smith, a recent National Research Council report on the science behind the 2001 Klamath irrigation cutback supports their claims of "bad science." But anyone who reads the council's report won't find support for these allegations. In fact, the expert panelists who helped write the report are correcting the misrepresentations of their findings.

In December, esteemed University of California, Davis, professors and NRC panelists Peter Moyle and Jeffrey Mount wrote: "We credited federal biologists for using the best information they had available at the time and rejected claims they were using `junk science,' as some members of Congress claimed."

The scientists also assert that the Klamath demonstrates the act "is working as intended when President Nixon signed it into law 30 years ago ... compel(ling) all players to come to the table and giv(ing) us a place to start working for solutions."

Indeed, ESA enforcement in the Klamath finally has given American Indians, commercial fishermen and other river-dependent communities a place at the table with powerful agricultural interests when water decisions are made.

The Walden-Smith bills would reverse this progress and deny the real problem facing this arid region: Demand for water far exceeds what nature can supply. Gutting the act will not bring balance to the Klamath, but weakening it will remove the last check against the senseless destruction of our precious native wildlife.

Oregonians already have seen what happens when politics overrides science.

In 2002, political manipulations returned full water deliveries to the Klamath Irrigation Project - despite another drought and warnings from biologists. Irrigators got the water they wanted, and 34,000 salmon perished in the diversion-strangled Klamath River.

The Endangered Species Act has been a Noah's ark for hundreds of plant and animal communities. Oregonians should demand that their congressional delegation supports efforts to recover native wildlife instead of seeking ways to poke holes in the science keeping that ark afloat.

Jim McCarthy is an Ashland-based policy analyst for the Oregon Natural Resources Council.