The Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the 111th Congress: Conflicting Values and Difficult Choices Page: 20 of 29
This report is part of the collection entitled: Congressional Research Service Reports and was provided to UNT Digital Library by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the 111th Congress
sometimes at odds. The situations described below have been the subject of recent congressional
oversight and legislative interest.
Klamath River Basin
Controversy erupted in 2001 when the Bureau of Reclamation announced it would not release
water from part of its Klamath irrigation project to approximately 200,000 acres of farm and
pasture lands within the roughly 235,000-acre project service area. The operational change sought
to make more water available for three fish species under ESA protection-two endangered
sucker species, and a threatened coho salmon population. The Klamath Project straddles the
Oregon/California border and has been the site of increasingly complex water management
conflicts involving several tribes, fishermen, farmers, environmentalists, and recreationists.
Upstream farmers point to their contractual rights to water from the Klamath Project and to
hardships for their families if water is cut off. Others assert that the downstream salmon fishery is
more valuable and that farmers could be provided temporary economic assistance, while salmon
extinction would be permanent. Still others assert that there are ways to serve all interests, or that
the science underlying agency determinations is simply wrong.
Specifically at issue is how to operate the Bureau's project facilities to meet irrigation contract
obligations without jeopardizing the three listed fish. The Trinity River diversion from the
Klamath basin to central California also has ramifications for the Bureau's role in the Central
Valley Project (CVP). Ten-year and annual operation plans, and associated biological assessments
(by the Bureau) and BiOps (by FWS and NMFS) have been variously criticized and defended.8'
On July 31, 2007, the House Natural Resources Committee held an oversight hearing on
allegations of political intervention influencing scientific and policy decisions at the Department
of the Interior, with respect to Klamath River salmon.
A draft agreement was negotiated by 29 Klamath River stakeholders and signed on September 30,
2009, to address conflicting water management objectives, including removal of four dams that
block salmon and steelhead from historic spawning areas.82 The parties to this agreement have
indicated that they will seek legislative support from Congress.
Pacific Salmon Restoration
Salmon protection in the Pacific Northwest presents many difficult choices, especially because of
recent droughts and the connection between regional hydropower facilities and fishery
management decisions. NMFS officials have listed a total of 26 distinct population segments
(called evolutionarily significant units or ESUs) of Pacific salmon and steelhead trout as either
threatened or endangered, and are working with state, local, and tribal officials, as well as the
public, to implement recovery measures addressing habitat restoration and other concerns. Recent
controversies and litigation have focused on three issues: (1) BiOps on operation of the many
dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers (Federal Columbia River Power System), including the
decision to retain (or remove) four dams on the lower Snake River, and how properly to factor the
presence of the dams into evaluations of jeopardy; (2) whether salmon produced in hatcheries
81 For more information, see CRS Report RL31098, Klamath River Basin Issues: An Overview of Water Use Conflicts,
by Betsy A. Cody, Pamela Baldwin, and Eugene H. Buck.
82 See http://www.doi.gov/documents/DraftKlamathHydroelectricSettlementAgreement.pdf.Congressional Research Service
17
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This report can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Report.
Buck, Eugene H.; Corn, M. Lynne; Sheikh, Pervaze A.; Meltz, Robert & Alexander, Kristina. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the 111th Congress: Conflicting Values and Difficult Choices, report, July 19, 2010; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc818319/m1/20/: accessed April 23, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.