A federal judge has sent the Bureau of Reclamation
back to the drawing board with the management plan for the Klamath
River Basin. In Oakland, Calif., Judge Saundra Brown Armstong
called parts of the plan “arbitrary and capricious” and
demanded that the National Marine Fisheries Service revise its
biological opinion, on which the management plan is based (HCN,
6/23/03: ‘Sound science’ goes sour).
Commercial fishermen,
environmental groups, and the Yurok and Hoopa Valley tribes had
challenged the plan in court, claiming it benefits irrigators at
the expense of threatened coho salmon. They say their concerns were
justified in fall 2002, when 33,000 salmon and steelhead died while
migrating up the Klamath River to spawn, but the federal government
denies low flow levels were responsible (HCN, 10/14/02: Dead fish
clog the low-flowing Klamath).
Although Judge Armstrong
said the management plan violates the Endangered Species Act, she
did not require the Bureau of Reclamation to change water
allocations this year. “We cross our fingers and hope there
won’t be a fish kill again (this fall),” says
Earthjustice attorney Kristen Boyles. Eventually, the ruling could
mean less water for Klamath Basin irrigators, she says.
But farmers and Bureau officials disagree. Judge Armstrong ordered
the Fisheries Service to guarantee water sources and set limits for
how many fish can be harmed, but she did not request higher river
flows. This means “the judge believes that the flows (laid
out in the biological opinion) are the best available
science,” says Jeff McCracken, with the Bureau of
Reclamation.
“If the plan were as flawed as
environmental groups are saying, then she would have thrown it
out,” says Dan Keppen, executive director of the Klamath
Water Users Association. “We’re saying (the ruling) is
a victory (for farmers) because in no way does it affect
us.”
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline Judge says Klamath plan needs revisions.

