|
|
IWMC
World Conservation Trust |
|
"Science War"
Chapter 2 - Water Irrigation...
|
|
|
| Under this title, IWMC is
presenting a case of the abuse and misuse of science by activists, to
illustrate that their goals and the strategies used to achieve them, are
neither in the public interest, nor in concurrence with scientific principles
relevant to human health and well being. We are not alone in this, as the
American Medical Association, the National Academy of Sciences, the US Forest
Service, and the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission,
have repeatedly contradicted the pseudoscientific claims of animal rights and
eco-activists. |
In the American Northwest, an eco-activist movement
temporarily resulted in denial of water rights to farmers and ranchers in the
Klamath River Valley in Oregon. Activists claimed that irrigation allotments
were resulting in low water levels in upper Klamath Lake, that water levels
were harming salmon, and a species of endangered suckers. The National Academy
of Sciences disputed claims of federal biologists that high water levels were
necessary to protect endangered fish, and even noted that higher water levels
in the river would harm the salmon, because the water was too warm at that time
of year. (Washington Post Feb 4, 2002). NAS scientists argued that there was
"no substantial scientific foundation for the April 2001 rulings by the
Fish and Wildlife Service and the NMFS that the Klamath Basin irrigation
project was threatening the survival of rare suckerfish and salmon."
2001 was a severe drought year in the area, and farmers and ranchers could
not raise any crops without irrigation waters. They opened the gates, and local
sentiment was so strongly biased in their favor, that local law enforcement
agencies refused to arrest them. The matter was finally resolved when Secretary
of the Interior Gale Norton, noting the National Academy of Science's report,
ordered aides to study it and find alternatives to the previous water shortages
so that farmers and fish would both benefit.
This was a case of differing interpretations of environmental risk and
impact. The future of irrigation water supplies in the region will depend on
continuing scientific study. The present administration apparently supports the
concept of using both biological and socioeconomic data in any decision making
process. Since both people and animal life depend on the land, this is a
reasonable approach, and an effort which we applaud.
There was no substantial suggestion that cultural bias against people had
influenced the Fish and Wildlife Service and NMFS demands for higher water
levels in the Klamath system. However, now that the National Academy of
Sciences work will continue to be evaluated, the risk of such bias being used
in decision making is substantially lowered. 
|
