Klamath 'whistleblower' responds to op-ed

As Bruce Ross pointed out this morning, former Bureau of Reclamation official Paul Houser (pictured) responded to an op-ed by the U.S. Geological Survey's lead scientist on the Klamath project taking issue with some of Houser's assertions in a series of public appearances last month.

The op-ed by Dennis Lynch ran in both the Record Searchlight and Capital Press last week.

In a lengthy response on his website, Houser concluded:

I applaud Mr. Lynch’s commitment to accuracy in these studies, and hope that he takes advantage of my invitation to discuss these scientific concerns. Although Mr. Lynch did not mention scientific integrity in his post, his work is bound by the Department of the Interior’s Scientific Integrity Policy and Scientific Code of Conduct. This policy sets the bar very high for objectivity, conflict of interest, welcoming constructive criticism, adherence to laws protecting natural and cultural resources, communicating honestly and thoroughly, considering all viable alternatives in an unbiased fashion, and advancing science and scholarship for the purpose of serving the public with sound decision making on the part of all government agencies. During my recent interactions with many talented Klamath basin scientists, engineers and decision makers, I have heard about several innovative and economical solutions to meet the multi-objective law, environment and society goals that are not being actively considered by the draft EIS/EIR because they fall outside the politics of the Klamath agreements (Table 2-2) – it is in the public trust, and a duty of scientific integrity to actively consider these alternatives.

In summary, decision makers often use science to support predetermined decisions rather than using science to help inform decisions. Decision makers, scientists and peer-reviewers may have conflicts of interest, and biased media reports can skew public understanding. The 2011 expert panels concluded that removing the dams without addressing the water quality issues, reducing disease, enabling free migration to the upper basin, preventing hatchery salmon from not overwhelm spawning grounds, reducing predation to sufficiently low levels, accounting for climate change, addressing reductions in fall flows, and mitigating long-term sediment impacts, there is a low probability that coho salmon will thrive in the Klamath river. The outcomes of dam removal on this scale and in this unique environment have significant risks and uncertainties. A positive outcome is not guaranteed and a tragic outcome is possible. All I am trying to accomplish is to make sure that decision makers are aware of these risks and uncertainties, and account for them in their decision-making process. By only reporting the positive aspects of dam removal without the uncertainties and additional needed mitigation, the meaning of the science is perturbed, which may lead to poor decisions.

Read the entire column here.