Montana Compared And Contrasted Against The Klamath Basin

Montana Compared and Contrasted Against the Klamath Basin

There are many environmental issues that affect the world today and they range from deforestation to water shortage to dealing with global warming. These pressing issues can affect the entire world or can be specialized in a specific area. Two specialized cases, both seen in the United States, go on to affect not only humans but the surrounding ecosystems as well; however, they also differ in many ways and are completely unique case-studies. One of the cases deals with the state of Montana whose "problems today include almost all of the dozen types of problems that have undermined pre-industrial societies in the past" (Diamond, 35). The other case is located near awe-striking Mt. Shasta in the state of California in an area known as the upper Klamath basin; the problem in this area deals with "fish vs. farmers": "The basic problem is that there is not enough water for all the uses which have strong constituencies" in an area that receives only but 14 inches of rain per year on average (Whiteley, 1). Both these cases share similarities and differences.

To start off, as mentioned before, the basic problem in the Klamath Basin is that there simply isn't a sustainable water supply to meet all the needs along the basin to be shared by both human civilization, particularly farmers, and the naturally occurring ecosystem composed of fish, heron, and other species who have not only been deemed endangered but are also revered by the local Native American tribes. The farmers argue that they should have an unrestricted share of the water because without such an entity, they cannot grow any crops which in turn would affect those who eat the produce and would also in turn affect the farmers themselves seeing how they would be unable to produce any income and allow for their families to live on. (This argument can also be seen in the Montana case-study and will be mentioned later on). Although the farmers make a passionate argument, the case is two-fold (as is the circumstance in all cases); what about the fish? There are approximately 100,000 salmon who are in desperate need of water in order to be able to spawn and keep its species from extinction. Along the same lines, quite a few fisherman (5,000 more or less) depend on salmon fishing.

This is obviously quite a complicated case: If the fish are supposedly to be saved by the bountiful water supply, could the farmers not then argue that the fishermen have no business down in the basin or lake although with a more bountiful water supply would allow for more fish which would jump recreation/fishing revenue from $800 million a year to $36 billion a year (Whiteley, 2). And to make matters even more bewildering, it's not only the salmon destitute of water; it's the sucker fish as well. The sucker fish reside in the upper sector of Klamath Lake and are considered sacred relics in the local Native American tradition. With more consideration for the ecosystem, there is a great water fowl migration down to the Wetlands of Klamath which includes species such as the Bald Eagle, geese, greeds, and pelicans. Upon such grounds, fishermen, endangered species activists, and local tribes all favor directing a bountiful water supply for the fish. And because of this, under the Endangered Species Act, Bill Clinton had water cut off to the irrigation systems and the farmers were left to suffer, but they wouldn't go without a fight.

Fury broke out amongst the townspeople and they ravenously protested. Not only did they protest, but they also broke behind the gates of the machinery that was diverting the water to the basin and reversed its intent and drove the water towards themselves. Although illegal, the farmers claimed their survival needs were on the line. Could you go without water? Even if they weren't to use the water to grow their crops, they would still need some to live off of in their home: to bathe, to cook, to drink, etc.

Then a turn of events took place the next year in 2002: Gale Norton, Secretary of the Interior, came out in favor of the farmers: "She personally opened the headgates restarting the flow of 146 billion gallons as I occurred in 96 of the previous 97 years" (Whiteley, 2). This resulted in the death of 35,000 salmon 220 miles downstream where the Klamath River meets the Pacific Ocean. This was because the water-level descended significantly. The tribes were so infuriated by the salmon loss that two tribes, the Yurok and Hoopa, sent 500 pounds of rotting fish to the Interior Department. However, the small town of farmers was very happy seeing how the income from agriculture in that area brings in about $100 million. As you can see, it just doesn't seem as though a compromise can ever be reached.

Lawsuits in the area began in 1917, but a formal decision was not reached until 1979 in the case of United States vs. Adair which came out in favor of the local Native Americans. But, as mentioned before, riots continue, and the case is repeatedly disputed. In 2003, everyone missed out on their share: fishermen lost their season, the tribes stepped back, a report claimed that there was no "substantial scientific evidence" that the fish were truly in need of additional water.

The other case to be discussed is that of Montana. Jared Diamond, the author of Collapse, points out that Montana is not a bustling metropolitan and that its problems contrast significantly. Problems include: harsh agriculture use because of low rain fall (approximately 13 inches per