"This is the second of a series on the Klamath Calamity."
By LandAndWaterUSA © 2014
One of the key supporters of the Klamath River basin deals which would reign in ranchers and farmers in Oregon and California is the Black Bear Commune, the notorious 1960s hippie anarchist collective founded on the idea of “free land for free people” and led, back in the day, by radicals actor Peter Coyote and domestic terrorist Bill Ayers.
The New York Times dubbed the 50 or so commune ranch dwellers, a “Hardy Bunch of Settlers Who Left America and Moved to California” in a report in 2006.
Indeed, though only about 40 people presently live at Black Bear, they have influence that extends far beyond their small numbers. Though they initially had no money, back in the 1960s, they pressured liberal Hollywood movie stars, like James Coburn, to fund their efforts, which are today, decades later finally bringing about their vision of a hippie, utopian paradise in California which will replace capitalist America with peace, love and collectivism. (In fact, they had to coerce Coburn to pay. One radical smoked pot with him in Los Angeles, according to a newspaper report, and then set fire to part of his property, as well as an American flag, as an incentive for him to donate to Black Bear.)
The deals, currently under consideration for approval by the U.S. Congress, would limit the amount of water ranchers and farmers along the Klamath River can use for irrigation of crops and maintenance of livestock, and are said to benefit the Yurok and other native tribes.
But behind the scenes, anarchists and hemp growers, and activists from the commune, who relocated to the remote Northern California border ranch area near the Klamath River from Haight Ashbury in San Francisco in 1968, have been influential in shaping the terms of the agreements, as member and ideological leaders for the Klamath Riverkeepers, a non-profit, community organizing group, with ties to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., that eschews historical property rights on and near the river.
“Most Black Bear people were Sixties-political and they were willing to live in the middle of northern nowhere. And there are still people living there collectively today,” Malcolm Terence, a writer and original inhabitant of the commune in 1968, wrote in a article entitled, Return to Black Bear, recently. “The first big celebration at the commune was the autumn equinox in 1969. Thirty of us had survived the first intense Siskiyou County winter and were swollen with rural bravado. We invited up all the extended family from the Bay Area and beyond. One day Richard Marley, who I always thought of as the founder of Black Bear, had called us together to plan for the expected onslaught of visitors. What preparations would be needed? We talked passionately, if inconclusively, around the circle for an hour or more and finally agreed that things would take care of themselves. No planning necessary.”
The proposed legislation to benefit the Klamath, introduced this spring by Sen. Ron Wyden, Sen. Barbara Boxer, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, and other West Coast Democrats, builds on the ideals espoused by these radicals, the tribes, and allied federal and state officials.
“The Upper Klamath Basin Agreement was hammered out by a task force appointed last year by Wyden, along with Senator Merkley, Congressman Greg Walden and Governor John Kitzhaber. It was signed on April 18 during a ceremony on the banks of Spring Creek in Klamath County,” reads the news release from Sen. Wyden’s office, dated May 21, 2014. “The Senate bill gives Congressional approval to the Upper Basin Agreement, authorizing the Department of the Interior to act and achieve the agreement’s benefits: increased stream flows into Upper Klamath Lake, more water certainty to irrigators, improved and protected riparian areas and economic development for the Klamath Tribes and its members. The legislation also authorizes other agreements that comprehensively settle water rights disputes in favor of collaborative solutions to water management in the basin.”
Notice the language there, i.e., “collaborative solutions to water management in the basin.” This is the same kind of language used to govern the commune, i.e., "the continued existence of Black Bear Ranch and its tradition of communal living in a way that cares for and nourishes each other and the environment".[Decision making by the group is managed through weekly meetings. No individual has property rights, everything is shared in common. The right to share is acquired by a émigré after living on the ranch for a winter.
No Comment: Wyden, Kitzhaber
When questioned about the ideology of the deals, and why some smaller native tribes were excluded from the deal making process, at the expense of including the Black Bear agitators and other members of Klamath Riverkeepers, Sen. Wyden’s office refused to comment. So did Gov. John Kitzhaber’s office. Neither office returned e-mails seeking comment on the proposed legislation from LandandWaterUSA.
The Obama administration, however, whose head is a former community activist himself, supports the deals.
In an exclusive interview with LandandWaterUSA, Matt Baun, a spokesman for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, a unit of the U.S. Department of the Interior, said, “The Administration supports enactment of S. 2379, which would implement the three Klamath Agreements that were signed between 2010 and 2014.”
Added Baun, “These agreements are vital to the communities of the Klamath Basin. These agreements were envisioned to provide a comprehensive solution for water, fishery, and power issues in the Klamath Basin. These agreements have broad and diverse support. There are currently 45 Parties to the KHSA and 43 Parties to the KBRA, representing Federal agencies, California and Oregon, three Indian tribes, two counties, irrigators, and conservation and fishing groups. There are sixteen parties to the Upper Basin Agreement (signed in April 2014), including the State of Oregon, the Klamath Tribes, and a broad coalition of Upper Klamath Basin irrigators.”
Some participants in the process were more equal than others, however, and some Indian tribes did not participate in the deal making, LandandWaterUSA has been told by sources.
There has been non-stop controversy – caused by the Black Bear hippie ideology, or variants thereof – that have plagued these deals for years and which should give Congress pause when considering their approval.
The controversies span from questions over the integrity of the scientific discussion about preservation of the environment of the river to personal failings of those involved in the talks themselves.
Radical Activism
In addition to reigning in reasonable science inside the agency regarding the Klamath, and related water projects, the parties involved in the Klamath deal continue their radical ways. For example, Craig Tucker, the spokesman for the Black Bear ranch ally, Klamath Riverkeepers, two weeks ago guided a training program for the eco-terrorist group Earth First which teaches young people how do to “tree sitting” to obstruct environmental projects, carrying on the Black Bear 1960s spirit.
Tucker himself was behind a plan for the Klamath River, released earlier this year. In this history, he admits that “grassroots pressure” from groups like his is primarily responsible to the attainment of the Klamath River deals.
“Tribal Technical Staff contributed studies to FERC Record. NGO’s contributed technical and policy expertise. Tribes and allies filed numerous lawsuits. Political Advocacy by all,” said Tucker in his presentation, obtained by LandandWaterUSA.
But that’s only half the story, he claims, noting in his presentation the presence of Black Bear inspired groups like American Rivers, California Trout, Friends of the River, The Klamath Forest Alliance, and others, who put pressure on the government and irrigators to sign a deal.
These activists pressured senior government officials to silence legitimate science used to study the area’s water problems – meaning that radical activism prevailed over the rule of reason and the rule of law in establishing these agreements, observers note.
The Spin Starts Here
For example, one of the Interior Department’s first Scientific integrity officers hired to apply new rules to prevent political manipulation of science in the Klamath process was removed from his position earlier this year after he questioned the political spin in press summaries of scientific studies on the effects of dam removal.
How his case is handled may be a litmus test of whether new agency scientific integrity rules are real reforms or mere window dressing, according to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).
In 2011, Dr. Paul Houser, a hydro-meteorologist, took a sabbatical from his university position to become a Science Advisor to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and to serve as the Bureau’s Scientific Integrity Officer. That September, he was asked to look over a draft press release summarizing environmental analyses on expected effects of removing four dams from Klamath River. Dr. Houser noticed the release described only the positive aspects, omitting a number of major contingencies and possible negative effects. He elevated his concerns ultimately to the Interior Secretary’s Press Secretary, Adam Fetcher.
Although Reclamation’s technical staff seconded Dr. Houser’s objections and the release was ultimately changed, two weeks later he was put on probationary status. In February 2012, his position was abolished with the non-explanation that he was “not a good fit.” Dr. Houser filed a complaint that the actions against him violated the core tenets of the Interior Scientific Integrity Policy that he was formerly administering.
For several weeks, his complaint sat untouched. Eventually, Interior engaged a consultant firm to review it.
“If Interior’s own Scientific Integrity Officers are not shielded from reprisal for doing their jobs, how in heaven’s name could one expect a staff scientist to push back against political shenanigans?” asked PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, whose organization is legally representing Dr. Houser. “Dr. Houser’s case suggests that spin still carries far more clout than science at Interior.”