Figure 1. One of the four salmon-snuffing dams on the lower Snake River. Source: Save Our Wild Salmon.
“Despite spending over $17 billion on fish recovery efforts, Idaho salmon and steelhead numbers are not improving and will continue to get worse,” says Representative Mike Simpson (R-2-ID). “Will we spend $20 billion more in the next thirty years only to have them go extinct anyway? The worse they get, the more we will spend.”
Instead, this rock-ribbed Republican is cautiously proposing that we spend $33.5 billion and remove four Army Corps of Engineers dams on the Lower Snake River in southeastern Washington. Despite Simpson’s caution, fish scientists are generally as certain as scientists ever get that removing the four damn dams will save those salmonids. When Simpson speaks of “Idaho salmon and steelhead,” he means Imnaha and Grande Ronde Basin salmonids in Oregon as well as those in the Salmon and Clearwater Basins of Idaho (see Map 1).
Map 1. Most of the still-existing salmon and steelhead stocks (in the areas colored turquoise) are not doing well. The four Lower Snake River dams are in the very southeastern corner of Washington. We also need to reconvert salmon habitat (the areas colored salmon) made inaccessible by dams. Source: The Economist.
What $33.5± Billion Could Buy
Simpson proposes breaching the four Lower Snake dams. (The concrete edifices would be “mothballed” while the earthen berms and sediment would be removed to allow the Snake again to flow free.) He estimates that can be done for a maximum of $1.4 billion (~10 percent of the cost of a new aircraft carrier). The price tag rises from there because Simpson is also proposing to make whole (or better than whole) every economic, social, environmental, and governmental interest after the dam removals.
Simpson presumes that all these collections of special interests and public interests are worthwhile and deserve compensation for their troubles associated with dam removal. (I don’t agree about all of those special interests being that special, but that is water over the dam right now, as it wouldn’t further the interests of Snake River salmonids to quibble.) Better yet, Simpson is proposing spending monies on infrastructure and other investments that will move economies and communities of the Tri-Cities and the Lewiston-Clarkston area into the twenty-first century.
One effect of the COVID pandemic is that three zeros have been added to any fiscal debate. For issues that were debated in millions, the debate is now in billions. Such is helpful in this case.
As a member of the House Committee on Appropriations, Simpson knows that to make this deal work, all the money for the entire deal must be appropriated all at once. No relying on promises of future appropriations later.
The Simpson proposal would have the US Department of Energy administer the Columbia Basin Fund out of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in the Tri-Cities under a special administrator confirmed by the Senate. The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) and its ratepayers would be relieved of fish and wildlife mitigation obligations. The Pacific Northwest Electric Power Conservation and Planning Council would be stripped of its authority and obligations for fish and wildlife (but keep the energy portfolio). Fish and wildlife conservation and management would be coequally administered by the states and tribes in a new PNW Fish and Wildlife Council.
The money would flow to projects and actions throughout the Columbia River Basin, not just the Lower Snake River Basin. It would include such things as:
• dam removals ($1.4B)
• Hells Canyon sturgeon protection ($400M)
• Salmon Conservation Corps ($75M)
• lamprey passage ($200M)
• animal waste management incentives (from manure to methane; to improve air, water, and climate quality) ($1.6B)
• various investments in salmon ($1.4B)
• watershed partnerships throughout the Columbia Basin ($3B)
• sediment mitigation ($400M)
• cultural resource protection ($125M)
• annual block grants to tribes ($215M)
• dam mitigation and indemnification (improving or removing) ($1B)
• advanced energy storage ($1.25B)
• improvements to the Lewiston and Clarkston waterfronts ($150M)
• economic development in the Tri-Cities and Lewiston-Clarkston ($175M)
• tourism promotion in the Tri-Cities and Lewiston-Clarkston ($125M)
• compensating the Lower Snake River ports ($200M)
• intermodal (railroad, etc.) transportation hub ($600M)
• commercial industry fund ($275M)
• replacing barging of wheat with rail shipping ($2.8B)
• irrigation mitigation ($750M)
• agricultural coops and elevators ($300M)
• rehab/maintenance of four Lower Columbia dams ($600M)
• four Lower Snake dams energy replacement ($10B)
• salmon spill energy replacement (spilling water over the Lower Columbia dams to help salmon rather than through the turbines to make electricity) ($4B)
• NW electric grid resiliency and optimization ($2B)
Yah, I’m choking on some of them too. However, it’s just money. The multitude of special and legitimate public interests standing in the way of preventing the extinction of Snake River salmonids can all be appeased/neutralized by money. As the Snake River salmon haven’t appreciated the $17 billion nominally spent on their behalf, they won’t appreciate spending even more so as to avoid making the hard (but only real) choice to take out those four dams.
Figure 2. Rep. Mike Simpson (R-2nd-ID) in the wilds of Idaho. Source: simpson.house.gov.
It’s Up to Pacific Northwest Democrats in Congress
While what Simpson proposes is “a last-ditch attempt to score as time runs out,” it’s not a classic Hail Mary pass in that Hail Mary passes rarely work. Removing the four dams will work. The challenge is that this attempt cannot be done by Simpson alone but must be collectively attempted by a critical mass of the Pacific Northwest congressional delegation.
At the moment, the Democrats are in power in the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives.
Senate
Right now, three of the four senators from Oregon and Washington are powerful committee chairs, and one is a subcommittee chair:
• Ron Wyden (D-OR) is chair of the Committee on Finance (and also a member of the committees on Energy and Natural Resources, on the Budget, and on the Select Committee on Intelligence, a d the Joint Committee on Taxation.
• Patty Murray (D-WA) is chair of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (and is also a member of the Appropriations Committee, the Committee on the Budget, and the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs).
• Maria Cantwell (D-WA) is chair of the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation (and is also on the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources as well as the committees on Finance; Indian Affairs; and Small Business and Entrepreneurship).
• Jeff Merkley (D-OR) is chair of the Appropriations subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies (and is also on the committees on Budget; Environment and Public Works; Foreign Relations; and Rules and Administration).
Oregon and Washington have more power now in the Senate than has been the case in decades. These four senators need to step up and out on the matter of saving Snake River salmonids. This is what power should be used for.
House of Representatives
Simpson’s two fellow Republicans from the State of Washington, within whose districts are the salmon-killing dams, are opposed. That will likely change if the various special interest groups in their districts see the dam-removal train starting to leave the station and decide it is in their own best interests to take the money and jump on.
Democratic members of the House of Representatives from Oregon and Washington also need to step up. The several Democrats from Washington are in positions to help. In Oregon, I’m thinking in particular of two representatives:
• Representative Peter DeFazio (D-4th-OR), chair of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The culmination of Peter’s long congressional career could be the enactment into law of the long-sought infrastructure bill. The version the Democratic House sent over to the Republican Senate last July weighed in at $1.5 trillion (aka $1,500 billion). President Biden’s proposed clean energy stimulus bill being talked about may cost $2–3 trillion. What’s another $33.5 billion at a time when the cost of the federal government borrowing money is near zero?
• Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-3rd-OR), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Blumenauer has said, “I’m intrigued by [Simpson’s] proposal, which I think deserves thoughtful consideration from all sides.” Time to move from intrigued to action.
A Private Note to My Fellow Conservationists
The rest of this post is for conservationists only. All others must click away now. Here are pictures of my dog (and nephew). Goodbye until a fortnight has passed.
Okay, now that it’s just us salmon-loving, dam-hating, card-carrying conservationists: Guys (inclusive of all genders), this is big.
The Snake River salmon and other Columbia Basin and Puget Sound salmonids (and lampreys, and sturgeons, and orcas) are all counting on us. We must not screw this up.
Mike Simpson stresses—as shall I—that this is a concept. He hasn’t written legislative language. Simpson’s concept has some things we don’t like and cannot accept and many things we don’t like but can accept.
Here are the major onerous suggestions:
• A thirty-five-year extension of any Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license for any power dam over 5 MW in the Columbia Basin. (The renewal of the fifty-year licenses is our chance for dam removal or engineered fish-passage improvement.)
• No litigation related to anadromous fish against any and all federal and FERC-licensed dams for thirty-five years.
• Exemption for agricultural interests from Clean Water Act (CWA) and/or Endangered Species Act (ESA) litigation.
Ironically, it is CWA and ESA (and National Environmental Policy Act) litigation that has driven the salmon and water reform that has been achieved and is the driving force for Simpson’s proposed grand bargain. Enviros don’t have to waive our rights to prevent other salmonid stocks in the rest of Columbia Basin from going extinct so Snake River salmonids do not.
Some other concepts he’s putting the table are intriguing. For example:
• “Deauthorizing all or select Willamette Dams (Cougar, Detroit, Big Cliff, etc.?)” Deauthorizing is congressional code for stopping a proposed federal dam or removing an existing one. Alas, Simpson doesn’t assign dollars to it, but he’s floating it.
• Money for watershed restoration throughout the Columbia Basin. He’s not specific on how to spend $3 billion. How would you spend it? We can have a say.
Enviros need to go for this. We don’t have to accept every aspect of the Simpson concept as outlined to be willing to negotiate a deal. However, on the whole, it is a great concept and if it the damn dams are going to be removed in time to save the Snake River salmonids, time is of the essence. The political stars could be aligned in the next several months, but we mustn’t tarry getting to the table to negotiate the deal.
If we go to that table, enviros are in a strong position. The vital interests of those other special interests can all be met with money. Money is not the limiting factor at this political moment in time. While money can often help us do other good things for salmon and other species in the Columbia Basin, only dam removals on the Lower Snake will work for us (acting on behalf of those other species).
Our greatest weakness is that, as enviros, we are not particularly motivated by money. While overall a strength, it tends to make us underappreciate how most other interests are motivated by money.
It’s always easier to kill a bill than to enact one into law. We have congressional allies who will stand up for the sanctity of judicial review of the CWA, the ESA, NEPA and other environmental statutes. Preserving judicial review won’t be a deal killer for the other sides as they’ll be getting barge-loads of money. Again, what really solves their problem is money—and money now. Failure for them to take the deal means more endless litigation and uncertainty. Taking the deal will mean less litigation for them, but still the threat of litigation from us to ensure their good faith. Did I mention the political lubricant of money?
The political opportunity like the one Simpson is highlighting comes not once in a generation. The last such case in these genera was the PNW Power Planning Act of 1980. At the time we knew it was not enough, but it was a net gain for salmon. Enviros can either take the opportunity or miss it. The easy course is to stand upon the principle of no limits to judicial review, but then the concept dies and so will the Snake River salmonids. An excessive adherence to principled opposition to an injustice can be the obstacle to ending the injustice. Sometimes, to win for a just cause, one must rise above principle. I suggest that we can waive judicial review on the four Snake River dams as long as the money is in the bank and the plan for their removal is irrevocable. Such can happen before the year is out.
Our litigation, while quite a string of successes, is in an apparent (at best) continuous do loop. Our fine lawyers have just filed their eighth supplemental complaint (each complaint is a round of litigation on the same case) on a case first brought in 2001. There are no guarantees our fine lawyers will win again (all winning streaks come to an end). Even if the lawyers win again, they are not ever going to get a judge to order the removal of four dams—hell, not even one of them! Even if we win in court again, it’s more delay in doing what we (and the defendants) know is necessary: dam removal. The science in our heads and the feeling in our guts tell us that dam removal is the only viable option to prevent extinction of Snake River salmonids. We must have the backbone and the heart to proceed.
We have both Snake River salmonid insiders and salmonid and water outsiders from around the Columbia Basin among us. Only the former will likely be at the negotiating table. It is vital that the insiders keep us outsiders in the loop to the extent they can and, in any case, assure us they won’t throw other PNW salmon under the bus to save Snake River salmonids, which I strongly believe is not, and will not, be our insiders’ intent. The beauty of the politics on this is that there are far tastier carrots to satiate our opponents—carrots with the sweet sweet taste of money.
Both Murray and Wyden are up for reelection in 2022. At this stage in their congressional careers, they are increasingly in legacy mode. We conservationists need to impress upon them how important Snake River dam removal is to us and to their legacy. We need to go all out.
Perhaps our biggest collective and individual challenge will be leaving the relative safety of our foxholes from which we lob litigation, petitions, and comments and entering the arena of negotiating and lobbying for new legislation—legislation that is both of great consequence and great detail. For most of us enviros, wallowing in the swamp inside the Beltway is not what we do. However, it is what at least some of us (including some for the first time)—with the backing of the rest of us—must do to save the Snake River salmonids.
If we pull this off, we are heroes not only to ourselves, our kids, our colleagues, to our funders and supporters, and to human generations yet born but also, most important, to the salmon. (Of course, the salmon won’t know, but we will.)
If we pull this off, we will materially move the needle of justice for nature (and people) to the right.
If we pull this off, we will make history.
If we don’t even try to pull this off, we will have to make ourselves at home on the ash heap of history.
If you have questions or concerns, I’m happy to chat.
We can do this.
This is going to be fun.
Now you can check out my dog (and nephew) pictures.
For More Information
Front and center and highlighted in red on Simpson’s congressional website is “Energy & Salmon Concept.” Click on it to get to:
• What They’re Saying (quotes from both supporters and opponents)
• The Northwest in Transition (slide deck)
• Columbia Basin Fund by Sector (infographic of where all the money would go)
I have posted to this Public Lands Blog before on this matter: “A Solomonic Salmonid Solution?”