GOP congressman wants to remove 4 dams to save Idaho’s salmon

Whiptail

Active member
Joined
Apr 2, 2015
Messages
144
Link

This GOP congressman wants to remove 4 dams to save Idaho’s salmon. It’ll cost billions.



An Idaho Republican congressman wants to end the salmon wars by removing select hydroelectric dams, replacing the electricity lost, paying communities and businesses, and giving American Indian tribes more power.

A $33 billion Pacific Northwest energy and infrastructure proposal would end litigation over endangered salmon and authorize the removal of four dams on the Snake River in Washington beginning in 2030. U.S. Rep. Mike Simpson of East Idaho released the plan after asking more than 300 groups what they would need if the dams came out.

Power marketed by the Bonneville Power Administration from the four controversial dams would be replaced. Shippers and farmers would get funds for alternatives to the barge shipping on the Snake and compensation for closed barge facilities. Lewiston in Idaho and the Tri-Cities in Washington would get billions for economic development.

Farmers across the Pacific Northwest, including those in Idaho’s Magic Valley, would get billions of dollars in incentives for water-quality projects. Farmers in Washington that now pump out of the reservoirs behind the Snake dams would get millions in compensation that they could use for altering their diversions.

The plan would be funded by a federal infrastructure bill.

“If we give the farmers, bargers, ports, the BPA and communities the necessary resources, each sector can develop a certainty and security putting the Northwest and Idaho salmon on a path to sustained viability,” Simpson said in a video news release released Saturday night.

Simpson says his “concept” would ban litigation over the four Columbia River dams for 35 years and increase salmon funding for states and tribes, which would co-manage salmon restoration.

The newly free-flowing river would be protected in a proposed Lower Snake River National Recreation Area.

Other dams, such as Idaho Power’s Hells Canyon Complex, would have their licenses extended for 35 years with a cap of 50 years. A $500 million fund would be set up to provide an incentive to voluntarily remove dams like these and other river structures.

Simpson said a bill crafted by the bipartisan Pacific Northwest congressional delegation and the governors of Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Montana could be incorporated into an infrastructure package proposed by President Joe Biden this year, when the delegation has the most clout because of its tenure and committee assignments.

The plan calls for removing the Ice Harbor, Little Goose, Lower Monumental and Lower Granite dams — all four of the dams between Lewiston and the confluence with the Columbia River near the Tri-Cities.

For Idahoans, Simpson’s proposal would improve the salmon fisheries and overall water quality, while working to keep power rates down. It also would boost the economies of rural communities along the Salmon River all the way to Stanley. But it would remove Lewiston’s port.

Idaho salmon runs have dwindled from the millions of wild fish to, in some years, only a few thousand. Fewer than 4,000 wild spring chinook returned to Idaho in 2019.

“I want to be clear that I’m not certain removing these dams will restore Idaho salmon and prevent their extinction,” Simpson said. “But I am certain if we do not take this course of action, we are condemning Idaho salmon to extinction.”
 
I can tell you that it's not very popular amongst the water groups here in Idaho. The proposal has been circulating amongst them for over a year and its gonna face fierce opposition.

Plus anything that gets to be run by the federal government is not gonna go over well in Idaho. Idk exactly where the Lower Snake River National Recreation Area will be. Im know scholar but I assume "National" means it will be run by the federal government. Idaho water users are gonna come unglued.
 
Last edited:
Idaho Ground Water Association
Idaho water users
Eastern Idaho water rights coalition
 
Got it. Didn't know who you meant by water groups.
I think on the surface it looks awesome, but unless the Idaho Conservation League surprises them all its gonna be picked apart. They have been waiting for the final proposal to be available so all the lawyers can start picking it apart.
 
I applaud the effort of Congressman Simpson and his staff for trying to reshape the thinking on a decades old policy debate that is always tied up in litigation. However, I don't think this is the right solution and frankly I think he is awfully disingenuous in attacking dams with the most advanced fish passage systems in the world while simultaneously gutting the ability to address major fish concerns, including at other dams and in the Snake (and Columbia) river basin. It has a lot of great things for his District and a lot of goodies for others, but if this country wants to spend 33 billion dollars we can get a whole lot more bang for the buck on salmon recovery than breaching these 4 dams. I also respectfully disagree with those who believe not removing these 4 dams will doom Snake River salmon and steelhead. Removal would help a little, but unless its tied to other major reforms, its simply too expensive for too little gain.
 
Never thought I'd see the day when this was brought up by anyone from idaho that's a GOP member. Good on him I'm sure he is taking shit from all directions.
 
I applaud the effort of Congressman Simpson and his staff for trying to reshape the thinking on a decades old policy debate that is always tied up in litigation. However, I don't think this is the right solution and frankly I think he is awfully disingenuous in attacking dams with the most advanced fish passage systems in the world while simultaneously gutting the ability to address major fish concerns, including at other dams and in the Snake (and Columbia) river basin. It has a lot of great things for his District and a lot of goodies for others, but if this country wants to spend 33 billion dollars we can get a whole lot more bang for the buck on salmon recovery than breaching these 4 dams. I also respectfully disagree with those who believe not removing these 4 dams will doom Snake River salmon and steelhead. Removal would help a little, but unless its tied to other major reforms, its simply too expensive for too little gain.
damn somebody actually has looked at the issue with a broad brush, saved me from writing so much. I’m not convinced breaching the damns won’t help, but then why haven’t Salmon returned to all the coastal streams in Oregon, after all there is almost zero logging on public ground anymore. What would you do with all that money?
Just another thought, most Alaska streams are struggling to make marginal returns on Kings. The state has greatly curtailed the Kenai, probably close it again if their predictions don’t pan out. Last years return on the Nush was the worst ever.
Damns aren’t an issue in Alaska.
personally I’d love to run that section of the snake in my sled with out damns and I’d gladly pay a small fraction more for power. Sure would prefer to see more Salmon and steelhead.
 
Is there any solid science on whether it will work or not? I think it’s a good goal to save the salmon, but as others have indicated I would want to make sure this is the best shot to correct the root cause not a visible solution that has no effect.
 
Ben this goes back to when my Dad was Director of the EPAs marine and freshwater ecology division. The best “neutral“science from his perspective was removing the dams wouldn’t hurt. His belief was the illegal development of walleye and bass in the snake and Columbia would more then off set any gains from breaching the dams. His hope was increasing water flow would impact the bass and walleye enough that they couldn’t hammer the smolt as much. Perhaps more importantly it will lower the water temperature in the Columbia, will it be enough, that’s tricky math, but it won’t hurt. The greatest impact will be to farmers in se Washington in reduced irrigation and increased cost getting their grain to market. It’s messy and it’s probably going to be decided more on emotional arguments then science.
 
i'm not intimately familiar with washington's water rights administration except that i know they run prior appropriation. how strict their prior appropriation is and whether or not the state/district courts or the state agency adjudicates the rights i don't know

but i can see this turning into a big court battle between state rights as it pertains to adjudicated water rights protected by a state constitution and federal overreach that injures those water rights. a fight that would be hard to win for the feds i think. at least, if this proposal doesn't properly compensate water users, which it claims to i guess.

but even so, sometimes the only way to compensate a water user is with water, not money. it's very dangerous path to try and walk when you threaten water rights, and i do root for water rights, after all they are usually codified and called rights for a reason

that said i'm certainly rooting for the salmon, but when it comes to water rights it's hard to see anything stopping the lobbing of grenades
 
Last edited:
Ben this goes back to when my Dad was Director of the EPAs marine and freshwater ecology division. The best “neutral“science from his perspective was removing the dams wouldn’t hurt. His belief was the illegal development of walleye and bass in the snake and Columbia would more then off set any gains from breaching the dams. His hope was increasing water flow would impact the bass and walleye enough that they couldn’t hammer the smolt as much. Perhaps more importantly it will lower the water temperature in the Columbia, will it be enough, that’s tricky math, but it won’t hurt. The greatest impact will be to farmers in se Washington in reduced irrigation and increased cost getting their grain to market. It’s messy and it’s probably going to be decided more on emotional arguments then science.
In California, the fish and game has tried for years to restore salmon runs with very little success, the smolts are nothing but bait for the sport fish in the delta. And those that do make it back are usually poached on the way back up stream
 
Is there any solid science on whether it will work or not? I think it’s a good goal to save the salmon, but as others have indicated I would want to make sure this is the best shot to correct the root cause not a visible solution that has no effect.
In short - there are two competing scientific models. Both show improved survival - one shows something like 150% increase in survival and another shows a much more modest 14% increase. I tend to believe the actual results are far more likely to be closer to that 14% than the 150%.

The tragedy in my view, is that we spend 33 billion for a modest improvement, but in exchange we take away tools to meaningfully address a lot of other factors (and dams) that probably contribute much more than 14%. Again, I applaud Simpson for trying something new and I certainly like seeing him break some standard partisan positions but those are not sufficient reasons for me to support this misguided effort.
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
111,122
Messages
1,947,833
Members
35,033
Latest member
gcporteous
Back
Top