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

[TOGIE]

In WA having to extend your intake pipe may be a pain in the ass but it's not impairment.

in Colorado you can just look at the river funny and find yourself in court

 

[Brittany Chukarman]

I find Simpson's last statement ridiculous. There are many issues to address before taking out dams. Sea lions, caspian terns, squawfish, walleye, bass, commercial incidental catch, tribal gill nets and probably the biggest problem is ocean conditions to grow salmon. A couple weeks ago the culprit was runoff from the highways. "Let's try this and hope it works" is not the way forward.

 

[Brittany Chukarman]

What's the old saying, "whiskys for drinkin' and waters for fightin"

 

[Hydrophilic]

I find Simpson's last statement ridiculous. There are many issues to address before taking out dams. Sea lions, caspian terns, squawfish, walleye, bass, commercial incidental catch, tribal gill nets and probably the biggest problem is ocean conditions to grow salmon. A couple weeks ago the culprit was runoff from the highways. "Let's try this and hope it works" is not the way forward.

Nonsense.

“Overwhelmingly, the evidence has led us to conclude that removal of the four lower Snake River dams is the single most important step we can take to recover abundant, fishable and harvestable Snake River salmon and steelhead. Dam removal, however, must be part of a comprehensive recovery plan that includes restoring and protecting habitat, improving hatchery and fishery management, and reducing predation.”

Ten questions with Fish for the Future | Trout Unlimited

Fish for the Future is a two-guide team working to encourage all anglers to do their part to protect chinook salmon on the Kenai and Kasilof rivers.

www.tu.org

This was a readily accessible source, I can always dust off my Lichatowich and Montgomery books and quote directly from them. Tons of literature on this...for decades. The issues you stated are relevant as well, especially overharvest in SE Alaska.

The goal is not to point fingers and say we need to do this before we do this. That logic got us into this mess and does not work.

 

[antlerradar]

Whomever thought their water rights were impaired would have to prove so. And with the same amount of water flowing down the river that would be a very hard sell. Plus, there's this big ax swinging over all Western water law of the tribes equating fish rights and salmon to water. That's a much bigger issue to irritators than dam removal.

I an not sure how water rights work in Idaho and Washington, but in Montana you have a flow right with a priority date of when you put in the diversion. When dams were put in you could purchase water from the pool by the acre feet. This purchased water is separate from you flow right. Would not be hard be hard to prove a taking for the purchased water if Gov were to breach the dams.

 

[Irrelevant]

I an not sure how water rights work in Idaho and Washington, but in Montana you have a flow right with a priority date of when you put in the diversion. When dams were put in you could purchase water from the pool by the acre feet. This purchased water is separate from you flow right. Would not be hard be hard to prove a taking for the purchased water if Gov were to breach the dams.

That's just not how it would work for WA, well it sorta is. WA like almost all western states has a prior appropriation doctrine. However, "impairment" of a water right is a very defined term. Effecting a water right is allowed, even if a change or a proposal negatively effects one. But until you can't access sufficient water to meet your senior water right, then there's no actual "impairment". There are plenty of cases where water users have to deepen their wells because of junior rights have lowered the water table. The cutoff there is if that you have to fully penetrate that water source (i.e. aquifer).

And remember, these aren't storage dams, they don't hold back spring flood water and release it later. These are constant head dams. The forebay elevations hardly change. So the available water is simply what the river was flowing that day artificially raised. https://www.nwd-wc.usace.army.mil/dd/common/projects/www/lmn.html

The big grip with the dams is that they slow the flow and heat up the water. 2015 was the prime example of where the sockeye runs on the Wenatchee faired reasonably well because they have a cooler path into the mountains for spawning, vs that same year, almost all of the Snake River sockeye died before getting to the upper most of the lower Snake River dams (lower monument). They had an 8% survival, as opposed to upper Columbia runs which had a 20% survival.

 

[TOGIE]

That's just not how it would work for WA, well it sorta is. WA like almost all western states has a prior appropriation doctrine. However, "impairment" of a water right is a very defined term. Effecting a water right is allowed, even if a change or a proposal negatively effects one. But until you can't access sufficient water to meet your senior water right, then there's no actual "impairment". There are plenty of cases where water users have to deepen their wells because of junior rights have lowered the water table. The cutoff there is if that you have to fully penetrate that water source (i.e. aquifer).

And remember, these aren't storage dams, they don't hold back spring flood water and release it later. These are constant head dams. The forebay elevations hardly change. So the available water is simply what the river was flowing that day artificially raised. https://www.nwd-wc.usace.army.mil/dd/common/projects/www/lmn.html

The big grip with the dams is that they slow the flow and heat up the water. 2015 was the prime example of where the sockeye runs on the Wenatchee faired reasonably well because they have a cooler path into the mountains for spawning, vs that same year, almost all of the Snake River sockeye died before getting to the upper most of the lower Snake River dams (lower monument). They had an 8% survival, as opposed to upper Columbia runs which had a 20% survival.

yeah, while we're all western states here with prior appropriation for the most part. WA, at first glance, sounds like it's likely a different world than CO.

i don't have a dog in the fight, and while i am rooting for the salmon, I could just see the state of WA really giving the feds a run for their money when they fight on behalf of water users to maintain water rights from impairment or "injury" as we call it in the centennial state

 

[Irrelevant]

yeah, while we're all western states here with prior appropriation for the most part. WA sounds like a different world than CO.

i don't have a dog in the fight, and while i am rooting for the salmon, I could just see the state of WA really giving the feds a run for their money when they fight on behalf of water users to maintain water rights from impairment or "injury" as we call it in the centennial state

Zero chance of that. WA State will side with salmon every time.

Each water district will have to hire it's own attorney's for the fight. And I'm sure they will. But there is also some very pertinent western water law coming out of the proposed dam breaching in the Klamath basin, where the fed's have to a much MUCH greater degree a planned "taking" of irrigator water rights. And the courts have ruled in favor of the fed's. That has some really big implications on the large federal reclamation projects, like the Yakima and Columbia Basin projects.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

Seems very little attention being paid to where the power generated by these dams will be displaced to. Next time a power company proposes a wind or solar farm to replace the power generated by these dams that just so happens to be in your favorite antelope unit or in primary sage grouse habitat or near a migration corridor or on winter range or near your town remember we wanted these dams to go away to help the salmon. No free lunches here. While this move may positively impact salmon, something else will be negatively impacted.

 

[TOGIE]

Zero chance of that. WA State will side with salmon every time.

Each water district will have to hire it's own attorney's for the fight. And I'm sure they will. But there is also some very pertinent western water law coming out of the proposed dam breaching in the Klamath basin, where the fed's have to a much MUCH greater degree a planned "taking" of irrigator water rights. And the courts have ruled in favor of the fed's. That has some really big implications on the large federal reclamation projects, like the Yakima and Columbia Basin projects.

do the feds not have to own a WA water right as if they were any other water user in WA?

in colorado the feds had to apply for their water rights, be scrutinized by the state engineer, and fight in district court to adjudicate like every other tom dick and jane has to for their reclamation projects

 

[44hunter45]

Seems very little attention being paid to where the power generated by these dams will be displaced to. Next time a power company proposes a wind or solar farm to replace the power generated by these dams that just so happens to be in your favorite antelope unit or in primary sage grouse habitat or near a migration corridor or on winter range or near your town remember we wanted these dams to go away to help the salmon. No free lunches here. While this move may positively impact salmon, something else will be negatively impacted.

This is an old article but the practice continues. I regularly drive by the scores of turbines between Walla Walla and Lewiston. Most of them are parked a good deal of the time.

Wind farms in Pacific Northwest paid to not produce

Wind farms in the Pacific Northwest -- built with government subsidies and maintained with tax credits for every megawatt produced -- are now getting paid to shut down as the federal agency charged with managing the region's electricity grid says there's an oversupply of renewable power at...

www.foxnews.com

 

[BigHornRam]

Seems very little attention being paid to where the power generated by these dams will be displaced to. Next time a power company proposes a wind or solar farm to replace the power generated by these dams that just so happens to be in your favorite antelope unit or in primary sage grouse habitat or near a migration corridor or on winter range or near your town remember we wanted these dams to go away to help the salmon. No free lunches here. While this move may positively impact salmon, something else will be negatively impacted.

and that just gets you back to generation capacity that we are currently at. What about future electrical generation growth driven by EV's for example? Then what?

 

[FI460]

and that just gets you back to generation capacity that we are currently at. What about future electrical generation growth driven by EV's for example? Then what?

Nuclear. Idaho is currently permitting micro reactors.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

and that just gets you back to generation capacity that we are currently at. What about future electrical generation growth driven by EV's for example? Then what?

All that parked wind power referenced in the article is already spoken for when WY and MT coal power starts to go away over the next decade.

The irony of the whole thing is that every spring the power plants I supply coal to are backed off on generation for a couple of months due to runoff and the increased power supplied by these dams. There was a time not too long ago that hydro was seen as helping fisheries because it limited coal fired power generation which is believed to harm fisheries.

I suspect removing these dams may very well be a good thing for the rivers they occupy just want to people to realize there is a negative consequence to everything we do in this world.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

people to realize there is a negative consequence to everything we do in this world.

Absolutely.

 

[Irrelevant]

do the feds not have to own a WA water right as if they were any other water user in WA?

in colorado the feds had to apply for their water rights, be scrutinized by the state engineer, and fight in district court to adjudicate like every other tom dick and jane has to for their reclamation projects

Yes and no. Either way in this specific case hydropower is a non-consumptive right, so it really doesn't factor into anything water balance wise, it's more like a just a piece of paper allowing a use. Non-consumptive uses are about the only new water rights being issued (except mitigated, which really just amount to an elaborate change).

 

[SAJ-99]

Yes and no. Either way in this specific case hydropower is a non-consumptive right, so it really doesn't factor into anything water balance wise, it's more like a just a piece of paper allowing a use. Non-consumptive uses are about the only new water rights being issued (except mitigated, which really just amount to an elaborate change).

But it matters though, right? Dams on the Columbia River drainage account for 40-50% of all hydropower produced in the US. The Administration wants to speed transition to renewables, this isn't going to help. Hell, it may be the entire reason for the proposed removal of the dams. I believe also there is a treaty with Canada that governs some of this water. Just to complicate things a little more.

 

[Irrelevant]

I believe also there is a treaty with Canada that governs some of this water. Just to complicate things a little more.

No, that is the mainstem above Grand Coulee, we're talking about the Snake.

You're right this isn't going to help transition to renewables. But for some salmon>climate change propaganda

This is where I get really frustrated. What is the point of having slightly less CO2 in the atmosphere is our rivers are devoid of life? Same with the massive solar power projects? Renewable for the sake of renewable without perspective of the actual impacts on wildlife is as dumb as the public subsidizing O&G.

 

[BigHornRam]

Nuclear. Idaho is currently permitting micro reactors.

When will these be built and generating electricity? Who is building them? Where will they be located?

 

[Deleted member 20812]

This is where I get really frustrated. What is the point of having slightly less CO2 in the atmosphere is our rivers are devoid of life? Same with the massive solar power projects? Renewable for the sake of renewable without perspective of the actual impacts on wildlife is as dumb as the public subsidizing O&G.

Well said.