Top of the News

Chosen and ranked by Crosscut editors. Click date for previous days.

Mouse over headline for description.

more top of the news

Advertisement

Advertisement

Mossback »

Sep 26, 2007 5:00 AM | last updated Sep 25, 2007 3:47 PM
Columbia River fish ladder.

A fish ladder on the dammed Columbia River. (Bonneville Power Administration)

Advertisement
Advertisement

Eating our way out of extinction

Bruce Babbitt speaks for a strategy to bring down the Snake River dams and save our wild salmon — all while enjoying the taste of success.

By Knute Berger

Former Clinton-era Interior Secretary and ex-Arizona Gov. Bruce Babbitt was in Seattle late last week to speak about the benefits of removing the lower Snake River dams. He was part of a "Wheat, Wine and Wild Salmon" event hosted by the group Save Our Wild Salmon.

The group is trying to link the interests of farmers, fishermen, winemakers, and restaurateurs and chefs in preserving the Columbia-Snake Basin salmon and steelhead runs. All four of the Snake's remaining runs are threatened, as are 13 of the Columbia's. The group served wild salmon, local wines, and some Eastern Washington wheat products to highlight the connections and economic benefits of a thriving fish population and local agriculture. Farmers, fishermen, and chefs were there to meet the guests.

In a small press briefing before his talk, Babbitt said that one of the problems is that when "we settled the West, we left fishermen out of the equation." The Columbia-Snake Basin spans six western states, including Washington, Oregon, Idaho, California, Wyoming, and Nevada. The dams, he says, "are about the viability of spawning salmon in the entire Rocky Mountain range." Those of us on the wet side of the Cascades don't necessarily think of the interior West as salmon country, and those in the interior don't factor fishing fleets into their agricultural equations.

From a strategic standpoint, thinking in terms of the economic ecosystem is an excellent strategy. Back in 2000, the Seattle City Council was slammed in the media on both sides of the Cascades for encouraging the breaching of the lower Snake River dams. The general complaint: Urban ignoramuses should mind their own business. A Seattle Post-Intelligencer columnist wrote that "the Seattle City Council knows as much about the Snake River dams as a pig knows about Sunday school."

There is ignorance, but it's on both sides of the mountains. Babbitt has a long history of attempting to get economic and environmental concerns onto the same page to work out sustainable compromises. (He's also been criticized by some greens for the same.) He feels that many of the shipping and energy issues raised by removing the dams can be addressed — moving wheat by train is just about the same as moving it by barge, for example. Some energy and infrastructure investments could improve the situation at less cost than prohibitively expensive and perhaps futile salmon recovery efforts that keeping the dams necessitates.

Babbitt has been meeting with business and political leaders in Eastern Washington to find consensus about the dams. He mentioned meeting with Don Barbieri, Spokane civic leader, retired hotel magnate, and former Democratic candidate for Congress. He is somewhat encouraged by a slow change in the West's political climate. He cited as positive examples the election of rurally rooted Western Democrats like Gov. Brian Schweitzer of Montana and Sen. Ken Salazar of Colorado, both ranchers.

Babbitt says there are many people in the rural West who think the Bush administration has gone too far with its pro-industry policies, especially in the area of oil and gas leases. "I think the rural West is still conservative, but increasingly purple instead of red." (Babbitt, by the way, says he is staying out of making endorsements in the 2008 presidential race because he is chair of the U.S. branch of the World Wildlife Fund.)

Building awareness of economic links that could grow stronger with a healthy, recovered fish population is a way to get divided interests working toward a common goal. The growing movement toward local and craft food products (farmer's markets, organic food, artisnal breads, winemaking, microbrewing) is helping to reshape regional agriculture by creating consumer demand for new and specialized products.

More discriminating consumers, mostly in urban areas, are creating new markets for farmers and in some cases utterly transforming agricultural lands. It's not just the Internet server farms in Qunicy, Wash., that are changing the West. Transformed ag areas like the Yakima and Walla Walla valleys have become major winemaking (and touring) regions, and in the Palouse, some wheat growers are raising specialty grains for the Japanese or San Francisco bakers.

It might be too much to hope for — that we could, in essence, eat our way out of a salmon extinction problem. For one thing, the availability of gourmet wild salmon might give city-dwellers a false sense of security about the endangerment of fish. In a city like Seattle, where a median house sells for $500,000, there are enough consumers who'll pay any price to get a good piece of salmon. On the other hand, educating consumers about where their food comes from can help shift the economic equation. Increasing demand for local fish and locally produced foods is a boon to farms, east and west.

The hope for recovery of the Snake River salmon may be in a robust strengthening of the food chain, an area not of urban ignorance, but of urban expertise and enthusiasm.

  • Knute Berger is Mossback, Crosscut's chief Northwest native. He also writes the monthly Gray Matters column for Seattle magazine and is a weekly Friday guest on Weekday on KUOW-FM (94.9). You can e-mail him at mossback@crosscut.com.
Comments
Definition of irony?
Report a violationPosted by: Stitch on Sep 26, 2007 8:39 AM
I'm often astounded by the logic of some people. People claim farm raised salmon are bad. They also claim the 4 dams on the Lower Snake River (which allow Lewiston, ID to be a seaport) are the reasons wild salmon are threatened. So to raise awareness of the plight of the Snake River/Columbia Basin salmon people hold an event which features the endangered species as the center piece of the menu. You cannot have wild salmon and eat them too. I curious why no ever discusses putting a fish ladder in at the Grand Coulee? I've heard the claim of the dam is too high, but why not just make a longer ladder? Opening up the Columbia north of the Grand Coulee would make far more of the water shed accessible to the fish than removing the 4 dams on the lower Snake River would, especially since those dams already have ladders, fish bypasses and other abatement measures in place. I also find it strange that in these days of “human sourced CO2 caused climate change” that people would be arguing to remove a source of renewable non-emitting electricity.
An economic idea does not a political movement make
Report a violationPosted by: dltooley on Sep 26, 2007 11:47 AM
Although there the beginings of a rational economic argument here, it has not been followed to the point of the implied conclusions of this piece.

Yes, it would be good if the price of Salmon economically justified removal of a dam. But, as the previous commenter noted, Hydroelectric is the best source of renewable energy in the Pacific NW. I very much doubt that the numbers would pencil out in your favor - and most likely, the result is as much a financial scam as Enron, et al.

Big hydroelectric projects do have an impact, and, yes, removal of the Snake River dams would improve Salmon habitat. My guess though is that we might do more for that species, and our own, if we focused on rebuilding habitat in the Puget Sound - witness the success of the Issaquah Hatchery.

The author was also remiss in not discussing the planned removal of the Elwha Dam. I personally support that removal - perhaps the biggest reason that it is a major drainage of the Olympic National Park - where the word 'Pristine' has much weight.

That said, let me throw out two proposals of my own on this subject - which are actually being considered preliminarily now, by at least a few decision makers.

I am a Whitewater kayaker and my knowledge of rivers, and hydroelectric projects, is based on this experience. Some hydroelectric projects provide better recreational options than others - releases, such as from Tacoma Power's Nisqually project, are good for both fish and paddlers. Even a better example is a diversion style hydro project, such as Northern California's Feather River where very little river bed is actually buried.

As such, proposed:

1. Experiment with building a larger fish ladder - suitable also as a whitewater facility (perhaps only used as such when salmon are NOT migrating) Imagine, if you will, that this strategy works and we build giant water parks at every BPA project!

2. Build more diversion style hydroelectric projects in the NW. Sure, these have no storage, so generate the most power when it is raining - but reducing the cost of electricity during the winter months only is not a bad thing, especially if it still pencils out. It might make sense to make the diversion facilities big enough to at least blunt flood events - for example in the Snoqualmie drainage.

-Douglas Tooley
Lincoln District, Tacoma
RE: An economic idea does not a political movement make
Report a violationPosted by: knute.berger@crosscut.com on Sep 26, 2007 12:11 PM
Crosscut WriterI did not mention it in my story, but Bruce Babbitt did bring up the Elwha by reminding us that when dam removal was initially proposed there was nearly a consensus against the idea and that in the end there was a virtual political consensus in favor of it. He sees that as a hopeful sign for those who would like to bring down the dams on the Snake.

In a Save Our Wild Salmon press release, he states "The science is clear that if we remove the four dams on the lower Snake River, the salmon will return and sustainable salmon populations will create revenue and economic opportunities throughout the Pacific Northwest...The question is whether or not we as a region value these fish enough to do what is necessary to save them."
RE: An economic idea does not a political movement make
Report a violationPosted by: salmonmeanbusiness on Sep 27, 2007 12:38 PM
When one takes a sober look at all the costs to keep these dams operating, their limited benefits, their impacts to salmon, and the fact that studies show these limited benefits can be replaced with alternatives that will cost less over time, the decision to remove or not the 4 dams on the Snake River becomes easy.

It's really about feasible alternatives to the hydro-energy and barge transportation on the river. Studies are already out there that indicate that replacement indeed does pencil out. But if there are questions about these studies by RAND Corp. and the Army Corps of Engineers and others, then let's have Congress undertake this analysis and put the facts on the table for all to see.

HR 1507 - the Salmon Economic Analysis and Planning Act would do just this. It will get the facts on the table by looking at the science (will dam removal help restore salmon, as it also examines the impact from the other H's - habitat, harvest, and hatcheries) and the economics (what do these dams do and what would be involved to replace them with alternatives - including truly clean, salmon-safe energy like efficiency and wind?)

If these dams are so completely irreplaceable, why don't dam removal opponents support these studies? The studies ought to support their rhetoric that the dams are too valuable to live without. Why would Rep. Cathy McMorris-Rodgers or Rep. Doc Hastings be afraid of independent, up-to-date, comprehensive information on the costs and benefits of the lower Snake River dams? Hmmm.

We have spent more than $8 billion on taxpayer and ratepayer financed salmon programs and they have failed us. The courts have said so. Our struggling fishing communities have said so. And the fish tell us so. After all this money, we still have 13 endangered stocks in the Columbia and Snake Rivers and these populations are in decline. 4 Snake River sockeye returned home this year. Just 4 fish!

Given the pattern of failure by the current administration, and given the importance of salmon to the region and the nation, to fishing communities and jobs, to anglers, to our tribal neighbors, to the heritage and culture of the Pacific Northwest, and to the ecosystems that they are part of, shouldn't we take a new hard look at what the scientists have told us for years - removing the 4 lower Snake River dams must be the cornerstone of any effective salmon recovery plan. Or should we just keep throwing money to the tune of $600 million every year at more failed programs?

The Snake River in the Columbia Basin represents a huge salmon restoration opportunity. Not long ago, the Columbia and Snake Rivers were home to the greatest salmon and steelhead runs anywhere in the world - and the Snake River produced more than half of some of those stocks. There are more than 5,000 river and stream miles of excellent habitat upstream from the 4 dams on the Snake River, but the fish can't access it. It's not that there are not fish ladders; there are. It is the cumulative impact of 8 dams (4 on the lower Columbia and 4 on the lower Snake) and 8 reservoirs is too much for salmon. The dams kill as many as 92% of the juveniles on their way to the ocean.

We have a chance now, before we lose these fish, to right a wrong, and do so in a way that serves fishing and farming communities, taxpayers and regional ratepayers, tribal and non-tribal people alike. We ought to bring parties together and seize this opportunity to solve a problem and keep our communities moving forward together. Contact your members of Congress and ask for their leadership.
Removing the lower Snake dams makes economic, environmental sense
Report a violationPosted by: rock rabbit on Sep 26, 2007 1:57 PM
The most practical way to restore Snake River salmon runs so that they can take full advantage of abundant habitat in the Salmon River wilderness upstream is to remove these four dams. Sure, you could take out John Day Dam on the Columbia instead (also helping Columbia runs a lot), but that would be a lot worse from power, flood control, and navigation perspective.

Given that U.S. taxpayers and NW electricity ratepayers are currently spending about $6 billion per decade on ineffective but expensive salmon recovery measures, there appears to be money around to make sure that farmers (and Lewiston) retain an efficient transportation system by upgrading railroads and that utilities and energy users remain whole. Barging would remain a cheap, subsidized tranportation option from Pasco and Wallula, only 140 miles downstream from Lewiston. And removing the dams would actually help irrigated agriculture in Idaho, as it would reduce pressure on those farmers to let water that could otherwise water crops flow downstream to speed salmon past the lower Snake dams.
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign up for Crosscut's free weekday newsletter e-mail.
About Crosscut
Advertising Info
Crosscut's list of RSS feeds.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement


About Crosscut »
Crosscut Seattle is an online newspaper for the Pacific Northwest, including Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and British Columbia. It's a guide to local and regional news, a place to report and discuss news, and a platform for new tools to convey news.

• More about Crosscut

Contact Crosscut

Tools

Sign up for Crosscut's daily newsletter
About Crosscut
Advertising Info
Crosscut's list of RSS feeds.
Advertisement