Andrea Diaz
Reporter
KISU, Idaho State University’s radio station, recently interviewed Idaho Congressman Mike Simpson about a new proposal known as the “Energy and Salmon Concept” that would remove the four Lower Snake River dams in Idaho by 2031 and let the water flow through Idaho in the form of rivers and streams. The Proposal would be a 34 billion dollar project that would take many years to complete, but it would reimagine the Northwest’s energy landscape.
“Well, you know, we’ve been debating on how to recover salmon runs ever since the lower Snake River dams. For over 40 years we’ve been discussing this. We’ve tried every other alternative except the extreme measure of removing the dams.” said U.S. representative, Mike Simpson.
There are many positives to this proposal and also some possible consequences. This proposal was created due to concerns about Idaho’s salmon going extinct. The most obvious positive to this proposal would be it would help the salmon population in Idaho. “The proposal was brought forward because removing the dams is recognized as the only way to save the salmon. Salmon serve a vital function in Idaho’s economy, ecology and culture. Salmon are spiritually crucial for native peoples in the state and are also a source of food, recreation and revenue,” said the president of the ISU Sustainability Club, senior political science major, Eizaak Jordan.
“We’ve spent 17 billion dollars currently, trying to recover salmon and one thing we have not done is recover salmon.” Simpson said.
Another positive to this proposal is that it was very well thought out and had many details in the plans and execution of the proposal. “The plan is also well thought out. It includes a place at the table for tribal interests, funds for community restoration, funds for replacing lost energy, into handling nutrients from feedlots. The takeaway is that the plan is needed, and even an environmentalist like me has to work hard to find many issues,” Jordan said.
With the benefits that the proposal brings, there are also some possible downsides to the proposal. One of the most apparent being that the Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act cannot be sued in the area’s agricultural operations for 25 years.
“The Clean Water Act’s (CWA) creation was in response to the vast amount of unregulated industrial and agrarian waste going into waterways across the U.S. This act and the Endangered Species Act give environmental groups and communities a legal standing to fight threats to their waterways. To be able to enforce the CWA and through lawsuits is another tool to reign in bad actors. The plan also states that even “bad actors” will be exempt from lawsuits. The capacity to file lawsuits is vital if future anti-environmental presidential administrations gut Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) enforcement of the CWA and ESA; lawsuits might be a nuisance, but they are also a safeguard,” said Jordan.
This proposal is drastic and there are possible consequences, however, the benefits may greatly outweigh the possible consequences.
“There is no way forward for salmon without removing the Lower Snake dams. Even though it is a great plan, and ISU’s Sustainability Club endorses it, we must still use a critical lens to determine where it falls short. This plan will define development in the [the region of] Palouse for decades; it is essential to get it right,” said Jordan.
Salmon are far more important than a couple wheat farmers that sell to China. The power created by these dams are back up power for California currently. Once they go off grid then you have eye sores that destroyed one of gods creatures because of human greed. To answer the last comment yes fish are more important than human self-loathing greed and the liberal who cares attitude.
Oddly, this article fails to mention the scores of native commercial gill netters of the lower snake and Columbia Rivers. Gill netting is a very efficient means of catching fish…particularly more mature salmon and steelhead. Each net would be suspended either from shore or between two boats. Native fishers in the Pacific Northwest, Canada, and Alaska still commonly use gillnets in their fisheries for salmon and steelhead. Oregon voters had the chance to decide on whether gillnetting will continue in the Columbia River in November 2012 by voting on Measure 81.[1] The measure was defeated with 65% of Oregon voters voting against the measure and allowing commercial gillnet fishing to continue on the Columbia River.[2]
The Columbia River Basin is currently under a management agreement that spans from 2008 to December 31, 2017.[3] This management agreement looks to gather information on fish harvesting through means including gillnets.[4] The parties involved will convene again to decide on further action after the current agreement ends.
Furthermore, the economic impacts are far more wide reaching and implications much deeper than this article, presents. Given the predominant industry in Idaho is agriculture, followed by manufacturing, and tourism. Just what do the newcomers to Boise, Nampa/Caldwell and Idaho Falls (the most densely populated metropolitan cities in Idaho)…along with the outsiders who believe breaching the dams is the fix-all…what do they/you think will happen when agriculture dries up…literally, not to mention cost of power…after breaching the dams?
https://www.idahopower.com/energy-environment/energy/energy-sources/how-we-compare-nationally/
1 ^ Yes on Measure 81 Stop Gillnetting”. Archived from the original on 14 August 2012. Retrieved 14 August 2012.
2 ^ “Oregon Secretary of State: Official Results November 2012 General Election” (PDF). sos.oregon.gov. Retrieved 4 April 2018.
3 ^ “Environmental Impact Statement for Programmatic Review of Harvest Actions for Salmon and Steelhead in the Columbia Basin related to U.S. v. Oregon :: NOAA Fisheries West Coast Region”. www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov. NOAA Fisheries West Coast Region. Retrieved 30 November 2017.
4 ^ “2008-2017 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement May 2008” (PDF). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Retrieved 30 November 2017.
Well you can sure see a lot of Californians and other liberals from the western states are moving into Idaho. I hope you bring a lot of your money with you so you can pay for the higher electricity bills when you start screwing up the hydropower. Are the fish really that important to you? didn’t you see what happened down in Texas back in February? Wise up or go back where you came from.
Salmon in the Columbia cross 4 dams and are sustaining their population. Salmon in the Snake River must cross those same four and then four more on the Snake. And they are constantly declining and will go extinct eventually. The dam removal is needed, and Senator Simpsons proposal is summarized nicely on his website to address all the concerns raised above. Countless studies have shown this to be true, $17B has been sent trying to fix it other ways, like putting salmon in trucks to haul them, and yet the population still declines. The plan addresses transportation for grain and replacing the energy. It’s worth a read.
The first paragraph says he wants to remove the dams in Idaho? No, he wants to remove the dams in Washington that have fish passage built into them, not the ones in Idaho, where not a single dam has fish passage. Start with alowing the fish to access their spawning grounds and removing the dams preventing fish passage.
simpson is a total- nuff said.
Lots of opinion but no sources. What’s the basis for claiming damns are the cause when no study has shown it? How are you going to replace the power generated without increasing pollution?