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

[Brittany Chukarman]

With the weather cycle were in, even in years of heavy snowpack the snow goes off too fast. Brownlee is used to regulate heavy spring runoff to eliminate flooding in the lower Columbia. There is a complicated treaty with Canada to share this responsibility. Then later in the year, due to the same conditions, Brownlee is Federally mandated to release water if the rivers get too warm. How would that storage capacity and cooling water be replaced if the Hell's Canyon Complex was removed?

 

[Brittany Chukarman]

Another consideration is the silt that's trapped in the dams. What damage to downstream spawning redds would be done by releasing all that silt?

 

[VikingsGuy]

To be against something because it is different is simply asinine.

As is, "we have to do something even if it doesn't work".

"Just do something" is no better rational than "change is bad". If this is the best plan with biggest bang for the $35,000,000,000 and 35+ year committment then we should do it. But if it's a shot in the dark, maybe we could have more benefit from spending the $35,000,000,000 on something else. My guess is that $35Billion can do a lot of good in places with higher likelihood of success than this, but I defer a conclusion to the experts.

 

[TheJason]

Another consideration is the silt that's trapped in the dams. What damage to downstream spawning redds would be done by releasing all that silt?

This has been in discussion for years. It won’t just be released.

 

[SAJ-99]

As is, "we have to do something even if it doesn't work".

"Just do something" is no better rational than "change is bad". If this is the best plan with biggest bang for the $35,000,000,000 and 35+ year committment then we should do it. But if it's a shot in the dark, maybe we could have more benefit from spending the $35,000,000,000 on something else. My guess is that $35Billion can do a lot of good in places with higher likelihood of success than this, but I defer a conclusion to the experts.

I agree. The problem is placing a nominal $ value on "success" and comparing it to other things. If it saves the salmon runs, is it worth the $35B? Maybe. Could that $35B been used on a different project that had a higher payoff? That answer could always be 'yes', and someone will make a post hoc argument surely picking a project that would prove it. However, we never have all the information necessary to make that determination in real time.

I am a big believer that if we are doing something and it isn't working we should stop doing it. But I am more willing to try something new and unproven than many others. Those grand decisions are difficult, so people tend to look at how it affects them individually.

 

[Irrelevant]

With the weather cycle were in, even in years of heavy snowpack the snow goes off too fast. Brownlee is used to regulate heavy spring runoff to eliminate flooding in the lower Columbia. There is a complicated treaty with Canada to share this responsibility. Then later in the year, due to the same conditions, Brownlee is Federally mandated to release water if the rivers get too warm. How would that storage capacity and cooling water be replaced if the Hell's Canyon Complex was removed?

But no one is talking about that, nor Dworshak. The lower snake dams are not impoundments like that where water is stored then released, they're just run of river dams for shipping purposes that also generate a little power via non-consumptive rights.

Another consideration is the silt that's trapped in the dams. What damage to downstream spawning redds would be done by releasing all that silt?

Not to pick on you, but how has every non-dammed river ever handled this? Just fine. Fluvial processes are extremely good as sorted material based on size. This problem will get better along the lower river as the current impoundments prevent natural riverine processes and dredging is constantly an issue. The silt will be sorted into the slow areas and the gravels will remain on the point bars and tailwaters.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I agree. The problem is placing a nominal $ value on "success" and comparing it to other things. If it saves the salmon runs, is it worth the $35B? Maybe. Could that $35B been used on a different project that had a higher payoff? That answer could always be 'yes', and someone will make a post hoc argument surely picking a project that would prove it. However, we never have all the information necessary to make that determination in real time.

I am a big believer that if we are doing something and it isn't working we should stop doing it. But I am more willing to try something new and unproven than many others. Those grand decisions are difficult, so people tend to look at how it affects them individually.

Don't disagree, but when $1B a year covers vaccinating 95% of children in poor countries or $100mm covers mosquito netting to all poor children in malaria regions, etc. I don't think $35B to save salmon in ID should be spent without higher certainty than, "we had to try something".

 

[Irrelevant]

Now let me backtrack a little on my thoughts on this specific case on the Lower Snake dams with regard to water rights. There is no law that requires a water right holder to use their water rights. So in this case the Feds acquired reservoir rights to impound water and non-consumptive rights for minimal power generation. Because there is no actual water storage in association with the rights, they can, at their leisure choose to not use them. And legally there's nothing anyone can say. Now... the Feds are actually going above and beyond because they're going to actually pay to extend your intakes and probably deepen your wells. It will become slightly trickier to extract water from a natural river than the current reservoirs, but not overly so. The real pinch will be groundwater users than have been benefiting from artificially recharged water tables.

 

[BigHornRam]

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

So here's a link to this fantasy. Like the name of the company promoting this, "ultra safe nuclear corporation"! 7 years to build a 15 mw demonstration reactor using a pile of government cash. What could go wrong here?

Micro modular reactors proposed for Idaho and Illinois

Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation is proposing to deploy its Micro Modular Reactor at sites in Idaho and Illinois by 2026 through partnerships with Idaho National Laboratory and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. ;

www.world-nuclear-news.org

 

[SAJ-99]

Don't disagree, but when $1B a year covers vaccinating 95% of children in poor countries or $100mm covers mosquito netting to all poor children in malaria regions, etc. I don't think $35B to save salmon in ID should be spent without higher certainty than, "we had to try something".

I get it. I think there have been studies posted by others earlier in this thread that the science is a little better than "we had to try something". That doesn't directly address your concern on cost-benefit comparison. At the end of the day, how do you place a value of returning a piece of nature to its natural state when the last 2000yrs has been spent in finding ways to change nature to human's benefit. We have the hindsight to know the value of that current benefit. I'm sure a more robust salmon fishery would have value, but $35B is a tough ask.

 

[TheJason]

35B and is a tough ask, but entire stocks of salmon and steelhead are a significant resource. Not only for recreational use, but there is also the tribal aspect to this where I’m quite certain the courts aren’t good to look favorably on this if we allow these fish stock to disappear.

 

[BigHornRam]

Don't disagree, but when $1B a year covers vaccinating 95% of children in poor countries or $100mm covers mosquito netting to all poor children in malaria regions, etc. I don't think $35B to save salmon in ID should be spent without higher certainty than, "we had to try something".

Resistance (and fiscal discipline) is futile salmon hater.

 

[Irrelevant]

Don't disagree, but when $1B a year covers vaccinating 95% of children in poor countries or $100mm covers mosquito netting to all poor children in malaria regions, etc. I don't think $35B to save salmon in ID should be spent without higher certainty than, "we had to try something".

the bigger issue that i pointed out earlier is when the Feds signed treaty with the tribes promising salmon.

 

[TheJason]

the bigger issue that i pointed out earlier is when the Feds signed treaty with the tribes promising salmon.

Which makes the weak fiscal discipline argument even weaker, when you consider the potential for tribal lawsuits for loss of fisheries.

 

[Irrelevant]

Which makes the weak fiscal discipline argument even weaker, when you consider the potential for tribal lawsuits for loss of fisheries.

100%

The real circular logic comes when the Feds have to operate fish hatcheries to meet treaty obligations but the hatcheries themselves have proven to be a detriment to salmon/steelhead survival (at least with some stocks, namely steelhead).

 

[LuketheDog]

"ultra safe nuclear corporation"!

Yikes, that name sounds familiar, do they sell knock-off reactors on Amazon of eBay by any chance?

 

[VikingsGuy]

Which makes the weak fiscal discipline argument even weaker, when you consider the potential for tribal lawsuits for loss of fisheries.

And if the plan fails how does that protect us from suit? "Doing something" is not compliance with a treaty if that something fails. I am guessing the tribe would happily take less than $33 billion in settlement . . . .

 

[antlerradar]

Now let me backtrack a little on my thoughts on this specific case on the Lower Snake dams with regard to water rights. There is no law that requires a water right holder to use their water rights. So in this case the Feds acquired reservoir rights to impound water and non-consumptive rights for minimal power generation. Because there is no actual water storage in association with the rights, they can, at their leisure choose to not use them. And legally there's nothing anyone can say. Now... the Feds are actually going above and beyond because they're going to actually pay to extend your intakes and probably deepen your wells. It will become slightly trickier to extract water from a natural river than the current reservoirs, but not overly so. The real pinch will be groundwater users than have been benefiting from artificially recharged water tables.

Again I don't know about Washington, but in Montana if you don't use your water right it can be declared abandoned and you will lose it.

 

[TheJason]

And if the plan fails how does that protect us from suit? "Doing something" is compliance with a treaty if that something fails. I am guessing the tribe would happily take less than $33 billion in settlement . . . .

It doesn’t protect anyone if it fails.
As to your last sentence, WTF is an entire anadromous fishery worth, and how could anyone in good conscience even suggest just paying out for the loss of it?

Who needs WSF? We can just grow bighorns in a captive facility and release them prior to the hunt. Heck, we can even increase tags in doing so. What’s the downside?

 

[TOGIE]

Again I don't know about Washington, but in Montana if you don't use your water right it can be declared abandoned and you will lose it.

well that's kinda neither here nor there. in this case it's basically the feds declaring the abandonment of their right