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

[HighCountryCommando]

The water rights issues is largely just a red herring opposition folks use to push back in the media with. Lower Granite, Little Goose Dam, Lower Monumental Dam, and Ice Harbor Dam are the dams on the chopping block. Of the four, only Ice Harbor provides any irrigation benefit, to the tune of about 47,000 acres irrigated. The Army Corps defines the irrigation at Ice Harbor as "incidental irrigation." In context, eastern WA has about 5 million acres of irrigated land use. Irrigation districts largely get their water from pumps and diversion dams on the main-stem tributaries to the Snake and Columbia (think the Yakima and Clearwater Rivers and their smaller tributaries) or from direct pumping from the Snake and Columbia, not from the Army Corps. The vast majority of these tributary dams have excellent to decent fish passage facilities. The four Snake dams were never built to store water, they are not storage dams. Technically they are called run-of-river dams built specifically for recreation, navigation, hydroelectric generation, and flood control. This is really a cost/benefit issue. Billions of dollars are being spent to maintain four dams that never delivered on their intended economic impact and for the most part are money pits. The cost of maintenance goes up every year. Add to that the fact that 15 billion has been spent on trying to recover Snake salmon and steelhead via restoration (improving aquatic habitat) without any appreciable affect. Throwing more money at the dams and chasing your tail trying to improve the degraded habitat (which is largely caused by the dams) seems counter productive at the least, and asinine at the worst. Maybe a few decades ago there was a good rational for leaving them in, but its become hard to make a rational case for leaving them in and its only getting harder. If the removal writing is on the wall...just put the dams out of their misery and at least save the public some money in the long run.

 

[HighCountryCommando]

This is admittedly old data. But its surprisingly close to the current scale of irrigation being provided by Ice Harbor Dam.

96 Irrigation from 4 Lower Snake River Reservoirs by farms and agricultural users

 

[BigHornRam]

The 4 dams produce 1000 megawatts of electricity or enough to power 800,000 homes. Who here is willing to have their power shut off to move this forward?

 

[VikingsGuy]

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?

And what are the lives of the millions of kids that go unvaccinated and net-free due to lack of funds worth?

These are both both terrible and impossible to answer - but we have limited resources so we need to make choices. I think prioritizing limited resources on high probability outcomes is a reasonable approach. As for the payout - it was in response to the comments that the treaty compelled us to execute this plan - it clearly does not - but it is a consideration that needs to be managed one way or the other.

I don't want the govt to spend $35B on anything that we start out assuming won't work, just to show that we cared enough to try. No plan is certain, and risk is part of the business, but I am not getting warm fuzzies on the probability of this helping anyone - just a lot of money thrown around.


Edited to add more wildlife specific context. Annual budget for all of the US FWS is $2.8B, BLM $1.2B, Nat Park Service $2.5B and EPA $6.1B. I would argue in the aggregate they do far more for wildlife conservation and the environment than this project for far fewer billions.

 

[JLS]

The 4 dams produce 1000 megawatts of electricity or enough to power 800,000 homes. Who here is willing to have their power shut off to move this forward?

This is just ridiculous rhetoric and adds nothing to the conversation. Obviously, power replacement is part of the equation. Do you approach sheep restoration with the same level of negativity?

 

[BigHornRam]

This is just ridiculous rhetoric and adds nothing to the conversation. Obviously, power replacement is part of the equation. Do you approach sheep restoration with the same level of negativity?

We are up to 86 post and I haven't seen a viable example of how you plan to replace this electricity. This ridiculous rhetoric is exactly what happens when people want to "just do something" without thinking about the consequences. I can see major energy shortages coming to this country soon, and I know who will be screaming the loudest when it does.

 

[Irrelevant]

And what are the lives of the millions of kids that go unvaccinated and net-free due to lack of funds worth?

These are both both terrible and impossible to answer - but we have limited resources so we need to make choices. I think prioritizing limited resources on high probability outcomes is a reasonable approach. As for the payout - it was in response to the comments that the treaty compelled us to execute this plan - it clearly does not - but it is a consideration that needs to be managed one way or the other.

I don't want the govt to spend $35B on anything that we start out assuming won't work, just to show that we cared enough to try. No plan is certain, and risk is part of the business, but I am not getting warm fuzzies on the probability of this helping anyone - just a lot of money thrown around.


Edited to add more wildlife specific context. Annual budget for all of the US FWS is $2.8B, BLM $1.2B, Nat Park Service $2.5B and EPA $6.1B. I would argue in the aggregate they do far more for wildlife conservation and the environment than this project for far fewer billions.

If you think the tribe would "settle" for less than 33 billion and renounce their treaty rights to salmon you haven't followed this issue.

I find it interesting that one other treaty related topics you've been very supportive of holding the Feds to their word, but not on this one.

edit: BPA currently spends 300-500 mill per year for mitigation in an attempt to offset it's impacts to salmon. But how are salmon doing? When do we realize that those impacts are being effectively offset by the status quo? What is that quote about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?

 

[Irrelevant]

We are up to 86 post and I haven't seen a viable example of how you plan to replace this electricity. This ridiculous rhetoric is exactly what happens when people want to "just do something" without thinking about the consequences. I can see major energy shortages coming to this country soon, and I know who will be screaming the loudest when it does.

Sell less to CA. Done. Next question please.

 

[JLS]

We are up to 86 post and I haven't seen a viable example of how you plan to replace this electricity. This ridiculous rhetoric is exactly what happens when people want to "just do something" without thinking about the consequences. I can see major energy shortages coming to this country soon, and I know who will be screaming the loudest when it does.

Number one, I’m not in charge of developing the plan. Number two, dam removal has been a topic for decades. If it comes to fruition (particularly with a GOP supporter), I’m fairly confident there will be alternative plans in place to offset the loss of grid production. Number three, see @neffa3 ‘s response. Number four, you didn’t answer my question are you this negative about bighorn sheep restoration? After all, some is taking the shaft there too. Why not just have a hatchery sheep program and be done with all the other nonsense?

 

[HighCountryCommando]

The 4 dams produce 1000 megawatts of electricity or enough to power 800,000 homes. Who here is willing to have their power shut off to move this forward?

The central issue that gets glossed over is the fact that the lower Snake River dams are not going to remain competitive in the energy market in the coming decades. Currently the cost of energy per megawatt-hour on the Snake River Dams is about $27 per megawatt-hour. Currently wind and solar in the Columbia basin can be purchased for $20-$21 per megawatt-hour. Idaho power is filling out their portfolio with wind and solar. They also see the writing on the wall (and make sure not to proclaim it to the public too loudly). The solar and wind portion of their portfolio will only increase as the technology gets better. Its not a matter of if, but when, these dams will eventually cease to be profitable. That day is likely coming sooner rather than later. The issues surrounding salmon and steelhead get hijacked as the only good reason to remove the dams. You can make a sound economic case for removal without ever bringing salmon and steelhead in the discussion. This is really about economics. The Army Corps and Bonneville Power Administration are not very good stewards of their assets. Like all government entities they have no idea what efficiency looks like and love to spend money without much conscience of who is paying for it.

 

[VikingsGuy]

If you think the tribe would "settle" for less than 33 billion and renounce their treaty rights to salmon you haven't followed this issue.

I find it interesting that one other treaty related topics you've been very supportive of holding the Feds to their word, but not on this one.

You are misreading my words (or I am unclear). I am just saying there are many ways to satisfy an obligation - I have yet to see that this extremely expensive plan is the best or most likely to work.

As for treaties - they should be read and enforced as SCOTUS says - I am not aware of a SCOTUS ruling that requires the implementation of this particular $35B plan with its relatively low expected success rate. Referencing treaty rights in this thread seems less like legal respect for a particular treaty and seems more like an attempt to artificially support an expensive and speculative plan regardless of whether it actually works or not or whether the tribes will be actually happy with the outcome in 35 years.

tldr; respecting specific treaty rights is good - using the general prinicple of treaty right to demand a specific course of action the is actually favored for other reasons is bad.

 

[idahohuntr]

On the treaty rights piece - the federal government can unilaterally abrogate treaty rights anytime they want (whether that is likely, moral, etc. is a separate discussion). The hatcheries are not a treaty obligation, they are a mitigation component that was part of authorizing legislation. There would be no need to 'settle' with tribes on a treaty claim, and absent a congressional abrogation of treaty rights, there is no ability to 'settle' anyways (e.g., fed agencies can't just offer to pay...treaties are the supreme law of the land).

All that said, clearly nobody wants the salmon to go extinct. My opposition to the plan is it won't do much good and it will cost an enormous amount all while protecting/promoting things that do far more damage (e.g., Hells Canyon complex which BLOCKS 85% of historic fall chinook spawning habitat). If we are going to spend 35B to save salmon, let's use science to guide the most effective actions, not a long standing policy desire to breach these 4 federal dams.

 

[BigHornRam]

The central issue that gets glossed over is the fact that the lower Snake River dams are not going to remain competitive in the energy market in the coming decades. Currently the cost of energy per megawatt-hour on the Snake River Dams is about $27 per megawatt-hour. Currently wind and solar in the Columbia basin can be purchased for $20-$21 per megawatt-hour. Idaho power is filling out their portfolio with wind and solar. They also see the writing on the wall (and make sure not to proclaim it to the public too loudly). The solar and wind portion of their portfolio will only increase as the technology gets better. Its not a matter of if, but when, these dams will eventually cease to be profitable. That day is likely coming sooner rather than later. The issues surrounding salmon and steelhead get hijacked as the only good reason to remove the dams. You can make a sound economic case for removal without ever bringing salmon and steelhead in the discussion. This is really about economics. The Army Corps and Bonneville Power Administration are not very good stewards of their assets. Like all government entities they have no idea what efficiency looks like and love to spend money without much conscience of who is paying for it.

Can you provide a link showing where wind and solar can be produced and sold at $20 to $21 a megawatt. Thanks.

 

[JLS]

My opposition to the plan is it won't do much good and it will cost an enormous amount all while protecting/promoting things that do far more damage (e.g., Hells Canyon complex which BLOCKS 85% of historic fall chinook spawning habitat). If we are going to spend 35B to save salmon, let's use science to guide the most effective actions, not a long standing policy desire to breach these 4 federal dams.

That’s a fair point, but does the science support removal of Hells Canyon dam without changing the downstream dynamics?

 

[idahohuntr]

The central issue that gets glossed over is the fact that the lower Snake River dams are not going to remain competitive in the energy market in the coming decades. Currently the cost of energy per megawatt-hour on the Snake River Dams is about $27 per megawatt-hour. Currently wind and solar in the Columbia basin can be purchased for $20-$21 per megawatt-hour. Idaho power is filling out their portfolio with wind and solar. They also see the writing on the wall (and make sure not to proclaim it to the public too loudly). The solar and wind portion of their portfolio will only increase as the technology gets better. Its not a matter of if, but when, these dams will eventually cease to be profitable. That day is likely coming sooner rather than later. The issues surrounding salmon and steelhead get hijacked as the only good reason to remove the dams. You can make a sound economic case for removal without ever bringing salmon and steelhead in the discussion. This is really about economics. The Army Corps and Bonneville Power Administration are not very good stewards of their assets. Like all government entities they have no idea what efficiency looks like and love to spend money without much conscience of who is paying for it.

The FY2020 cost per mw/hour at the lower snake dams was $6-9. No idea where you get the $27...my guess is that is some sort of broad average from hydro dams across the basin or nation? Either way, its not accurate and its not a good way to assess or make a policy decision about a specific set of projects.

 

[morley.tyler]

Simpson is clearly not running again in 2 years and that freedom allows him to act like a statesman and not a politician.
Otherwise The Farm Bureau and other Ag concerns would definitely fund a Primary opponent.
I respect the effort.

 

[idahohuntr]

That’s a fair point, but does the science support removal of Hells Canyon dam without changing the downstream dynamics?

Good question. I don't know that I've seen any specific models that address this. My statement is more based on blocked/lost habitat relative to dams with high survival/passage. The counter is of course, why don't we have streams full of salmon in the Frank Church, if the Lower Snake dams are so benign. And that's where we get back to overall salmon declines and how much improvement would be attributable to breaching those lower snake dams.

 

[JLS]

Good question. I don't know that I've seen any specific models that address this. My statement is more based on blocked/lost habitat relative to dams with high survival/passage. The counter is of course, why don't we have streams full of salmon in the Frank Church, if the Lower Snake dams are so benign. And that's where we get back to overall salmon declines and how much improvement would be attributable to breaching those lower snake dams.

Agreed. It’s messy. Even with state of the art fish passage, that doesn’t mitigate altered water conditions and decreased flow for downstream survival.

Would dam removal on the Snake be enough to offset the dams on the Columbia?

Unfortunately, I worry we’ll spend too much time trying to find the “best one thing” to do when in reality we need to be considering a combination of things. None of which will be cheap.

 

[VikingsGuy]

there is no ability to 'settle' anyways (e.g., fed agencies can't just offer to pay...treaties are the supreme law of the land).

Agree with most of your post, but this is simply incorrect. A tribe can agree to relinquish certain claims if it so chooses.

Treaty supremacy is complicated and not worth getting into now, but in no way limits a tribes ability to manage its own affairs to its own benefit. Trading cash for forebearance is a common way for parties (and governments) to resolve issues.

 

[BigHornRam]

Can you provide a link showing where wind and solar can be produced and sold at $20 to $21 a megawatt. Thanks.

$35 to $55 for solar per megawatt according to this pro solar link.

Solar energy reaches historically low costs

Solar could be the GOAT when it comes to cheap electricity

www.theverge.com