More voices for
dam-breaching
If Idaho’s
political policymakers are devout guardians of the public trust as they
boast, then they’d seize on two studies that support breaching or
removal of four Snake River dams and take them seriously.
But let’s
not be naive. Elected Idaho officials who’re dead set against
dam-breaching are inclined to shrug off facts that interfere with their
political mindsets.
So, these
studies documenting robust economic and environmental benefits from
breaching or removing the dams probably will be dismissed.
However,
the studies will be useful tools for Idahoans dedicated to overturning
resistance to dam breaching and exposing questionable, gloomy arguments
of dam supporters.
The most
prestigious of the studies, by California-based RAND and funded by the
Pew Charitable Trust, has special credibility. It wasn’t intended as a
study about dam impact at all, but an analysis of why Northwest states
should reduce their 82 percent dependence on hydropower and begin a
gradual shift to more use of wind and solar power with a mix of natural
gas generation.
But in
the course of research, RAND (www.rand.org) discovered widespread
long-term benefits from removing the dams, including restoring the
natural habitat of salmon, increasing recreational uses on the Snake,
increased commercial fishing, new jobs, gradual elimination of costs of
dam maintenance and horrendous expense of barging salmon around the dams
as a dubious strategy, and gradual shifts to energy more reliable than
the frequently drought-damaged hydropower.
In losses
vs. benefits, RAND itemized annual losses of $70.9 million if the dams
are removed, but $179 million per year in benefits thereafter.
In the
other voluminous study, the Eagle, Idaho-based Northwest Resource
Information Center (www.nwric.org) found that Army Corps of Engineers
economic statistics are inaccurate. Instead of losses created by
breaching the Snake River dams, Idaho would gain $93 million annually in
economic benefits. The NWRIC’s calculations were focused on Idaho,
whereas RAND computed findings on the region served by the Snake River
in Idaho and Washington.
Both
studies recognized downsides: some jobs related to shipping on the Snake
would be lost and Idaho farmers would pay more for shipping via train or
truck rather than water.
But long
term pluses are overwhelming: The heartbreaking extinction of the
vanishing salmon would be headed off, and new commercial fishing
industries and increased recreation activities plus work involved in
breaching or removing the dams would demand hundreds, perhaps thousands,
of new jobs in the area.
Surely,
such compelling opportunities for Idaho’s future can’t be forever
rejected, can they?