The Empire Strikes Back

[doublespey]

I've been keeping track of the "Remove the lower Snake River dams" issue for quite some time. 5 years ago it seemed like a pipe dream. But with politicians from both sides of the aisle supporting the proposition, it's come back front and center to our conservation discussions.

I still didn't think there was a chance in hell that this would happen and was assuming it was just the typical posturing of politicians trying to wrangle the environmental vote.

What's convinced me that it's being seriously considered? PNW Hydropower dumping big dollars into a scare campaign showing happy farmers standing in front of dams talking about how they're dependant on the cheap power and water, threats of your power bill going up 25%, and the PNW's cultural association with dams (providing recreation and fishing opportunities, etc).

I'm seeing these ads several times a day (and I don't watch that much TV). Whether you support dam removal or not, this is going to be interesting!

 

[Tom Butler]

I've been following this for the 30 years we have lived over here. I honestly don't know.
I'm pretty sure that if ocean survival and downstream impacts are not addressed to the same extent, at the same time, it won't make any difference.

 

[JACKspASS]

I am not in favor of the dams, however, technically they do provide alot of fishing for anadroumous fish through mitigation $. Not sure what happens if the mitigation money goes away? So we lose fishing on the Snake and all its tribs because of ESA impacts? That would suck from a fishing perspective, but i dont honestly know the repercussions.

 

[doublespey]

Sadly, we've already lost (or are close to losing) the Snake/Clearwater/Ronde for all effective purposes. I'd gone there for many years but haven't been back since 2019. The numbers and trends are so bad I doubt I'll go back. There's nothing left to lose! Tom's comments re ocean survival spot on. . . . . I don't know if removing the dams will be sufficient. But the documented impact of the dams is also undeniable.

 

[Old Man]

At the rate of the dry summers we have had lately. It's a good thing to have dams with the water that they hold. But if we don't get good precipitation those places could dry up also. Then we will all be in a world of shit.

 

[bobduck]

You can jump all over me if I'm wrong but it seems to me that the dams have created a series of warm water bass ponds that salmon and steelhead find difficult to live with. Down stream economies depend on good runs of anadramous fish to an extent probably greater than agriculture. We're robbing them of more needed habitat. I'm no scientist but it just seems to make sense. I once angered a DNR rep at a TU meeting when he said they were making sure all streams in logging areas were getting a protected riparian zone of 25 feet. I said thats it? 25 feet? Hell that ain't even a first down. But then as I said, I ain't no scientist.

 

[dirty dog]

IMHO the Snake river dams need to be removed.
Another dam that should go is the Winchester dam on the N. Umpqua.
Oldest dam in OR, has not produced electricity sense 1943.
The damn thing is rotting away from the bottom up.
Shitty fish latter also.

 

[Old Man]

You can jump all over me if I'm wrong but it seems to me that the dams have created a series of warm water bass ponds that salmon and steelhead find difficult to live with. Down stream economies depend on good runs of anadramous fish to an extent probably greater than agriculture. We're robbing them of more needed habitat. I'm no scientist but it just seems to make sense. I once angered a DNR rep at a TU meeting when he said they were making sure all streams in logging areas were getting a protected riparian zone of 25 feet. I said thats it? 25 feet? Hell that ain't even a first down. But then as I said, I ain't no scientist.

I thought that I read that there is 50' from the cut to the water. I've seen places on Pilchuck Creek where they cut right to the skinny waters edge. I saw a spot on the Foss river that was one tree away from the edge of the cut. Loggers want all the trees. To hell with the fish.

 

[Salmo_g]

I've noticed those TV ads recently too. I find them very annoying because the exaggerations and outright lies so far outnumber the truths that it isn't even funny.

About the only ones who will be hurt by removing the 4 lower Snake dams are the tug/barge operators who rely on the free (federally subsidized) reservoirs and locks and the Ports of Clarkston and Lewiston where the barges are loaded and off loaded. Farmers won't be hurt because their produce will still be transported to market. They will still get their irrigation water - they may have to pump it a little higher, but they will no doubt get a federal subsidy to cover more than the increased cost. The loss of energy, like other losses before these, will most likely be offset by increased conservation. And meanwhile, new alternative energy sources are coming to market. These Snake dams provide no flood control, so that isn't an asset that will be missed either. Oh, and the federal government spends more money operating these dams than the value of the energy they produce, so fewer federal tax dollars will be wasted. There just aren't a lot of downsides when analyzed objectively.

Now for the upsides, the fish and conservation people are a bunch of liars too. Removing these dams will not recover salmon and steelhead. But it will help, and that's important. There are multiple factors that limit the abundance of Snake River salmon and steelhead, and many of those factors are beyond our ability to influence or control. But dam removal is one factor where we could actually make a difference.

 

[Old406Kid]

Does anyone have a source for pre dam photos of the river?
I'm stiil on the fence on this as I think there's many other downstream as well as ocean issues.
If the removal ends up having little or no positive effects good luck on ever getting another dam permitted in this day an age.

 

[NukeLDO]

Does anyone have a source for pre dam photos of the river?
I'm stiil on the fence on this as I think there's many other downstream as well as ocean issues.
If the removal ends up having little or no positive effects good luck on ever getting another dam permitted in this day an age.

I can't for the life of me come up with the title of the book I read a few years ago about the damming of the Columbia. I'll find it though and let you know. Not so much about the Snake, but more about the loss of Celilo Falls and the impact on the anadromous fish and native peoples.

But there's really only one statistic you need to look at when it comes to the dam removal discussion. And that stat is capacity factor. While a generating facility may be capable of producing X megawatts, in reality they produce less than that. Over time, that adds up. The difference between their capability and the actual ability to deliver those megawatts is capacity factor. The Snake dams run far below their capability resulting in a low capacity factor. About the only time this isn't true is during the spring in a good runoff year. The rest of the year, those turbines sit idle. Ultimately, what this means is that their output has little impact on the price you pay for electricity.
The dams were built with tax dollars, and as noted previously, are run of the river dams with little capability to control flooding. The only reason they exist is for the few dozen people employed in the barge traffic. Not that I wish for anyone to lose their livelihood. Still, there's plenty of rail capacity, which is more efficient than barging. And as also noted, we spend way more on the maintenance and upkeep than the dams produce.
And everyone seems to forget, removing the dams doesn't mean less water moving downstream. It just means the farmers need better pumps and extended intakes to get their water.

 

[Guy Gregory]

I can't for the life of me come up with the title of the book I read a few years ago about the damming of the Columbia. I'll find it though and let you know. “

The book you're looking for is ‘A River Lost’ by Blaine Harden. Or if that isn’t it, you should read it as well.

My parents and grandparents made their livings building this stuff, and I can’t explain to my grandkids why.

 

[NukeLDO]

I can't for the life of me come up with the title of the book I read a few years ago about the damming of the Columbia. I'll find it though and let you know. “

The book you're looking for is ‘A River Lost’ by Blaine Harden. Or if that isn’t it, you should read it as well.

My parents and grandparents made their livings building this stuff, and I can’t explain to my grandkids why.

That's the one. Also Barber's Death of Celilo Falls is another good one on the same subject. However Harden's book goes into the financial aspects of building the dams and who profited as a result. A really good read.

 

[_WW_]

Wait! There was profit?

 

[FlyGuy]

I have done some reading and research into the issue and everything I've read posted here about the dams is what I have found. The ads have me appalled at the "exaggerations and outright lies" as Salmo put it...

The one thing that I have not noticed being stated here is the fact that and correct me if I am wrong, but from what I have found, the electricity generated by these dams is not used locally. California (not to trigger anyone) purchases a very large percentage of what is generated by the dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers. What grinds my gears is that the ad purposely misleads the consumer by eluding to the result of dam removal will be an increase in electric bills here in WA!!! Total BS!!

I worked in the utility industry for a manufacturer of electrical transmission and distribution equipment purchased by BPA and others around the world. I have spoken with dam operators and administrators as a matter of doing my job and working with them... I would love to see a lawsuit filed against the people behind the ad for the bad/misleading information... It looks like some sort of PAC, I saw something that seemed like a "paid for by"... but did not catch the organization...

 

[Salmo_g]

It looks like some sort of PAC, I saw something that seemed like a "paid for by"... but did not catch the organization...

Northwest River Partners is a hydro industry consortium dedicated to promoting hydropower. Conceptually that's not a bad thing. Lying their asses off to make a point that simply isn't true is a bad thing, however.

 

[FlyGuy]

Thank you, I looked but could not find it...Appreciate the assist!!!