the film forum library tutorial contact

Feud Breaks Out Among GOP Lawmakers Over Snake River Dams by Nicholas Geranios Missoulian, May 7, 2021

"It's clear this proposal is not just a starting point, but rather
a radical and fully baked plan he is actively seeking to put into law,"

SPOKANE -- Some Republican members of Congress from the Northwest are accusing a GOP Idaho lawmaker of conducting secret negotiations with the Democratic governor of Oregon over a controversial proposal to breach four dams on the Snake River to save endangered salmon runs.

But Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, replied that he has for several years been telling "everyone who would listen" about his proposal for a comprehensive solution to save salmon.

"How is that secret?" Simpson asked this week. "My staff has had discussions with nearly every governor, member of Congress, and U.S. senator in the Columbia Basin on this proposal."

Simpson's plan to remove the Ice Harbor, Little Goose, Lower Granite, Lower Monumental dams also includes a 35-year moratorium on lawsuits, ending costly litigation over the dams' environmental impact. That provision prompted more than a dozen Northwest environmental groups to oppose the plan. Democratic lawmakers have also been lukewarm to the proposal.

On Wednesday, Reps. Dan Newhouse, R-Washington, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Washington, and Cliff Bentz, R-Oregon, issued a strongly worded statement upon learning of a Freedom of Information Act release detailing coordination between the offices of Simpson and Oregon Gov. Kate Brown regarding the proposal to breach the four dams.

"For months, Rep. Simpson has been speaking with us about his sweeping dam-breaching proposal, touting transparency and an open process while telling us it was simply a 'legislative concept' for the Northwest delegation to consider," the lawmakers, who oppose breaching the dams, said.

"What he didn't tell us was that he has been coordinating for months with Oregon Governor Kate Brown's staff behind the scenes to shepherd his proposal through Congress with little to no support from Pacific Northwest representatives -- Republican or Democrat," the lawmakers said.

"It's clear this proposal is not just a starting point, but rather a radical and fully baked plan he is actively seeking to put into law," they said.

The three Republicans also suggest Simpson's discussions with Brown could hurt an agreement signed last year by the governors of Washington, Idaho, Oregon and Montana to work together on solving an issue that has bedeviled the Northwest for decades.

The documents were released in response to a public information request by the Center for Biological Diversity, a conservation group that opposes Simpson's plan.

"We rarely agree with Rep. Newhouse, but when it comes to removing the Snake River dams, we too insist that there must be a transparent, open process that involves all stakeholders," said Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity. "A deal made behind closed doors with just the good ol' boys will be worse for salmon, worse for the river and worse for the region."

The center opposes Simpson's proposal, which would suspend key federal environmental regulations and exempt 80 other dams in the Columbia River basin from accountability for clean water and harmful impacts on salmon and other species.

In his statement, Simpson called the Center for Biological Diversity "one of the extreme environmental groups that is opposed to my concept because it would end their business model of keeping the stakeholders in the region in perennial litigation over the four Lower Snake River dams."

Simpson's "Columbia Basin Initiative" proposes removing the earthen portions of the four dams, while making all the regional stakeholders whole. Most of the proposed $33.5 billion cost of the plan would replace the power the dams generate, the barging capacity they provide between the Tri-Cities region of Washington and Lewiston, Idaho, plus irrigation and other benefits.

Brown's office did not respond to a request for comment.

But Simpson on Wednesday issued a statement defending the proposal he has worked on for three years, involving some 300 meetings.

"I expected pushback when this all started," he said. "What I did not expect was colleagues with whom I have worked for a number of years on a number of issues to question my integrity, to insinuate I have lied about my motivation and in fact have nefarious intentions -- to -- what? Sabotage the economy of my own state?"

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2021
Hearings Before a Subcommittee of the Committe on Appropriations
House of Representatives
One Hundred Sixteenth Congress, Second Session

. . .

Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Chairwoman.

I wasn't going to say anything about this, but it is always a fascinating discussion on the Columbia River Basin. I notice you all mentioned hydropower, irrigation, and transportation, how important those are. Nobody mentioned fish. Nobody mentioned salmon that come back to Idaho that, if in the next 15 years something isn't done, they will be extinct. There is no doubt about that. They will be extinct. So we can talk about all that.

And we never talked about the 487,000-acre feet of water that Idaho sends out of my district down to flush salmon over those dams, and the one thing they are not doing is recovering salmon, but they are keeping water in the pool so that we can irrigate in Washington. So we sometimes have a little different take on this.

Representative Newhouse and I could sit here for hours and talk about this. I understand how important that is to his district. And I guess if you don't live in an area where the Olympians of salmon come back to spawn in Idaho, then you really don't care about it. But people better start looking at this seriously, and any plan we come up with, any EIS, had better recover salmon. Now they got a new plan out here the flexible spill thing. The one thing it will not do is speed up the migration of salmon to the Pacific Ocean, which is now about twice as long as it used to be.

We don't have a Columbia River anymore. We have a series of pools the fish now have to swim to. It takes them twice as long, warmer water, more predators. We are not looking at the whole picture here. We are trying to preserve what exists instead of saying, what do we want to do for the next 20 or 40 years? What do we want this to look like in 20 or 40 years? Do the people of the Pacific Northwest want to lose the salmon runs? If you do, then fine. Make the determination. Let's quit spending $750,000 a year--million dollars a year every year now by the ratepayers at Bonneville Power to recover salmon.

It is just not working. People have got to get out of their niches and start looking at what we want to do in the future. That was a subject that I wasn't going to bring up, but as you can tell, I feel a little passionately about it.

Assistant Secretary James and General Semonite, as you know, the 2008 compensatory mitigation rule established a hierarchy of mitigation with a preference for the use of wetland banks, which was established--which have established credits already in place as approved by the Corps. According to the publicly available data, there is a wide disparity of the use of mitigation banks against--across Corps districts.

Do you know what is causing that disparity, and do you agree that it would be useful to take a look at this issue to see if there are majors that would provide better consistency and adherence to the hierarchy in the rule?

Mr. James. I will let General Semonite elaborate on that, but from my understanding, there is not enough wetland mitigation banks in our country right now, and the Corps is working on that. They are working with individuals and other public entities to raise the number.

The other thing is, is in some areas of the country, in some Corps of Engineer district areas, the people there for one reason or another would rather have their mitigation in the area of the project. Not everybody wants to buy from a mitigation bank, and as we all know, once they put in a mitigation bank, you better get your wallet out because the mitigation is going to cost you.

Mr. Simpson. Yes.

Mr. James. And that is the reasons that I know of personally. That is not in my policy head. These are just things that I picked up over my years of service here.

Mr. Simpson. OK.

General Semonite. Sir, we certainly are looking at this right now. We want to continue to look at it and have a dialogue with you. Three main reasons why there is some disparity out there, and these banks are all based on every part of the country is a little bit different. First of all, what functions are needed in the watershed? What is environmentally preferable for offsetting functions lost through permitted impacts? And, finally, the availability of mitigation bank credits. It is kind of like the secretary said.

This goes back to it has got be a tailored solution, and sometimes what might work in the Northwest doesn't work in the Southeast. But we are looking down through. There are some incentives we are looking at right now. We are trying to study this, and if we can find a way of doing this better, we are all in.

Mr. Simpson. Thank you.

Commissioner Burman, the budget request includes a bit of a reduction for Indian Water Rights Settlements overall, although some individual projects go up. What is the reason for the decreases? Is it due to the availability of mandatory funding? And at the request levels, are all the settlements on track to meet statutory deadlines?

Ms. Burman. Absolutely. Representative Simpson, Ranking Member Simpson, we absolutely are committed to our tribal obligations, and you see that in our budget. This past year, 2020, is the first year that mandatory funding through the Reclamation Settlement Fund has become available, and that is about $120 million a year. And so we have been able to put that to work this year. We announced that about a month ago, where that funding would be going for this year.

So when you look at our budget for 2021, it is to meet our responsibilities, and we have many settlements, many settlements that must be funded and complete by 2025. We believe we are on target. It is tough. It is difficult, but we are moving forward with those projects, and we do believe we are on target to meet our responsibilities.

Mr. Simpson. Let me just ask you, the budget request reduces funding for the authorized rural water projects. Some of these projects have components benefiting Tribes. How do the Tribes' projects' components factor into the budget request for rural water projects?

Ms. Burman. On the rural water project program, first and foremost, we meet our existing responsibilities, meaning our O&M, our operation and maintenance responsibilities. That is overwhelmingly on the Tribal side. Next, we look at the different projects that need construction, and we do look at our Tribal responsibilities as we move forward with that. I think you will see from our 2020 spend plan that we were able to put significant resources provided by Congress towards all of those rural water supply projects, and they are moving forward.

Mr. Simpson. Thank you.