the film forum library tutorial contact

There is No Replacing the Lower Snake River Dams by Richard Davis Washington Business, October 30, 2022

The clean energy, efficient navigation, recreation and irrigation
made possible by the dams are irreplaceable benefits.

Amid calls for breaching the four lower Snake River dams, a recent review by Gov. Jay Inslee and U.S. Sen. Patty Murray found it would cost up to $31 billion to replace the various economic benefits they provide. The report underscores the value of the dams and demonstrates why it's really not possible to replace their benefits.

When concrete was poured for the first of the four Lower Snake River dams 65 years ago, then-Gov. Albert D. Rosellini told a Pasco audience the dams meant prosperity, jobs and "food on the table" for Washingtonians. Since then, the dams have meant that and more.

Yet, before the concrete set in 1957, the dams -- Ice Harbor, Lower Granite, Lower Monumental and Little Goose -- met with controversy. Despite abundant evidence of immeasurable benefits they provide, the controversy continues today.

Some background.

Two years ago, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers released a study that rejected the idea of breaching the Snake River dams as a way to improve salmon survival. The comprehensive, four-year, multimillion dollar analysis -- called the Columbia River System Operations Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) -- specifically considered and rejected dam breaching, recommending water management strategies instead to improve salmon survival.

Apparently unswayed by the science, Idaho Congressman Mike Simpson released a proposal last year that called for breaching the dams to promote salmon recovery with the aid of $36 billion federal dollars. His proposal got no traction in Congress but drew lot of regional attention.

On the heels of the Simpson proposal, Gov. Jay Inslee and U.S. Sen. Patty Murray called for additional study in late 2021. A draft report to them -- not new research but a rehash of existing studies supplemented by interviews -- came out in June.

In written comments on the draft report, AWB said, "this report does not present any new information that would change the conclusion of the 2020 federal environmental impact statement which did not support removing the dams due to the broader negative impacts to the region."

Simply: According to experts, dam breaching is not required for salmon recovery, nor is it certain that removing the dams would result in better outcomes for the fish. The lost hydropower would make it impossible to achieve the state's clean energy goals. And the economic consequences of higher-cost power and barge transportation would be severely negative.

Sixty-five years after the concrete began to pour, the lower Snake River dams remain controversial, but their benefits -- as Gov. Rosellini predicted -- are substantial.

The shaky underpinnings of "it's possible"

The Army Corps' EIS analysis found that "breaching the four lower Snake River dams would not allow the Corps to operate and maintain the dams for …navigation, hydropower, recreation, and water supply." Yet, according to the Murray-Inslee draft, it's "possible" to replace the services provided by the dams "at significant cost."

It's only possible if we employ the magical device philosophers suggest for getting out of a hole: Assume a ladder.

Philosophers remain in holes.

Dam replacement is possible only if we assume a slew of ladders: clean energy technologies not currently available, another massive round of federal funding, a swift buildout of rail and highway infrastructure, the drivers and vehicles required to move cargo currently barged, a litigation-free environment, and a level of intergovernmental cooperation not seen in decades. You can't assume these things into existence. There are three issues to consider:

• The high cost of replacing the benefits the dams provide: hydroelectric power, barge navigation for agricultural products, irrigation, tourism and recreation.
• The effect of dam-breaching on the state's clean energy goals.
• Whether dam-breaching would successfully promote salmon recovery.

Replacement costs

Energy. Replacing the hydroelectric energy produced by the dams is the major cost. The EIS estimates a "zero carbon energy replacement portfolio" -- clean energy to replace lost hydro -- costs $18.6 billion. A later study conducted for Northwest RiverPartners by Energy GPS Consulting pegged the cost of replacing the power generated by the dams at $15 billion, an estimate that does not include essential new transmission lines.

Further, they report it would take at least four decades to put the replacement power in place.

"The dams really can't be replaced given current technology," say Kurt Miller, executive director of Northwest RiverPartners, an association of not-for-profit, community-owned electric utilities.

Navigation The dams currently enable low cost barging of Northwest agricultural products, principally wheat. The EIS estimates the cost of replacement infrastructure -- rails, roads and dredging -- at $1.3 billion. Michelle Hennings, executive director of the Washington Association of Wheat Growers, says farmers use all three transportation modes -- barge, rail, trucks -- but that 60% of Washington wheat is barged.

"We just feel like they didn't spend enough time on how this could affect agriculture," she says. With the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the reliability of Washington agricultural production is particularly important.

"Washington state feeds the world. Ninety percent of our wheat is exported overseas," she says. High costs and undependable transportation channels would place global trade relationships at risk.

"We could lose our competitiveness," she says.

Irrigation. If the dams were breached, "48,000 acres would no longer be irrigated," reports the EIS. The lost crop production would reduce labor income by $232 million, sales by $450 million annually, and cost 4,800 jobs.

According to the Murray-Inslee draft, the dams provide two important benefits: a reliable source of water and the energy to operate the pumps. The draft says, "Irrigated farmland contributes significantly to local economies, where it can be up to 30 times more profitable than dryland farming and employ 15 times the number of full-time staff throughout the year, and thousands of seasonal workers…"

The report suggests mitigation strategies, but the strategies are undeveloped, speculative and expensive.

Recreation. The dams have also nurtured tourism and economic development in the region. The Murray-Inslee draft says there are 58 recreational facilities on the lower Snake River, drawing

1.7 million visitors in 2018. Tourism brings money into the region and supports local jobs. The EIS dryly notes that breaching the dams would have a negative impact on reservoir-based recreation because "these reservoirs and associated boat ramp access would cease to exist."

With respect to tourism, "the cruise industry is one of the most interesting. It's new and expanding rapidly," says Chris Herman, senior director of trade and transportation for the Washington Public Ports Association. It's not clear whether the business would continue without the Snake River dams.

Achieving the 'zero carbon' objective

"The draft report significantly understates -- practically ignores -- the climate impacts of dam removal, says Peter Godlewski, Government Affairs Director for Energy, Environment and Water Policy at AWB. "These dams are key to meeting Washington's climate goals and providing a stable grid for our growing economy." The Energy GPS analysis concludes that, even with unprecedented development of renewable technologies, "it is unlikely that state [clean energy] requirements are met until 2076, causing emissions in the Pacific Northwest to increase by 132 million metric tons of CO2 to maintain grid reliability."

The EIS analysis of the energy impact of dam removal similarly projects an increase in greenhouse gas emissions of up to 9% if natural gas is used to replace hydro.

Less attention has been paid to the carbon impact of losing the ability to barge. The EIS reports breaching the dams "would also increase transportation-related emissions for wheat that is currently transported along the lower Snake River by up to 53%." "Barging is the number one climate-friendly mode of transportation," Hennings says, noting that dam-breaching would add 150,000 truck trips annually.

"There is no credible replacement scenario that sees the state meeting its clean energy goals -- or keeping power affordable and reliable -- without the dams," says Godlewski. "Simply put, breaching the dams is at odds with the state's environmental and economic goals."

Saving the fish

Spurring calls for dam breaching are declines in salmon populations. Yet, there's little evidence that removing the dams will improve conditions.

The Pacific Northwest Waterways Association, in its comments on the draft report, cited numerous credible studies challenging the idea that the dams posed a major threat to salmon recovery. Other factors, they wrote, must be considered, including "growth, hatchery practices, predation, competition… and ocean conditions." Further, all of the dams "have state of the art fish passage and are part of the most robust fish recovery program in the world."

Noting that salmon returns have improved in recent years, Miller says, "We very much support salmon recovery…What we disagree with is that the dams need to be breached for salmon to recover." Survival rates for salmon along the Pacific Coast, whether the fish are returning to free-flowing or dammed rivers, are virtually identical to the experience on the Snake River, he says.

An improbable redundancy

The Murray-Inslee draft makes another bold and improbable assumption.

"[T]his report assumes that replacement actions would be in place before dam breaching so there is no loss of benefits. In specific instances where actions cannot be implemented in advance, mitigation measures would be needed during a transition period."

Get that? The roads, rail, and carbon-free energy must be operating before the dams are breached. Few Washingtonians will be unfamiliar with the challenges of permitting, funding, and building major infrastructure programs. In the energy sector, there are also substantial technology and capacity challenges as the push for renewables accelerates.

"If the replacement resources have to be in place before the dams are removed, then the dams won't be removed, Miller says, "Every megawatt of new generation is already spoken for."

Conclusion

Regardless of whether Murray and Inslee support dam removal, Congressional agreement on breaching the dams is unlikely before the midterms and possibly even less likely after the elections. With inflation soaring and after successive years of extraordinary federal spending, agreement on a new spending package for a breaching project with speculative benefits, high costs and dubious feasibility seems unlikely.

In 1975, Washington's long-serving U.S. Sen. Warren Magnuson, whose support for the dams was critical to their completion, remarked on the challenges.

"Over 35 years ago we planned for the future," he said. "We can tell the nay-sayers that we have succeeded where they said we would fail."

With the benefits produced by the dams clearly manifest, that success is something to build upon, not a thing to be undone. As Hennings comments, "It is 2022. With technology and research, salmon, dams, and people can coexist."

The dams should remain.