rp_0004_8.html
Public, Law Supports Snake River Dam Removal
Like never before people across The country are contemplating the killing impacts of dams and four on the Snake River are at the forefront of a debate that has put a spotlight on the Northwest.
A national campaign to raise public awareness about endangered salmon and increase pressure on elected officials to come up with a plan to save them has spurred wide-ranging reactions from Native Americans in North Dakota to the Governor of Texas . The discussion expanded recently with a District Court ruling on the Clean Water Act which carries national implications for the Army Corps of Engineers , the agency charged with operating most federally-owned dams.
The judge's preliminary ruling on legal principles in the case supports a challenge from conservation and fishing groups, the state of Oregon and the Nez Perce Tribe which argues the Snake River dams violate water-quality standards by increasing temperatures and dissolved gases in the river, two conditions which harm fish.
"This is a wakeup call to the Corps," says Nicole Cordan , policy director for the Save Our Wild Salmon Coalition (SOS) . "What the court told the Corps is that they can no longer ignore the Clean Water Act."
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also told the Corps all three alternatives to dam breaching are unacceptable because they fail to address water quality violations. According to The Oregonian , EPA officials indicated that without more analysis, "breaching loomed as the best way of restoring health to the Snake River."
SOS argues that dam removal makes more sense because the cost of bringing the dams in compliance with the law is comparable to the estimated cost of removing the dams.
"This ruling significantly changes the balance because the costs (between recovery alternatives) are about the same," Cordan says. "But if we remove the dams, we save salmon."
From Washington D.C. to Port Alexander, Alaska , partially removing the four dams to save endangered salmon and steelhead is gathering widespread support. The biggest newspaper in America gave national prominence to the fight by endorsing dam removal. "(T)he salmon cannot be saved without breaching," the New York Times editorial board wrote last month. With those words, the Times joined nine other newspapers supporting partial removal, including three from Idaho and two from cities located on the Columbia River .
Taxpayers for Common Sense put together a list of dam removal supporters with more than 100 businesses, roughly 500 individual fishermen, more than 350 local and regional organizations, plus 52 national and seven international groups representing consumers, environmentalists, both sports and commercial fishers and churches.
SOS reports more than 200,000 people to-date have told federal officials partially removing the four dams is the best way to save endangered salmon and steelhead by signing petitions, sending e-mail, faxes, letters and postcards or testifying in person.
At 15 public hearings held throughout the region earlier this year, more than 5,000 people attended in support of dam removal. Brigadier General Carl Stock, commander of the Corps Northwest Division , told The Oregonian that, on its own, the sentiment displayed at the hearings indicates partial dam removal is more acceptable to the region than the agency expected.
Despite this snowballing support, the latest news from the National Marine Fisheries Service indicates the agency's Draft Biological Opinion , due later this month, will recommend keeping the dams in place five to 10 years for further monitoring, a move condemned by fish advocates who argue federal officials are again delaying a final decision on salmon recovery.
Corinne Hollister