Great idea. I like it. It would be great for the fish; and the economy of the region.

I hate to be a kill-joy, however…….. These dams were built, and are being operated, by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps of Engineers is a Federal bureaucracy, and they know how to protect their turf. They will NEVER agree they have the authority to breach the dams. They will insist they need specific Congressional authority. And the Corps will ensure Congress understands the risks of dam breaching. Those are the risks to Corps projects IN THEIR OWN States and Congressional districts.

Here’s what I mean: The four Lower Snake River dams are economically marginal. The economics aren’t great, but they’re not terrible either. There are other Corps projects in other parts of the country where the economics are worse. Much worse. There are plenty of Corps projects (dams, levees, flood control, navigation) where the economics make absolutely no sense. They lose huge amounts of taxpayer dollars every year (i.e., the costs of operations and maintenance exceed the economic benefits generated). Those projects are located across the country but are concentrated in the Southeast, the Southwest, and some places in the Mid-West. So if Congress authorizes the breaching of economically marginal projects in the PNW, which will be next? In other words, as goes the Pacific Northwest, so goes the Southeast (for example).

That’s something no Congressional representative with a Corps project in their district wants to think about. So if Congress decides not to authorize breaching the Lower Snake River dams, they’re NOT trying to protect those four relatively small projects in eastern Washington. They’re protecting Corps projects in their own backyard. And the Corps will make sure Congress understands that.

And here’s another problem. NMFS has released their draft recovery plans for Snake River spring/summer Chinook, fall Chinook, steelhead, and sockeye. Their recovery plans do not require dam breaching to achieve ESA recovery. I realize that was likely a political decision, not a scientific determination. But still, it doesn’t help to have the major Federal agency with the authority to recover ESA-listed salmon say that dam breaching is not necessary to achieve recovery. As such, if NMFS does not believe breaching is necessary, why would the Corps come to a different conclusion? They won’t. Count on it.

Over the next five years, I fully expect the Corps to do a very thorough examin-ation of all the alternatives, including dam breaching, as mandated by the Judge. I fully expect we will end up exactly where we are today. That is, after an exhaustive analysis, hours of public testimony, piles of documents many feet thick, and large amounts of platitudes from high-ranking generals, the Corps will say the following: 1) breaching is not necessary, 2) we can achieve ESA recovery without it, 3) breaching will only help four ESA-listed salmon stocks (of the 13 listed in the Columbia Basin); 4) the Lower Snake projects fulfill multiple purposes, all of which are just as important as salmon, 5) we will add a few more “bells and whistles” to the dams to improve salmon survival; 6) we are already seeing signs of real progress (see recent fall Chinook returns); and 7) if all else fails, we can just cut back on harvest, or improve habitat, and all will be well again.

That’s where we are now. That’s where we’ll be in five years.

I'll say it again: The Corps knows how to protect their turf…..