Over the last few years, a major controversy arose in the Pacific Northwest. A newspaper reporter from the East Oregonian said that, “it sounds like the fight of the century; East Side vs. West Side; East Coast vs. West Coast [and] Environmentalists and tribes vs. agriculture and industry” (Scott “Salmon vs Dams…”). The fate of many lives rests in the hands of lawmakers. Should the four “killers” be destroyed in order to save thousands of lives, or should they be allowed to exist, benefiting thousands of people? In broad terms, this is exactly what is being fought over all over Oregon, Washington and Idaho. Specifically, the four “killers” are four dams on the Snake River: Ice Harbor, Lower Monumental, Little Goose and Lower Granite Dams. The thousands of lives are endangered fish, specifically salmon, Chinook, Coho and Steelhead. Environmentalists, such as the American River Association, National Wildlife Federation and Sierra Club to name a few, say that these dams are causing the salmon to go extinct and that the only way to save them is to breach these four dams. Breaching is “removing the earthen portion of the dams and allowing the river to course around the remaining concrete structures” (Wells). This seems like an easy and simple solution to the problem, however there is much more to be considered. Lynne Chamberlain, chair of the Energy and Environment Committee for the Oregon Wheat Growers League, studied the effects on the agricultural industry of dam breaching. She found that commerce, air pollution, flood control, irrigation, electrical power generation, and recreation would be severely effected if the dams were to be removed (Peterson “Growers Fear…”). While saving the salmon is very important, many people rely on the dams for their every day life. Breaching the dams is not the answer to this problem. However, there might be a way for the Northwest to have both. Even though many environmental groups claim it cannot happen, the Northwest can have their dams and have their salmon too.

These four dams on the Snake River were chosen by the environmental groups to target because they are the smaller of the 31 federally owned Snake and Columbia River dams. Even though legislation is only reviewing taking out just these four dams, some of the more extreme groups are for taking out all of the dams, or at least a vast majority of them. With all of the different degrees of environmental opposition, they all have one thing in common: save the wild salmon. On the other hand, farmers and other business that oppose the dam breaching do not want to see salmon disappear either. A wheat farmer from Pomeroy, Washington said that, “I don’t want to see the salmon disappear… They are a part of Northwest culture and history. But I don’t want to see my farm disappear” (Verhovek 34). Industry, like a few environmental groups such as the National Fish and Wildlife Service, believe that there can be another way. The dams are not the reason the fish are on a decline and efforts are being made to continue to provide safe passage for salmon. The dams contain fish ladders to help migrating salmon and they are continuing to improve fish by-pass systems to lower the mortality rate of the salmon, ocean cycles and currents play a big role in salmon runs and the dams are an integral part of every day Northwestern life.

One of the biggest arguments of some environmental groups and other non-governmental pro-breachers, is the dams’ hydroelectric turbines. In the book, The Great Salmon Hoax, some examples of this argument are given:

With new improvements in the dams, such as fish ladders and other bypass systems, the mortality in the turbine in current years is less than 10% (Buchal 100). The purpose of these systems is to reroute the migrating fish to lower the number of fish killed in the turbines of the dam. All four of the Snake River Dams have two fish ladders with the exception of Little Goose, which has one. According to Webster’s Dictionary, a fish ladder is “a series of pools arranged like steps by which fish can pass over a dam in going upstream” (Merriam-Webster). The ladders are designed to allow adult fish to pass safely over the dam, but few juvenile salmon will follow that route (Whitney). These ladders were not designed to divert the younger, juvenile salmon. Several types of bypass systems were then installed to divert these fish away from the turbines. According to the Army Corps of Engineers, “The system is designed to collect fish before they enter turbine intake areas and to transport them around the powerhouse for release downstream with minimum amount of injury or disorientation” (U.S. Army Corps…). With improvements in technology and the overall effectiveness of the bypass systems, the mortality rate of salmon is much lower than it had been in the past.

If the mortality rate of salmon going through the dams is 10%, why do all the environmental groups say that the fish are going extinct? Another question that comes to mind is if these fish are going extinct, then why are Oregon and Washington currently in the middle of the largest salmon runs? Environmental groups will be the first people to say that the high salmon runs in 2000 and 2001 are just flukes. “The anti-dam forces say this can't happen, because the dams are the real problem, and if the salmon stock does somehow recover, it will be an anomaly, like one cold summer in the midst of a global warming trend--or, more to the point, like this year's huge returns of salmon up and down the Northwest coast” (Fallows). However, they are overlooking one critical component. The major factor that many people overlook is the ocean conditions. Studies have shown that there is a 25-year cycle in the eastern Pacific Ocean currents. These currents “bring nourishment and food fish to the North American coast. Every 25 years or so, the currents shift from a northern slant (into the Gulf of Alaska) to a southern slant (along the coasts of Washington, Oregon and California.)” (Avery). When the currents are at a southern slant, the fish runs in the Pacific Northwest are plentiful, but when they shift northward, the runs are much smaller. Past records of fish counting confirm this scientific finding. The ocean currents predictably have shifted to a southern slant, accounting for the larger than normal salmon runs in the Snake and Columbia Rivers (Avery). The dams are having very little effect on this cycle. The records showed that the 25-year cycles occurred both before and after the building of the dams. Fish runs behaved the same way both before and after the dams were built; oscillating between plentiful and scarce as the ocean currents shifted from south to north. Knowing this, the decreasing salmon runs over the last several years was in fact partially due to the ocean conditions, and not the Snake and Columbia River dams.

While the environmentalists push for dam removal for the salmon, businesses and industries as well as towns push for keeping the dams and finding another way to save the salmon. The dams play a very crucial role in the economy of the Pacific Northwest. Not only do they provide hydroelectric power, but they also provide jobs, transportation, irrigation for farmers, and recreation. Hydroelectric power is a clean and renewable power source. The Pacific Northwest enjoys the lowest electricity rates in the country. The four lower Snake River dams produce about 1,250 average megawatts per year, which is about five percent of the total energy produced in the Northwest (Wells). Hydroelectric power, unlike other power plants, releases no emissions into the air. If all the hydropower in the United States were to be converted into fossil fuel-burning plants, “they would release an amount of carbon dioxide that equals the annual exhaust of 62.2 million passenger cars, or half of the cars on U.S. roads” (National Hydropower…). To make up for the lost 5% if the dams are breached, additional power plants, like coal-fire plants, will have to be built. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers estimates that the cost of replacing this lost power from the four dams would range from $250 million to $300 million annually, and that improvements to major power systems would be between $5 million and $20 million annually (Peterson “Hearing explores…”).

Environmentalists with the Save Our Wild Salmon organization say that, “economic studies show that dam removal would provide thousands of jobs to the region…” (Columbia and Snake…). Their claims to high cash flow from recreation, however, are highly exaggerated. They predict $1 billion in annual recreation benefits, but “officials in charge of the study said the numbers were misunderstood and the analysis was incomplete” (Taylor). Even if the area received more money from increased recreation, it would be at the cost of current jobs. The dams on both the Columbia and Snake Rivers allow river traffic all the way to Lewiston, Idaho. Without the four dams, Lewiston will lose its port status, making Pasco, Washington the furthest inland port. With this loss of transportation, many jobs will be lost. 1,580 jobs are influenced in Lewiston and in Portland, 49,900 jobs for $35.6 million in business revenue (Peterson “Hearing explores…”). Without the dams, these jobs would not exist. Cargo barges on the river eliminate traffic on the highways. Bill Johnson, a Umatilla resident who worked for Tidewater, said, “one barge carrying 200 containers does the work of 200 trucks” (Scott “Former Pilots…”). In a study done by IRZ Consulting of Hermiston on the Umatilla, Morrow and Gilliam counties of Oregon, the annual transportation costs without barging for the three counties would increase by $13 million (“Report Shows…”).

Farmers in the area would be the hardest hit of them all. Not only do some farmers rely on irrigation pumps that are protected by the dams, but also some farmers rely on the barging system to ship their goods. Without the four dams, sediment and mud would clog the irrigation pipes causing them to become useless within a few years (Lee). The U.S. Army Corps northwest division manager, Brig. Gen. Robert Griffin, gave several findings on the irrigation impacts of dam removal.

The effects of dam breaching on the farmers is not small scale. Not only would they lose their jobs, but also thousands of acres of land would be un-farmable. Many people do not realize that the East side of both Oregon and Washington is where a lot of the potatoes, wheat, grapes and other types of food are grown for consumption within the two states. This ignorance is shown clearly by one environmentalist, Chris Zimmer, a spokesman for Save Our Wild Salmon. “’I don’t buy their line that people are going to starve if we breach these dams. That’s fear-mongering.’ Zimmer declared. ‘What food comes from there? A few grapes. Some grain. Nothing that hits my plate comes from there’” (Zacharias). The Republican Representative from Oregon, Bob Jenson, responded to this, “Talk about your half-truths. Maybe he doesn’t eat bread or potatoes. If he only east rice and peanuts, then nothing he eats comes from here” (Zacharias). This is just one of the many environmental extremists’ “half-truths.” Without sufficient facts, environmentalists spread their views to the public in hopes of swaying their opinions and showing them that it is the pro-dam supporters who are the ones exaggerating.

Everyone on both sides of the debate agree that saving the wild salmon runs is important, but to go to such extreme measures as to take out the dams seems excessive. There are many other options that could allow both the salmon and the dams to coexist. With improvements in fish bypass systems and fish ladders as well as safer turbines, the mortality of fish can be lowered. Other options also include improving fish hatcheries as well as lowering the limit of salmon that are caught commercially and for sport. To remove the dams in order to restore the rivers to a natural state would be devastating to the economy of several towns that live off the benefits the dams give them. Dam breaching is still an option, however, but one of many. In the political side of the battle, the Clinton Administration ruled that the decision whether to breach or not would be pushed off for at least a decade to allow for more scientific research (“Snake River Dams…”). Keeping the dams does not mean letting the fish die out. With the combined efforts of all the groups involved in this complex issue, a compromise could be made to allow the dams and the fish to continue to exist side by side.

Avery, Dennis T. “Activists Hedge Some Basic Details.” Spokane Review 8 Sept 2001. < http://www.spokesmanreview.com/news-story.asp?date=090801&ID=s1020200 >.

Buchal, James. (1998). The Great Salmon Hoax. Aurora, Oregon: Iconoclast Publishing Co.

Columbia and Snake Rivers Campaign. “60 Minutes Exposes Huge Waste on Senseless Salmon Schemes: Groups Urge President to Stop the Waste and Deliver Solid Salmon Recovery Plan.” 19 Nov 2000. < http://www.wildsalmon.org/info/searchdetail.cfm?docID=78 >.

Fallows, James. “Saving Salmon, or Seattle?” Atlantic Monthly Oct. 2000: 20.

Lee, Mike. Tri-City Herald. “12 Ways the Mid-Columbia Will Be Different Without Dams.” < http://www.snakedams.com/snake/story4.html >.

Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. 2001 10th ed.

National Hydropower Association. “Facts You Should Know About Hydropower.” < http://www.hydro.org/facts.htm >.

Peterson, Nick. “Growers Fear Higher Costs From River Changes.” The East Oregonian [Hermiston] 14 May 1999. < http://www.eastoregonian.com/dams/stories/14-3.html >.

Peterson, Nick. “Hearing Explores Consequences of Snake River Dams Removal.” The East Oregonian [Hermiston] 14 May 1999. < http://www.eastoregonian.com/dams/stories/14-2.html >.

“Report Shows Economic Influence of No Barges.” The East Oregonian [Hermiston] 13 May 1999. < http://www.eastoregonian.com/dams/stories/13-4.html >.

Scott, Craig. “Former Pilots Say Lower River Depth Would Deal Death Blow to the Industry” The East Oregonian [Hermiston] 13 May 1999. < http://www.eastoregonian.com/dams/stories/13-1.html >.

Scott, Craig. “Salmon vs. Dams: Can we have both?” The East Oregonian [Hermiston] 12 May 1999. < http://www.eastoregonian.com/dams/stories/12-1.html >.

“Snake River Dams Will Stay for Now.” Power Engineering Sept 2000: 32.

Taylor, Rod. “Breaching Dams May Save Salmon But Leave Farmers High and Dry.” Seattle Post-Intelligencer 16 Apr 1999. < http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/dams16.shtml >.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Portland District. “The Dalles/John Day/Willow Creek Project.” < https://www.nwp.usace.army.mil/op/D/standard/jd/fish/jd_fish.htm >.

Verhovek, Sam Howe. “Returning River to Salmon, and man to the Drawing Board.” New York Times 26 Sept. 1999: 1, 34.

Wells, Jim. FDCH Government Account Reports. “Army Corps of Engineers- An Assessment Of The Draft Environmental Impact Statement Of The Lower Snake River Dams.” 24 July 2000. < http://www.gao.gov/new.items/rc00186.pdf >.

Whitney, Richard R, et al. “Downstream Passage for Salmon at Hydroelectric Projects in the Columbia River Basin: Development, Installation, and Evaluation.” Oct 1997. Northwest Power Planning Council. < http://www.nwcouncil.org/library/1997/97-15.htm >.

Zacharias, Karen. “Anti-dam ads upset E. Oregon officials.” Tri-City Herald. 1 Dec 2000. < http://www.tri-cityherald.com/dams/news/120100.html >.