Salmon are not just falling victim to dams, natural predators, fishing and uncertain ocean conditions.
Their most stubborn enemy may be a have-it-all mindset. Protecting endangered salmon will require the region to make tough decisions. To agree to sacrifices and accept tradeoffs.
To do more than we are doing now.
By illustrating this fact once again, U.S. District Judge James Redden has positioned himself as the conscience of the Northwest salmon debate.
If — or, we hope, when — the Northwest agrees on an effective strategy to bring salmon back from the verge of extinction, this will happen because the Portland-based judge has refused to settle for less.
Redden has rejected federal salmon recovery plans twice before, one written by the Clinton administration and one from the Bush administration. He will review the feds’ latest rewrite, but he doesn’t like what he’s seen in the draft of the latest plans.
"(They) appear to rely heavily on various hydro, habitat and hatchery mitigation actions that are not reasonably certain to occur and/or not certain to benefit listed species within a reasonable time," Redden wrote in a Dec. 7 letter.
Put simply, the feds’ plans are a gamble. They bet on unproven ideas. Or they bet that the region’s salmon have time to spare.
Both assumptions are wrong.
Idaho sockeye salmon were added to the federal endangered species list in 1991; Idaho chinook were added to the list in 1992. Even the feds suggest that time may be running out for the sockeye.
That isn't acceptable to us — so it's encouraging to see Redden bring some sense of urgency to the process. The feds, he argues, "seem unwilling to seriously consider any significant changes to the status quo dam operations."
Redden, however, can press the issue. He seems determined to force federal agencies, shippers and water users to address some unattractive options.
• How about spilling more water over the hydroelectric dams in the Columbia and lower Snake rivers? The upside: The spill water would help push young salmon to the ocean. The downside: The dams would not produce as much power for the region.
• How about "drawing down" the reservoirs, such as the John Day reservoir on the Columbia? The upside: The drawdown will mimic a natural river, helping salmon migrate. The downside: The drawdown will affect power and barging.
• How about taking additional water from Idaho reservoirs? The upside: The water would help young salmon reach the ocean. The downside: Idaho would have less water for farms, communities and resident fisheries.
These are difficult options for the Northwest to acknowledge, much less discuss. They’re costly. They’re disruptive. They pit states and groups against each other. Draining Idaho reservoirs — during a time of drought and robust population growth — is a political nonstarter, with good reason.
By making the region confront a menu of tough choices, Redden keeps the focus on another, better alternative: breaching the four lower Snake River dams.
Redden didn't say much about breaching in his most recent letter, and didn't need to. For Idaho’s salmon, which must navigate around the lower Snake dams, breaching remains the best bet. As biologists have said for years, breaching may provide Idaho salmon with their only chance at recovery. As we have argued since 1997, breaching reduces the need to use precious Idaho water to flush salmon downriver.
Breaching is not easy. The dams produce about 5 percent of the region’s power and give Idaho a seaport link to the Pacific. The power would need to be replaced. Idaho shippers would need another way to get their goods to the Pacific ports.
But no painless options exist. Redden — the conscience of the salmon debate — makes this point clear.
"Our View" is the editorial position of the Idaho Statesman. It is an unsigned opinion expressing the consensus of the Statesman’s editorial board. To comment on an editorial or suggest a topic, e-mail editorial@idahostatesman.com.
