"Drawdowns and dam modifications can't be dismissed simply because they are expensive or simply because they cause impacts. The test will be, do the probable biological benefits outweigh the potential costs and impacts?"

For more information:

John Harrison, Public Information Officer 1-800-452-5161

On June 8, 1997, The Seattle Times devoted its Sunday editorial section to a long series of analyses and recommendations on salmon recovery. Regarding the Snake River dams, The Times wrote:

Quit talking about removing the four lower Snake dams. It's not going to happen. Those dams pack too much economic and political clout, and the benefits of removal are uncertain. ... start instead with small steps and commitments that work toward bigger fights with larger purses.

The Council responded with an op-ed page article from Chairman John Etchart of Montana, which said, in part:

"Drawdowns and dam modifications can't be dismissed simply because they are expensive or simply because they cause impacts. The test will be, do the probable biological benefits outweigh the potential costs and impacts? The Power Planning Council likely will take up the drawdown question again when we review our fish and wildlife program for amendments later this year or in 1998. It may well be, however, that we still do not know enough about salmon recovery to make these decisions anytime soon."

On July 20, 21 and 22 The Idaho Statesman of Boise offered its own prescription for salmon recovery, including a strong endorsement of dam removal:

The four lower Snake River dams must go. They are killing salmon and, hence, hindering Idaho's economic growth. Now is the time to breach the dams.

The Council's response, again from Chairman Etchart, said the Statesman's conclusion was premature:

"The truth is, we don't have enough information yet to make an informed decision about dam breaching. A National Marine Fisheries Service process, the Plan for Analyzing and Testing Hypotheses, is seeking to identify areas of agreement on salmon issues. The scientists involved in this process are unsure whether breaching the dams would be beneficial to the fish. ... breaching needs to be evaluated with respect to biological, as well as social and cultural, benefits and costs. That work is under way, but not completed. It would be premature, and not good public policy, to decide to breach the dams before we understand whether there are biological gains to be had and the magnitude of the social and economic impacts to our region."

On July 27 and 28, The Oregonian of Portland published a two-part series of news stories about the region's salmon recovery effort. The headline on the July 27 story: "$3 billion later, Columbia Basin salmon dwindle." The subhead: "Despite the vast sums spent, no one's in charge of the fish recovery effort, and it lacks a unifying plan." The July 28 headline: "Salmon failure forces a hard look at dams."

The Council responded in a letter to the editor from Chairman Etchart, in part:

"Recovery efforts to date have been costly and they have not met with the success the region should expect. Nonetheless, it is important for your readers to understand that until recently, neither the Council nor any other single entity had the authority to actively manage the process used to select fish and wildlife recovery projects."

Chairman Etchart's letter went on to discuss the work of the Independent Scientific Review Panel, created in response to the 1996 Gorton amendment to the Northwest Power Act, and the Council's increased authority in the project prioritization process. His letter concluded:

"Will these steps result in better management - and more importantly - more salmon? It's too early to tell. Regardless, they are steps in the right direction, and the Council wanted your readers to know about them."