the film forum library tutorial contact

Breaching Won't Save Idaho's Water by Sherl Chapman Boise Weekly, August 26, 1999

Dams or No Dams, the Feds Want To Take More of Our Irrigation Water

The on-going public discussion and debate over salmon recovery efforts in the Northwest has always been a case of dueling experts. By now the average person has heard so many different views being expressed by experts on both sides, it's a wonder anyone can make sense of things.

The debate has always been an arena where each group uses its own science to make its case. But now the process has a new, more distasteful wrinkle.

It's an attempt by dam breaching advocates to foster public misinformation over Northwest salmon recovery efforts. It involves incorrect information being advanced publicly as fact via guest editorials, letters to the editor and public statements.

At best it's a dreadful misrepresentation stemming from a lack of knowledge. At worse it's an intentional effort to misrepresent the facts and mislead the public.

This regrettable campaign of misrepresentation is based on a single supposition: Breach the four dams on the lower Snake River, and you automatically do away with the threat of taking Idaho irrigation water for flow augmentation. Reverse reasoning then is used to state that not breaching the dams means the federal government has no choice but to take Idaho water for flow augmentation.

Then comes the Trojan horse: Anyone who wants to protect Idaho's water from federally mandated flow augmentation therefore must support breaching the four dams.

They want people to believe Idaho can have it both ways -- save the salmon and save Idaho's water -- provided we support breaching the dams.

What's clear is that people spouting this line, including at least one Idaho legislator, either have not attended the many meetings on this issue or have not read the federal studies and reports that deal with the issue of salmon recovery and Idaho water. Or perhaps they have read the material but have decided to intentionally misstate the details of those documents.

Why? Because those documents clearly state that the federal government wants Idaho water for flow augmentation regardless of whether the dams are breached. Furthermore, the feds want Idaho water for reasons even beyond the preservation of Idaho salmon runs. One federal report even suggests Idaho water should be used to help restore the Columbia estuary.

Just a few of these documents include: the National Marine Fisheries Service draft Biological Opinion on Snake River projects; the Multi-Species Framework alternatives under development; and the A-Fish Appendix provided by NMFS to the Army Corps of Engineers.

It was also clear in the meetings of the various committees organized by NMFS to develop the 1999 Biological Opinion for the operation of the Columbia and Snake Rivers.

Other documents show that federal agencies now are being instructed to aggressively pursue taking Idaho water for flow augmentation not just now, but from now on.

The federal government's plan to take an additional million acre-feet of Idaho water for use in flow augmentation also remains firmly on the table.

Yet, amazingly, dam breaching proponents say with a straight face that we should believe all those threats to Idaho's water will magically vanish if we breach the dams.

Will breaching the dams mean Idaho's water will be safe from federal demands? Absolutely not. The federal studies and reports make that point crystal clear. The devil truly is in the details, and the details are there for anyone to read.

Don't be misled by people telling you that breaching the dams protects Idaho's water. It does not. What it means is that they are willing to deceive you--and put Idaho's water at greater risk--just to achieve their aim.

When you are told this fish story, ask one simple question: Has any federal agency stated publicly that Idaho water will not be demanded if the dams are breached?

The answer is an emphatic no.

click for letter of reply Turning RedFish Red