advertisement
MEDIA RELEASE
August 2020
Columbia-Snake River Irrigators Association
Back to the Future—Columbia/Snake River ESA Litigation
Response to the Columbia River System Operation EIS
On Lower Snake River Dam Breaching/Drawdown Actions
After three years of preparation, trailing about twenty-five years of previous environmental reviews and courtrejected
Biological Opinions, the federal CRSO agencies have released a new EIS-BiOP that will not satisfy
the dam breaching proponents. The principal litigants have unequivocally stated their dismay with the Final
EIS-BiOp and are prepared to bring the “faulty” EIS back before U.S. District (OR) Judge Michael Simon, to
invoke new orders leading to a Lower Snake River dam breaching protocol. They will charge that the EIS
fails to include a reasonable range of alternatives, and that the EIS retains technical flaws in its analyses.
They will claim that only a free-flowing river system can restore Idaho fish runs to Endangered Species Actdemanded
levels, and that fish-dependent economies and cultural traditions have suffered enough.
The CRSO agencies’ (EIS) Preferred Alternative maintains much of the existing status quo hydro operations,
including high levels of project spill and flow augmentation, and substantial annual funding to state
agencies/tribes for habitat management projects. The EIS concluded that although a four-project dam
breaching alternative could marginally improve fish survival, the economic costs to hydro power, river
navigation, and irrigation projects outweighed the fish benefits. The agencies declared that the Preferred
Alternative will not jeopardize multiple salmon/steelhead runs’ survival. The agencies further asserted that,
with the Final EIS in hand, a new regional action plan can be now determined for fish protection.
The CSRIA reluctantly acknowledges that the Final EIS carries with it some procedural and technical flaws
that could have been corrected through key stakeholder consultations and expert advice from technical
working groups—but that did not happen. More importantly, it seems inconceivable the agencies would fail
to include within the EIS an alternative that would more closely resemble some kind of “regional plan” they
now suggest is needed. Will EarthJustice, others, and Judge Simon bless another “regional process?”
The only real hope for a viable resolution may come from a handful of key stakeholders forging a compromise
implementation plan that can be delivered to Judge Simon—for near-term action.
For Further Information: 509-783-1623