advertisement
Columbia-Snake River Irrigators Association
Policy Information Release
November 2020
What Is Happening to Columbia-Snake River Hydro Operations ? Who Is Making Dam Breaching / Drawdown Decisions ?
The questions below are being frequently asked to Columbia-Snake River Irrigator Association ( CSRIA ) members and representatives . There are some clear-headed , and honest , answers .
What is happening here , and why are more “ dam breaching lawsuits ” being filed ?
The past three decades have witnessed multiple lawsuits advocating Endangered Species Act ( ESA ) violations by the Columbia River System Operations ( CRSO ) agencies — accused of placing thirteen species of salmon / steelhead at “ risk ” of extinction . Five NOAA Fisheries Biological Opinions ( BiOps ), supporting CRSO agencies ’ operations , have been rejected by the U . S . Federal District ( OR ) Court . The dominant focus has been on the four Lower Snake River dams , where environmental groups represented by Earthjustice , the state of Oregon , and some Tribes have called for dam breaching / drawdowns . Earthjustice filed another lawsuit in October .
But the federal hydro project operators have prepared a new environmental impact statement ( EIS ) and BiOp . Did that not end the scientific debate and legal challenges ?
No . EarthJustice and others have immediately challenged the new EIS “ preferred alternative ,” because it did not include dam breaching / drawdowns , perceived as optimizing ESA-listed fish survival requirements . The environmental groups stress that the EIS evaluations did acknowledge that dam breaching would likely lead to higher fish survival , but the CRSO agencies determined that the economic costs to the power , navigation , and irrigation sectors were unacceptable .
Does Congress or the federal judiciary authorize dam breaching decision ?
The U . S . District Courts have ruled that they have extensive powers to order agencies to “ rebalance ” the purposes of the federal hydro projects — both on the Columbia River system and elsewhere . In effect , the Courts hold that they have the ( Congressionally authorized ) rebalancing authority under the Northwest Power Act (“ equitable treatment ” for power and fish ), per the ESA , and perhaps even under new applications of the Clean Water Act . For example , through Court BiOp approval , the hydro system has already relinquished about 1,200 MWs of firm power due to water system reregulation and project spill operations for fish . It is a small reach for the Court to order further “ rebalancing ” operations .
So , what is this Northwest Governors ’ Agreement or Forum ? What is its objective ?
Faced with considerable political pressure to reject the new CRSO EIS / BiOp , the regional Governors are initiating a sovereign-led ( states and tribes ) forum , to reach agreement on a new “ regional alternative .” Given the likely Court direction , the Governors ’ Forum would be principally reviewing new dam breaching / drawdown plans and related mitigation measures . As a litigation defendant-intervenor and principal stakeholder , CSRIA will be providing both the Court and Forum with a regional alternative that excludes four-dam breaching but does review pool drawdown measures for some of the Lower Snake River projects . A more measured approach to dam breaching / drawdowns should be recognized .