We must stop thinking about this issue in terms of "fish versus energy" or "environmentalists versus farmers." There is a solution here — but it will require some major myth-busting, and it will require all of us to step out of our traditional roles.
A clear look at the economics shows we can remove these four outdated dams, restore fish, and replace the dams’ modest benefits for less than the Bush administration was planning on spending on its now-illegal salmon plan.
If we can keep every farmer whole, if we can ensure reliable irrigation, grain transportation and energy — all while restoring the most magnificent runs of salmon on the face of this Earth — who wouldn’t support dam removal?
Nobody wants more rounds of litigation or, God forbid, another spotted owl-style brawl. Let’s do it differently this time. Let’s do this in a way where environmentalists can be advocates for farmers, and farmers can be champions for fish. The lower Snake presents an opportunity for farmers, environmentalists, fishermen, Indian tribes, and a wide variety of businesses and industries to craft a river restoration/economic investment package that benefits communities for generations to come.
Amy Souers Kober
- Millie Carson on Trump’s Cabinet choices reflect deep Koch influence
- Shelley Ellis on How many Westerners does the Affordable Care Act cover?
- Jan Hearthstone on California’s recent rains won’t fix its other, very big problem
- Tiffy Squid on Why we need condors in eastern Oregon
- Mark Rozman on Trump’s Interior pick confounds conservationists