Thursday, July 3, 2025

ADMINISTRATION RENEGES ON NATION'S PROMISE TO RESTORE COLUMBIA/SNAKE RIVER SALMON

 

In September 2023, the Biden administration issued a “Memorandum on Restoring Healthy and Abundant Salmon, Steelhead, and Other Native Fish Populations in the Columbia River Basin.”  The Memorandum acknowledged that

“Actions since 1855, including the Federal Government’s construction and operation of dams in the Basin, have severely depleted fish populations.”

The Memorandum went on to declare a federal policy

“…to carry out the requirement of the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act (Public Law 96-501) to operate, manage, and regulate the [Columbia River System] to adequately protect, mitigate and enhance fish and wildlife affected by Federal dams in the Basin in a manner that provides equitable treatment for fish and wildlife with the other purposes for which the Federal dams are managed and operated.”

The Biden administration followed up three months later by announcing an agreement that

“when combined with other funding that the Administration is anticipated to deliver to the region, will bring more than $1 billion in new Federal investments to wild fish restoration over the next decade and enable an unprecedented 10-year break from decades-long litigation against the Federal government’s operation of its dams in the Pacific Northwest.”

That agreement, entered into between the United States and other parties to ongoing litigation, was filed in the Federal District Court for the District of Oregon, and was to be implemented through a memorandum of understanding between the United States, the states of Washington and Oregon, four Native American tribes, and various environmental organizations.

However, the Trump administration has recently caused the United States to breach its written agreement with the other parties, and destroy much of the progress that has been made in reaching agreement on how to conserve and, ideally, rebuild native fish stocks in the Columbia River Basin.

A so-called “fact sheet” issued by the White House on June 12 announced that

“President Donald Trump Stops the Green Agenda in the Columbia River Basin.”

The “fact sheet” began:

STOPPING RADICAL ENVIRONMENTALISM:  Today, President Donald J. Trump signed a Presidential Memorandum revoking an executive action issued by the prior administration that called for ‘equitable treatment for fish.’”

Bullet points in the “fact sheet” noted, among other things, that

“Today’s Memorandum revokes the Biden Administration’s ‘Restoring Healthy and Abundant Salmon, Steelhead, and Other Native Fish in the Columbia River Basin’ Memorandum, which placed concerns about climate change above the Nation’s interests in reliable energy resources,”

and

“The specified agencies will coordinate with the Council on Environmental Quality to review and revise environmental review processes related to matters in the [Memorandum of Understanding filed with the Federal District Court], save federal funds, and withdraw from the [Memorandum of Understanding].”

And that was the last time that the “fact sheet” even mentioned the words “salmon,” “steelhead,” or “fish,” words that the rest of the document made clear were hardly in the administration’s vocabulary.  Instead, it immediately went on to blare,

RESTORING AMERICAN ENERGY DOMINANCE AND SECURING AMERICAN PROSPERITY:  President Trump continues to prioritize our Nation’s energy infrastructure and use of natural resources to lower the cost of living for all Americans over speculative climate change concerns.”

The salmon and other depleted fish stocks are given a little lip service, with the statement that

“President Trump recognizes the importance of ensuring the future of wildlife populations in the Columbia River Basin, while also advancing the country’s energy creation to benefit the American public.”

Which may well be true.  Trump might truly recognize “the importance of ensuring the future of wildlife populations in the Columbia River Basin,” but there is a big difference between merely recognizing something, and taking meaningful action, and when it comes to wildlife—in just about any context, not just the Columbia River—it’s pretty clear that Trump has little desire to take any action to preserve its future, particularly if that actions might make corporate interests uneasy.  Thus, the “fact sheet” complains that

“The [Memorandum of Understanding] required the Federal government to spend millions of dollars and comply with 36 pages of onerous commitments to dam operations on the Lower Snake River,”

and that

“Dam breaching would have resulted in reduced water supply to farmers, eliminated several shipping channels, had devastating impacts to agriculture, increased energy costs, and eliminated recreational opportunities throughout the region,”

but never mentions how dishonoring the Memorandum of Understanding, and not breaching the lower Snake River dams, will impact the future of wildlife—and most particularly the runs of anadromous fishes—in the Columbia River Basin. 

Because, if we want to be honest, he doesn’t particularly care.

Instead of even mentioning the future of currently threatened and endangered salmon runs, or of promising some sort of action that might preserve their future, the fact sheet ignores the fish entirely, and instead trumpets that

“President Trump signed an Executive Order reinvigorating America’s beautiful clean coal industry to support grid stability and hundreds of thousands of U.S. jobs.”

We are assured that

“President Trump’s commonsense approach to environmental conservation empowers the American people to take full advantage of our nation’s vast and great natural resources.”

At least, so long as those resources last.

Various corporate spokesmen endorsed the administration’s actions.  The Seattle Times reported that Kurt Miller, the CEO of the Northwest Public Power Association, said that

“This withdrawal is a necessary course correction toward energy reliability, affordability, and transparency.  In an era of skyrocketing electricity demand, these dams are essential to maintaining grid reliability and keeping energy bills affordable.”

Similarly, the executive director of Northwest River Partners, the trade association representing those who use and profit from the dammed river, said that

“Now is the time to come together and chart a sustainable path toward effective solutions that protect salmon and maintain affordable and reliable hydropower needed by millions of people in the Pacific Northwest.”

It is probably notable, however, that he didn’t even try to suggest what such solutions might be.

But the various industries with a financial incentive to support the status quo aren’t the only people to speak out on the issue.  Anyone focused on the river’s value to salmon, rather to various corporate uses, probably condemned the current administration’s decision.

The four Native American tribes that had been involved in the long-lived litigation that had was, temporarily, stayed after the Biden-era agreement was filed with the Federal Court—the Yakima, Nez Perce, Warm Springs, and Umatilla—were among the most aggrieved of the parties; such tribes had been guaranteed access to the river and to its salmon in treaties dating back to the 19th century.

Gerald Lewis, chairman of the Yakima Tribal Council, stated that

“The federal government’s historic river management approach is unsustainable and will lead to salmon extinction.  Courtroom battles cannot provide the innovative, holistic solutions we need.  This termination will severely disrupt vital fishery restoration efforts, eliminate certainty for hydro operations, and likely result in increased energy costs and regional instability.”

But perhaps the most succinct, and most appropriate, comment came from the chair of the Yakimas’ Fish and Wildlife Committee, Jeremy Takala, who observed that

“We reserved the right to actually catch fish, not merely the right to dip our nets into barren waters.”

But Native Americans aren’t the only people who expect to get hurt.

Liz Hamilton, the policy director for the Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association, responded to that action by saying

“It was a big loss for the Northwest’s economy, and a dagger to the heart of our industry.”

More criticism appeared in an article in Outdoor Life magazine.  Although the hook-and-bullet press tends to be a little right-leaning, and often takes a conservative stance, that article had nothing good to say about the White House abandoning the Memorandum of Understanding.  It reported that, in 2021, 68 leading fisheries scientists wrote a letter to policymakers stating that

“The survival problems of various [Endangered Species Act]-listed salmon and steelhead species in the Columbia Basin cannot be solved without removing four dams on the Lower Snake River.”

The letter came to the conclusion that

“These four dams must be removed to not only avoid extinction, but also to restore abundant salmon runs.”

The Outdoor Life piece went on to observe that

“In its June 12 memorandum, however, the Trump Administration chalked up those conclusions to ‘speculative climate change concerns.’  It explained that by pulling the federal government and its funding out of the [agreement], it was ‘stopping radical environmentalism’ and ‘securing American prosperity.’  In addition to fundamentally mischaracterizing the agreement itself, Thursday’s announcement appeared to imply that speaking up for fish and considering alternatives to the status quo is part of a green agenda meant to harm the American public.  [emphasis added]”

 The Outdoor Life piece continued,

“Conservationists and wild fish advocates are deeply disappointed by Trump’s decision to axe the agreement, which also paused a series of ongoing lawsuits that have dragged on for decades, and would have contributed more than a billion dollars in federal funding to solving a big, hairy problem.  They say the move sets back our country’s salmon recovery efforts substantially, returning us to a zero-sum game of endless litigation that pits energy against fish.”

The magazine quotes Chris Wood, the president of Trout Unlimited, who lamented that

“It was one of the first times that we had a collaborative effort where people agreed to come together—nobody’s hand was forced, there wasn’t a judge or a court insisting on this.  Now, we’re back to the beginning—where we had been for the previous 20 years, which is just relying on the Endangered Species Act to keep these most amazing of God’s creatures from blinking out.”

To provide some context to the issue, the magazine article notes that

“The Columbia-Snake River system was once the most productive salmon and steelhead fishery in the world.  Today, these anadromous runs are a shadow of their former selves, with wild fish returning at less than two percent of their historical abundance…

“The main objective of the 2023 agreement, Wood adds, was for stakeholders to work together to increase those returns.  It was not a decision to breach the Lower Four Snake River Dams, nor did it support legislation to authorize dam breaching.  The dams are owned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and removing or redesigning them would require an act of Congress…

“In many ways, the agreement reached in 2023 provided a road map for…difficult conversations.  It established a Tribal Energy Program to help the Columbia River Treaty Tribes develop their own renewable energy sources.  It provided federal guidance for replacing and/or redesigning the current irrigation and transportation systems in the Lower Snake region.  And it provided the funds to make those solutions workable.  Perhaps more importantly, though, it paused the Gordian knot of ongoing lawsuits around the Lower Four dams in an effort to bring stakeholders back to the negotiating table.”

Now, it appears that the litigation will continue.  Amanda Goodin, an attorney with Earthjustice who has represented plaintiffs in the legal action, has observed that

“So without the agreement, there is no longer any basis for a stay [of the ongoing litigation]."

The litigation will almost certainly resume.

It’s not a great solution.  But when plaintiffs are forced to deal with a nation willing and seemingly eager to break its word and dishonor its promises, it is the only solution that they have.

 

 

 

No comments:

Post a Comment