Our View: Simpson, Sali needn't fear salmon studies

Why else would they fight federal studies of the Northwest's rare salmon?

A bipartisan coalition of 33 House members is pushing the Salmon Economic Analysis and Planning Act. The bill would require the National Academy of Sciences to study current salmon recovery efforts, and require the General Accounting Office to study breaching four lower Snake River dams, and the effect on jobs, irrigation, transportation and energy.

Study, of course, is not synonymous with support of breaching — a move that, according to most scientists, provides endangered Idaho salmon their best and perhaps only shot at recovery. But just the idea of study is sufficient to set off Simpson and Sali. On Feb. 16, almost a month before this bill's March 13 introduction, they signed on to a pre-emptive, dogmatic letter to GOP colleagues. Further study would "waste more taxpayer dollars," they said.

"To single out four dams in a rural agricultural area ... betrays the fact that this is more about a radical environmental agenda than helping regional salmon recovery efforts," reads the letter.

Sadly, Simpson and Sali attach their names to perhaps the most misleading statement in the entire breaching debate. They argue that only four of the Northwest's 26 endangered or threatened fish runs actually pass the lower Snake River dams. While that's true, they don't mention the fact that these are Idaho's four endangered runs — the very fish our elected officials should protect.

These aren't "only" four runs. These are the fish runs that symbolize the wild character of Idaho, represent a key cog in the state's delicate ecology, and offer the promise of a multimillion-dollar sport fishing economy for rural communities. Their value far overshadows the status quo Simpson and Sali seem more interested in protecting: out-of-state dams that provide hydropower and slackwater reservoir shipping. We can find other ways to generate power and move products; we cannot replace wild salmon.

We find a little comfort — but not much — in the fact that Simpson hasn't yet decided about the new Salmon Economic Analysis and Planning Act. "He's still reviewing it," spokeswoman Nikki Watts said Tuesday. Yet he has co-signed a letter that is as anti-research as it is anti-breaching; it's going to be hard to retreat from that rhetoric.

We aren't naive here; we recognize the groups that back this bill also heartily support breaching (as does the Statesman editorial board). Many of these same groups were behind a controversial but eye-opening study titled "Revenue Stream," which says dam removal could save the feds anywhere from $1.6 billion to $4.6 billion over 20 years.

We're ready to move. But this region isn't ready to coalesce behind breaching, even though it provides the best protection for Idaho salmon and Idaho water users alike. Sadly, our political leadership isn't prepared to advocate for dam removal, even though Idaho salmon continue to struggle, 15 years after first appearing on the federal government's endangered species list.

We want to keep things moving, though. The first step requires more study, more discussion, more science. We'll take our chances. In the end, we're convinced breaching will pencil out as the one solution that makes fiscal and scientific sense. Said breaching advocate Bill Sedivy, executive director of Idaho Rivers United, "Mike Simpson and Bill Sali shouldn't be afraid of good information."

What are they afraid of? Are they afraid their "answers" about salmon recovery are less airtight than advertised?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material  herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have
expressed  a  prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit
research and  educational purposes only. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml