$33 billion Idaho plan to breach Snake River dams got one thing right | Editorial

Having to deal with yet another effort to breach the Snake River dams is exasperating, but at least the proposal out of Idaho recognizes the dams’ value to the region and the real cost to dismantle them.

And that’s a staggering $33 billion, according to a proposal just released by Congressman Mike Simpson, a Republican representing the eastern side of Idaho.

This is the first time we’ve seen such a comprehensive overview of the benefits that the dams provide, as well as the enormous financial losses that could happen if they are torn down.

Simpson has done the Tri-Cities a huge favor, and we owe him gratitude for his work even if we disagree with his end-goal.

The Snake River dams have for decades been a target by environmental groups, Oregon lawmakers and certain Washington state legislators — particularly those who live near Puget Sound.

Anti-dam activists have the misguided idea that breaching the dams is a panacea that will increase wild salmon and save the Southern Resident Orca.

They claim — wrongly — that the Snake River dams no longer serve a purpose, and that the power they produce can easily be replaced. These same groups dismiss how important the dams are to farmers in the region — both for irrigation and for getting their crops to market by barge.

Thankfully, Simpson’s proposal slaps those arguments down.

His proposal correctly acknowledges the benefits of the Snake River dams to the region, and it allocates billions in compensation to stakeholders if the dams no longer functioned.

For example, the plan suggests $10 billion would be needed to replace lost hydropower, and Simpson insists that those replacement energy sources must provide on-demand power.

That rules out wind and solar, which is refreshing.

Too many dam opponents misunderstand the role the Snake River dams play in providing clean, renewable, low-cost energy to the region. It isn’t the amount of power the dams supply that is important, but rather that it is reliable and available at the flip of a switch.

The Snake River dams are needed primarily for reserve power, and we appreciate that Simpson understands this and is not suggesting that hundreds of wind turbines could be a dependable alternative.

Instead, he proposes that long-duration utility-scale batteries and small modular reactors replace the power currently provided by the dams. But this technology is still not ready, and it is speculative it will be ready in a decade.

State law is now removing coal as a power source, which has utility leaders scrambling to find ways to quickly make up for that loss in power production. Removing the Snake River dams would make this effort even more challenging.

In addition, the dams provide farmers with a way to get their crops to market by barge. Without that option, grain would have to be moved by rail or truck, putting thousands of more semis on the highways, and increasing carbon emissions.

And that’s counter-productive to our efforts to battle climate change.

There are many reasons to keep the dams, and most pro-dam supporters will be skeptical of Simpson’s proposal.

But we appreciate that his plan provides billions to grain growers, ports, farmers, grain elevator facilities and the Tri-Cities and Lewiston-Clarkston communities in an effort to reduce hardships if the Snake River dams are breached.

We understand he is saddened by the loss of salmon returning to Idaho — we are too. We know Simpson has good intentions, and that he is willing to do whatever it takes to keep these precious fish from extinction.

But even he admits he is not certain that removing the Snake River dams will be enough to truly help salmon runs.

Ocean conditions are causing fish to decline all over the world, and several studies by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have concluded that removing the dams would help the salmon only slightly.

Simpson has done a service to the region by putting a price tag on the value of the dams, and his proposal deserves to be properly vetted.

But $33 billion is a massive amount for a hope and a prayer.

Although now, thanks to Simpson, we have a better idea of just how much it would cost if we lost the dams — and it is astounding. We hope this quiets those who think the dams could go away without a colossal impact.

This story was originally published February 7, 2021 at 4:00 AM.