The Clinton Administration has been strongly supportive of the preserving the salmon runs in the Northwest through the deconstruction of dams and there is little doubt that the national agenda tends toward dam deconstruction. One current issue being debated in the Senate is S1904, which is a bill proposal aimed to "amend the Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration Act to provide further for the acquisition and removal of the Elwha dam and acquisition of Glines Canyon dam and the restoration of the Elwha River ecosystem and native anadromous fisheries, and for other purposes." It is noteworthy that this is bill was introduced by Senator Gorton of Washington state, who has formerly been consistently opposed to the removal of any dams. Apparently Senator Gorton sensed the winds of change and proposed S1904 in part to protect certain economic interests in the region. The proposal contains clauses that prevent the removal of other "endangered" dams in the region within a 12 year period. It requires the Secretary of the Interior to take necessary action "to ensure the continued availability of current water quality and quantity to specified areas and users." In view of these conditions, it might be more effective for environmentally-minded supporters to urge their congressional representatives to vote "no" on this bill. Instead, they should support the Clinton Administration's efforts to restore the river systems and salmon runs in the Pacific Northwest by reassessing more of the dams in the region. There is already much public support for the issue of dam removal -- not only on the Elwha River, but for the Snake River system as well.
Most of the debate centers on the economic displacement caused by dam deconstruction. In the Snake River system, for example, the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) depends on hydroelectricity for approximately 5% of the region's power. The Northwest Power Planning Council has estimated that the BPA would remain fiscally healthy despite this power loss unless market rates for electricity dipped dramatically. The effect on the shipping industry is much more difficult to guage. The lower Snake River system currently handles 4.2 million tons of barge shipping. The removal of the Snake River dams would eliminate the calm conditions required by the barge shipping industry and effectively displace the entire industry. The change of dependencies connects back to region's agricultural interests, who operate on slim margins and depend on barge shipping. The next most cost-effective shipping, railroad transportation, costs twice as much as barge shipping.
Generally speaking, dam deconstruction is good for the environment and
for the economy. Hydroelectric power generation has been eclipsed
by newer technologies, so the shift towards more efficient methods of power
generation and the re-establishment of fishing industry results in net
economic gain. However, as the example of the Snake River system
shows, dam deconstruction results in economic mitigation that is very hard
to negotiate. The main issues are most often economic: agriculture
and mill industries which depend on dams for water and transportation purpose,
the power industry, and the most of removing the dams, restoring rivers,
and compensating the affected parties. The main benefit is often
from a reviving fish population. After all, many of the dams are
not cost effective and the economic compensation of a healthy environment
will usually more than compensate for the losses incured by the demolition
of almost defunct dams.
To follow the issue of dam deconstruction as it unfolds in legislature,
you might write to the governor, the lieutenant governor, and to local
representatives. In the California Senate, some dam deconstruction
projects that are being discussed are Battle Creek, Deer Creek, and Mill
Creek.