In a letter to Washington Gov. Jay Inslee dated Feb. 11, Oregon Gov. Kate Brown offered her full support for removal of the four hydroelectric dams on the lower Snake River, the main tributary of the vast Columbia River. The dams generate electricity, provide some irrigation and flood control, and allow commercial barges to travel up and down a stretch of flat river for 140 miles between Pasco, Wash., and Lewiston, Idaho.
But the dams are also responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of ocean migrating salmon and steelhead, which has resulted in the slow starvation of the resident orca whale population, which depends on the salmon for survival. The surviving resident whale population was estimated in 2019 at around 75, down from 98 in 1995.
“The science is clear that removing the earthen portions of the four lower Snake River dams is the most certain and robust solution to Snake River salmon and steelhead recovery,” Brown wrote. “The imperilment of Southern Resident Killer Whales is a tragedy shared by all of us in the Pacific Northwest,” she added.
PREVIOUSLY: Pressure builds for swift action on Snake River dams (from 2018)
Brown was immediately slammed by Washington state’s Republican U.S. Reps. Dan Newhouse, Cathy Rodgers and Jaime Beutler who said in a joint statement, ”Governor Brown’s position is not only misguided, it is shocking and extreme.”
The feds came out swinging as well. The three federal agencies overseeing the Snake River dams; Bonneville Power Administration, the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation, issued the first joint draft Environment Impact Study, or EIS, in 20 years on Feb. 28. This long awaited draft EIS was mandated by a U.S. District Court judge who ruled back in 2016 that these three federal agencies must produce an EIS that would consider breaching the dam as a way to address the continued destruction of native salmon and steelhead populations.
In the newly released draft EIS, the joint agencies came out decidedly against breaching the dams, stating this would result in a rise in transportation and production costs for farmers, an increase in greenhouse gases and a bump in electric rates. They also estimated dam removal would make the Northwest more vulnerable to power blackouts. In a grave contest between the competing interests of economics and the ecosystem, the federal agencies chose economic interests.
The draft EIS was quickly criticized by environmental groups and tribal councils. The Center for Biological Diversity issued a statement accusing the report of giving “short shrift to the only viable alternative for saving salmon and ultimately orcas — removing the four lower Snake River dams.” Restoring the lower Snake River is a stated concern for the Nez Perce people as well, given the location of their homeland along the Snake River in north central Idaho. “We view restoring the lower Snake River as urgent and overdue,” said tribal chairman Shannon Wheeler.
Other opponents of the dams pointed to studies that found hydroelectric power far from the clean energy source it is touted to be, and may in fact be one of the biggest producers of methane and other greenhouse gas emissions. A study in late 2016 published in BioScience found that reservoirs created by dams are significant contributors to global warming. Researchers “calculated that reservoirs are emitting the equivalent of one gigaton — or one billion tons—of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year. That is more greenhouse gas production than the entire nation of Canada.”
The draft EIS did offer modest changes to the Snake River dams to improve salmon populations, including modifying fish passages and spilling more water over the top to increase fish runs, but environmentalists argue that these modifications are too little too late. Giulia Good Stefani, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council stated “Modest tweaks to dam operation will leave Columbia Basin salmon and the orcas that depend on them at serious risk of extinction.” The NRDC is seeking 1 million signatures in support of breaching the dams.
This back and forth battle of words, dueling studies and counter lawsuits for and against the breaching of the Snake River dams has been ramping up for decades with no foreseeable end in sight. As resident orca numbers dwindle, anadromous and fresh water fish species decline and the effect of separating river systems from floodplains continues to send dozens of species spiraling towards extinction, there are some activists who look to the Rights of Nature as a way to cut through the bureaucratic red tape and restore the free flow of the Snake River before it’s too late.
The movement to legally enshrine the rights of species and ecosystems has been gaining steam worldwide in the past decade. Just as corporations have been granted legal rights of personhood as enjoyed by flesh and blood human beings, many argue that whales, salmon, rivers and mountains should also be granted personhood and considered not as property, but as entities with independent rights that must be protected and allowed to flourish.
More than 20 countries currently recognize what is known as the Rights of Nature. New Zealand has declared a river, a national park and te sacred Mt. Taranaki as legal entities, with all the rights of a human being. Ecuador, Bolivia and Mexico City have voted Rights of Nature into constitutional law. In 2019 the high court of Bangladesh declared the River Turag a living entity with legal rights. Over two dozen U.S. municipalities have passed “Rights of Nature” resolutions. In 2014, for example, the city of Santa Monica, Calif., declared adjacent marine waters “possessed the fundamental and inalienable rights to exist and flourish.” And in 2010, a conference in Helsinki produced a declaration on the rights of whales and dolphins, which stated in part that “Cetaceans have the right to the protection of their environment.” In February 2019, 61% of the citizens of Ohio voted for an initiative petition that granted the increasingly toxic Lake Erie personhood under the law. (Just last month however, on Feb. 28, a federal judge overturned that law on behalf of a corporate plaintiff and the state of Ohio.)
Could the growing worldwide movement known as the Rights of Nature help propel the entrenched debate over the fate of the Snake River dams? While state and federal governments stay mired in heated discussions, unable to act, the clock on extinction for many species is running down, and communities are coming together to find creative ways to avert what they see as an impending ecological disaster.
Street Roots recently spoke with Will Falk, a lawyer, environmental activist and writer. Falk represented the Colorado River in the first-ever American lawsuit against the state seeking rights for a major ecosystem. He lives in the Colorado River Basin, and his book, “How Dams Fall,” dramatizes the plight of the famous river.
Falk is currently touring Oregon to speak about his book, sponsored by the Oregon Community Rights Network.
“We wanted to attack the notion that nature is only property that humans can use, objectify and destroy. We thought she (the Colorado River) would be a good being to start the conversation about the rights of nature. We brought a lawsuit in federal court here in Denver. We actually listed the Colorado River as the plaintiff.”
Falk was not the lead lawyer in the case, but he served as a Next Friend, a common law term for adults who represent the rights of children or those who cannot speak for themselves in court.
“The case was actually titled Colorado River v. Colorado,” Falk explained. “The river was suing the state of Colorado for violating her right to exist and naturally evolve. We were also seeking a declaration from the federal judge that she was a legal person, capable of possessing legal standing, which is a power to bring lawsuits on your own behalf in court. I, as an American citizen, can bring a lawsuit on my behalf, so can a corporation, but the major ecosystems that give us life cannot do that.”
While waiting for the trial to begin, Falk decided to search for the headwaters of the Colorado in Canada, then hike along the riverbank for several weeks, listening to the river, so he could “take down her testimony and give it to the court. The river cannot come into the courthouse, and judges are not likely to listen to a river,” he said, “so I felt I had to listen and bring that into the court.”
The lawsuit was dismissed before Falk could return from his trip.
“The Colorado attorney general reacted quickly and aggressively and threatened our lead attorney with sanctions and penalties for bringing what he considered a frivolous law suit.”
The storage and control of water has been integral to human civilization for millennia. Society as we know it would not look the same without dams. However, the adverse and sustained environmental impacts from blocking the flow of a natural system are becoming more and more apparent. Large dam projects have been cancelled or suspended all across the globe. Investment in wind, solar and biomass power are far outpacing hydropower.
Q&A: Tragedy ahead if we do not act on Snake River dams, Steven Hawley warns
The heyday of the big dams is over. But what do we do with the massive dams still in place, still killing salmon by the hundreds of thousands? If Ecuador, Bangladesh, Helsinki and Bolivia can pass rights of nature laws to protect life-giving ecosystems, why can’t we?
Although the draft EIS has been released and is decidedly not in favor of dam removal, the debate is far from over. Your comments are welcome on the now-open 45-day public comment period, which closes April 13.