Courts say ‘yes’ to salmon

PORTLAND, Ore. – Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission analyzed the
summer spill situation on the Columbia River correctly. On Aug. 13, the 9th
Circuit Court upheld the Redden decision, and the salmon got a second
‘yes.’ Water to flush juvenile fish out to sea continues to spill over the
dams.

Even so, Bonneville Power Administration didn’t give up. Head of the
agency, Steve Wright, told local papers that that he hadn’t really expected
a resolution this year given what he terms: The controversy on both sides.

But the salmon v. hydropower scenario on the Columbia is more than a simple
controversy that any school girl could explain. It’s true that salmon and
hydropower interests want to see Columbia River water put to different
uses. But the problem goes beyond the Northwest and the allocation of its
resources.

Rather the issue goes right into the world of economics. Right into the
world of capitalism. And a strange brand of socialism, as well. Right into
the world of subsidized rates for public utilities, especially the ones in
Washington state.

At least that’s what the most recent General Accounting Office report
issued from Washington, D.C. in early August suggests. The problem,
according to the GAO, is that BPA is bound by law to offer power at set
rates to utility districts regardless of its ability to meet demand. Thus
during drought years, or at summer’s end when water is low, BPA often has
to absorb losses, even resorting to buying expensive power from BC Hydro in
Canada at higher rates than it sells for.

Director of the nonprofit advocacy Northeast Midwest Institute, Richard
Munson concurred in a statement issued to the Portland Oregonian. “You’re
dealing with an agency that is fairly well exempt from market signals and
forces, and that is a prescription for making mistakes when the market is
swinging.”

CRITFC’s Bob Heinith takes the problem another step.

“The reason BPA is in tough straights is that they are still paying off a
huge default on the region’s nuclear plant fiasco in the 1980s. Washington
Public Power Supply System (WPPSS) is an albatross around BPA’s neck,”
Heinith said. “It’s pretty bad over there. One person I know finally left
for another job. She and other folks felt stuck in a situation where they
had to nickel and dime every fish and wildlife project that came across
their desk.”

Heinith agrees that the gist of the August 2004 GAO report–the latest in a
series of reports over the past decade in which the office has called for
reform at BPA — is that “Bonneville has got to change they way they’re
marketing and put together a tiered rate system.”

Heinith goes to the heart of the problem. “Of course, that’s anathema to
the public utilities in the region. Especially Washington where they aren’t
regulated and where the lion’s share of the low-priced BPA power goes.
Those utilities up there pretty much rule the roost. There’s no oversight
like there is in Oregon.

“Then BPA turns around and claims that curtailing the summer spill program
is vital for them to proceed with a low rate structure when the next rate
case comes up in the fall,” Heinith said. “I don’t know that it would have
made much difference. It’s just too small an amount of money – $28 million
– to make that much difference.

“Basically it’s BPA scraping the bottom of the barrel. Doing everything
they can to cut money here and there. They keep coming back to the
Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program and
cutting them back. First it was from $160 million to $130, but now they’ve
come back and said even that wasn’t enough.”

BPA’s financial woes and approach to salmon management might be a Northwest
problem but it reflects the Bush administration’s larger national agenda.
Not only has the Bush team driven the country’s debt up by staggering
amounts, it has also turned back the clock on the nation’s environmental
laws.

Thus while the Columbia River tribes might not be able to influence
national policy directly, they have worked in their corner of the continent
to hold their own. They’ve made significant strides in recovering the
salmon runs and maintaining them. And the tribes have consistently opposed
BPA’s single-minded focus on power generation profits not to mention the
agency’s subsidized rates for preferred customers like the Washington
public utility districts.

In this way the work of the Columbia River tribes has national import and
implications for the upcoming election. Indians in the Pacific Northwest
working to save the salmon may be contenders in a regional debate,
nonetheless the scenario serves as a microcosm for larger issues with which
society must contend as the 21st century progresses.

Short term economic gain and profits for the privileged? Or policies that
reflect a civilization’s interest in maintaining a quality environment that
serves the larger group?