To Spill or Not to Spill?

Increased spill continues to stir up controversy along Columbia and Snake Rivers

By Dac Collins. May 17, 2018. To spill or not to spill? This Shakespearean question lies at the core of a controversial dispute regarding the increased amount of water currently being spilled over the eight federal dams located on the Lower Snake and Columbia Rivers.

Last April, U.S. District Court Judge Michael Simon ruled that federal dam managers must send more water through the spillways of the dams instead of the turbines this spring. This “increased spill” is meant to aid juvenile salmon in their downstream journey to the Pacific, and it is a ruling that conservation groups, tribal members and fishermen have sought for decades now. Advocates say the increased spill will allow endangered salmon and steelhead smolts to pass more safely over the dams instead of through the turbine blades, and that it will significantly shorten their travel time to the ocean.

In accordance with Judge Simon’s ruling, managers at the Dalles Dam are sending significantly more water over the spillways this spring. (Photo taken on May 12.) Photo by Eric Prado licensed by CC BY-NC 2.0.

Although this is the fourth time that the U.S. District Court has ordered increased spill over the federal dams since 2005, it represents the biggest planned spill to date for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Which is why federal dam managers—along with power companies, irrigators, barge operators and some politicians—are so enthusiastically opposed to Judge Simon’s ruling.

Those same groups appealed the ruling earlier this year, but it was upheld by the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on April 2, and the increased spilling began the following day at Lower Granite, Little Goose, Lower Monumental and Ice Harbor dams on the Lower Snake River. The increased spill over the Columbia River dams (McNary, John Day, The Dalles and Bonneville) began a week later, on April 10.

In the weeks since, opponents to the federal mandate have done everything in their power to reverse the decision and return dam operations to the status quo. 

That’s because, for power companies like Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), the spill is viewed as a tremendous waste of money. Although it is too soon to know the exact figures, BPA estimates that the increased spill could cost them up to $40 million in potential revenue—an amount they say will be passed on to ratepayers as a “spill surcharge.”

The barging industry sees the increased spill as a hazard to navigation (and to their bottomline). Likewise, farmers see the water currently being spilled over the federal dams as lost irrigation potential. Both groups say that the energy lost outweighs the benefit to salmon and steelhead, and they argue that there is no proof that spilling more water over the dams will help improve fish runs in the future. Some claim that the federal mandate will actually have the opposite effect, maintaining that it increases the amount of gases in the water that can harm juvenile fish.

And while political pressure has so far proved inadequate in reversing Judge Simon?s ruling, lawmakers are still trying.

Three weeks ago, Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.) helped pass legislation through the House that would reaffirm Congressional authority over the Columbia and Snake River dams, and would stop the increased spilling. The bill (H.R. 3144) passed by a vote of 225 to 189, garnering support from Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), who said of the federally mandated increased spill: “River operations that have been guided by years of research by federal agencies, tribes and other cooperators have now been threatened by court order, and Northwest families and our communities will likely pay the price in higher power rates.”

And in early May, Rep. Newhouse came out to visit McNary dam, where energy production has dropped from 1,000 to 275 megawatts, in order to publicly share his views on the increased spill.

“I see wasted water,” Newhouse told the Tri-City Herald. “There are some things we are already experiencin—the lost power generation, lost dollars, lost economic benefit.”

These juvenile coho and chinook, spawned and raised at the Winthrop National Fish Hatchery in Washington, must pass through the four lower Columbia River dams on their 600-mile trip to the ocean. Photo courtesy of the USFWS licensed by CC BY-NC 2.0.

The bill will go to the U.S. Senate next, where its passage remains unsure. At least a few senators are eager to oppose it, including Patty Murray (D-Wash.), who released this statement on April 25, the same day the bill passed the House: “There is an ongoing legal process intended to account for all uses of our critical river system and a court-mandated comprehensive review that everyone can participate in, so I oppose this legislation that would cut off and politicize what should be a robust and transparent process.”

Oregon Governor Kate Brown echoed Murray’s concerns in a letter that she drafted earlier this year, writing that “H.R. 3144 would disrupt the regional efforts to engage in a full, accurate and transparent analysis of salmon and dam management,” and that “Washington Governor Inslee has expressed similar opposition to H.R. 3144.”

As for private stakeholders in the region, the Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association and 139 other related businesses have already signed a letter opposing the bill. The letter states that “the additional spill recently ordered by the court is strongly supported by regional salmon biologists” and points to the above-average returns of chinook in 2015 to prove that spilling more water over the dams can help boost fish returns.   

The increased spill will continue through the middle of June. Until then, or at least until the U.S. Senate makes a decision regarding H.R. 3144, Newhouse and other opponents to the federal mandate can do little besides criticize and complain.