Fedup Judge Sets Deadline On CR Salmon Plan

freespool · 10-01-2005, 07:42 AM

Judge gives agency deadline on salmon
Endangered fish - A ruling gives the federal government one year to balance dam operations and fish survival
Saturday, October 01, 2005
JOE ROJAS-BURKE
For more than a decade, the federal government has tried -- and failed -- to balance the benefits of the giant Columbia River basin dams with the damage they inflict on threatened salmon. On Friday, a federal judge gave the government one more year to get it right.

"We've been going on with this since 1992. We're running out of time," U.S. District Judge James Redden said at a hearing in Portland. "This time, we're going to do it."

Federal officials and the conservation and fishing groups that repeatedly have sued the government each expressed optimism Friday. At the same time, both sides pursued legal actions that could keep the fight going for years -- leaving much uncertainty about the direction of efforts to save Columbia basin salmon from extinction.

Redden said he plans to issue "quite detailed" instructions next week to guide the National Marine Fisheries Service, which he said "made a mess of it last time" and "wasted two years" after losing a similar lawsuit in 2003.

Environmental groups and some Northwest tribes assert that the most effective way to return wild-spawning fish to self-sustaining numbers is to remove four dams on the lower Snake River.

The Bush administration has flatly rejected dam breaching. To comply with a 2003 court order, the National Marine Fisheries Service, working with the Bonneville Power Administration and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, developed a $6 billion plan to be carried out over the next 10 years. It calls for outfitting dams with structures, called spillway weirs, that help juvenile salmon pass downstream without getting sucked into turbines. The plan also seeks habitat restoration, removing fish and birds that prey on salmon, and transporting as much as 90 percent of the young of some salmon stocks by barge or truck past the dams.

But in May, Redden ruled that the government's strategy violated the Endangered Species Act by "substantially lowering" the bar required for offsetting the harm to migrating salmon. It was the third court ruling in 12 years rejecting the government's fix for Columbia salmon.

Redden had ordered the government to comply with salmon advocates' request for spillway releases of river water over four dams during the summer this year to help divert young salmon away from turbines and speed them downriver. The measure could cost the region close to $80 million in lost power generation, according to the BPA.

On Friday, a lawyer representing the National Wildlife Federation and other plaintiffs said his clients will probably ask the court to order more spills next spring and summer, and to order federal agencies to boost river flows with water from reservoirs.

"We're just asking the biggest killer of salmon -- the federal dams -- to take responsibility for what they do," said Liz Hamilton, executive director of the Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association, one of the suing groups.

The requests are certain to spark furious opposition. Water sent over spillways can't be used to generate electricity and so accrues a cost in lost energy sales by the BPA, a federal agency. Electrical utilities and industry groups say the cost isn't justified. And Montana and Idaho have long resisted efforts to draw deeply from reservoirs, which deprives those states of water for irrigation, recreational boating and lake fishing.

Justice Department attorneys on Friday obtained from Redden an order allowing the government to appeal the judge's latest ruling. But federal officials hastened to say that they are committed to working with states and tribes to develop a salmon recovery consensus. Oregon and four tribes with treaty rights to salmon joined the lawsuit against the federal government.

"I can't emphasize enough our very strong desire to work collaboratively with the states and tribes," said Bob Lohn, a regional administrator for the fisheries service. While the parties differ on their interpretations of the Endangered Species Act, Lohn said that it remains possible for all to reach agreement on a larger, more important question: "What is the best set of actions we can take to recover salmon?

"The issue we can all agree on," Lohn said, "is the need to recover salmon and the fact that it will take more actions than those required under the ESA."

Joe Rojas-Burke: 503-412-7073, joerojas@news.oregonian.com

They just don't seem to get it, fix our river and give us back our fish runs.

VOTE PRO SALMON

salmon hugger

BCF · 10-01-2005, 08:21 PM

Thank you Freespool for taking the time to make this post. This issue effects us all. The delay tactics have long been the preferred method of the corporations. If one draws the process out long enough in the end the subject of the debate becomes mute. Because aggrieved parties have died, given up, run out of money, or the property or material object has been destroyed.

Let's all hope that this Honorable Judge, this Federal Civil Servant who deserves all our respect, will be able to make a decision in time to save our Salmon.

BCF

RiverMan · 10-02-2005, 07:28 PM

Have to give the judge alot of credit, he's definitely taking the heat. I'm wondering tho if it will do any good since Pombo introduced the huge changes to the ESA which breezed through the Republican run House. Some speculate the Bill will have more difficulty in the Senate but if it goes through it will be devatasting for salmon.

Jerry Dove · 03-26-2012, 07:58 AM

Does anybody remember the great Vanport flood in the late 40s??? Just asking. Don't get me wrong I love fish.

Driften · 03-26-2012, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerry Dove

Does anybody remember the great Vanport flood in the late 40s??? Just asking. Don't get me wrong I love fish.

To young to remember but flooding is rivers natural way of living, reminds me of how we prevented forest fires that are a typical cycle for forests and that by not allowing them to happen we only created more severe and damaging fires later on. A flood can be good for a river just not for people smart enough to live/work too close to it. I say bring on the water lots of it! Wouldn't a good flood now and again help create a more healthy river system?

alanmikkelsen · 03-26-2012, 09:23 AM

You are aware this is an old thread, Judge Redden has retired and a new judge has taken over the case?

Driften · 03-26-2012, 10:09 AM

Nope failed to see that but opinion stands, for what that's worth about as much as my vote. Funny I failed to read the date, I'm a sharp marble today, to excited to be headed springer fishing for few weeks I guess.