The Fuss Over Fish

Lesley Stahl Reports On The Debate On What To Do To Protect Endangered Salmon

(CBS)  This story was first broadcast on Nov. 19, 2000. It was updated on Wednesday, June 18, 2008.

The federal government has declared a "fishery disaster" area along the U.S. West Coast this summer after the salmon population there went into what's being called an "unprecedented collapse." As a result, the commercial salmon industry, which normally captures 800,000 fish a year, has been shut down and salmon prices are going through the roof.

The cause of the die-off is up for debate: the Bush administration blames warmer temperatures in the ocean where salmon spend most of their lives, but many scientists say man is to blame. Dams and irrigation canals kill millions of salmon as they migrate up and down rivers where they are born and where they return to spawn.

60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl first reported on the disappearing salmon back in 2000, focusing on two rivers in Oregon and Washington - the Columbia and its tributary, the Snake - where salmon were once so plentiful, it was said you could walk across the water on their backs.

The question then - and still today - is whether four dams should be torn down to prevent the salmon's extinction. Under the Endangered Species Act, the government is required not to let that happen. And the lengths the government is going not to let that happen, and the billions they're spending not to let that happen, are staggering.

---

The measures to protect the fish are so elaborate the observer is left to wonder: who thought this up?

"This whole system [was] built just so that the little baby fish don't have to go through the dam?" Stahl asks, observing an elaborate labyrinth of pipelines set up at a dam.

"Right, in order to keep them away from the turbines," says biologist Doug Arndt of the Army Corps of Engineers, which built the dams.

Arndt says the turbines kill about half the fish that go through them. And so 20 million young salmon a year are diverted as they go downstream into specially built raceways and sluices, shot through tunnels, into the pipelines and are then loaded onto barges. The fish are given a lift on a barge, courtesy of the U.S. government.

"We're gonna take all these fish down the river," Arndt explains. "It's gonna be about 300 mile trip. …Take about a day and a half."

Ironically, the well intentioned barging may interfere with the salmon's homing instinct, which is essential to their survival since after their trip down river, they go back up the river as adults to spawn, homing in on the very spot where they were born.

Asked if they're getting hurt, Arndt says, "No."

"This is actually a very, very good system," he tells Stahl.

The salmon are also loaded onto trucks. "They tried airplanes, they tried trucks…different ways of getting the salmon safely to below the hydro electric system," Arndt explains.

To help the fish that aren't barged or trucked get past the dams, the Corps built an artificial shoreline that cost $80 million, and a surface fish collector that cost $200 million. But after two decades of spending, the results are dismal: Coho salmon are already extinct, and runs of Chinook and Sockeye salmon are on the endangered list. To stop the decline, environmentalists are insisting that some of the dams be torn down.

So now Northwesterners are facing a choice between their beloved salmon and their beloved dams.

[jdcapshew]

This is yet another manmade disaster for a short term gain for people. It''s time to tear down the freakin'' dams and get alternative safe source of energy. This is disgusting and for those who are religious, it''s anti-god.

[karonlee]

Why isn''t the cost of saving the dams in terms of research for the salmon part of the cost per kilowatt of electricity? The price quoted was one cent per kilowatt, however; does that price take into account the real cost? I''m sure it does not. We keep fooling ourselves by believing we can have it all.

[melaniehazen]

While I agree that the dams are the problem and that the environmental impact of them is being whitewashed, I do not like my journalism mixed with smart aleck sarcasm from the reporter. Leslie Stahl''s "puns" and affected confusion in an attempt to point out her incredulity irritates me and undermines the story. And quite frankly, I was offended at the reaction to the Native American fishing exception and the government''s providing nets for that purpose. As the entire river, all the salmon in it and all of the land it runs through was theirs to start with, it seems pretty petty to balk at some nets and fish.

[brucet1963]

why are we paying 500 million per year to save an industry that is apparently dying? Tear down the dams and subsidize the electricity rate with the 500 million. Or better yet, let all those pacific north westerners pay 15 cents a kilowatt hour like everyone else...

[joanbor]

Just one more example of government waste, I want a rebate on my portion of the total bill on this project. Meanwhile the American people stuggle to keep up financially and not lose everything we have worked so hard for. We live in CT, we work until the middle of May just to pay our taxes for the year. When will politicians figure out we are not an endless source of money?
Let ALCOA pay fair market value for their electricity.

[tahoegator-2009]

Aarrgghhhh!
What has happened to our priorities. Let the salmon live. *** the dams. Try to get back to nature and learn to appreciate it. Your ancestors would be ashamed. So should you.

[bernbor-2009]

If you agree, please pass on the following suggestion to the appropriate people. Why not string a very large heavy net across the river - on an angle - and divert the salmon to a new tributary that can be built AROUND the dam so that the fish can - on their own - swim up stream. That way the dam can stay, the water can continue to flow and the fish can find their way home. That would save eveybody millions upon millions of dollars and prevent the deaths of thousands of very valuable fish.
Thank you for listening. Bernie Boroson, Brooklyn, NY [phone]

[Ed1930]

PLEASE KEEP THE FISH, KEEP THE DAMS,THE DAMS MAY SAVE FUTURE FLOODING IN THE AREA, AND MOST OF ALL, KEEP JOBS "IN THE USA" THIS IS ONE INDUSTRY THAT WILL NOT GET OUTSOURCED!
THANK YOU FOR THIS CHANCE TO SPEAK OUT.

[dapad]

To remove these dams after spending untold billions of hard earned American tax payers dollars is ludicris, absolute madness. At a time when we are seeking new forms of free and inexpensive energies, with the cost of oil skyrocketing, to destroy dams that provide inexpensive electrical power for this nations sustainment is total insanity. What in the world is wrong with providing water way side ramps along side each dam so the salmon can jump on their own to get past the dams for spawning and returning both ways. It''s a well known method of allowing spawning fish to continue their natural instinct for suvival. The cost would be considered peanuts in comparison to the idiocracy of taking down the dams. Furthermore, heavy duty stainless steel mesh caging with holes large enough for the turbulant water to pass through them, yet small enough to prevent the fish from passing through to fatal death, can be placed far enough behind the turbines. It''s total idiocracy to catch all these fish and trucking them every season. That''s costly too. Not to mention how much stress is placed upon the fish by doing so. Let''s all use some common sense for all parties involved with this dilema, save our salmon and our dams.

[Ed1930]

PLEASE KEEP THE FISH, KEEP THE DAMS,THE DAMS MAY SAVE FUTURE FLOODING IN THE AREA, AND MOST OF ALL, KEEP JOBS "IN THE USA" THIS IS ONE INDUSTRY THAT WILL NOT GET OUTSOURCED!
THANK YOU FOR THIS CHANCE TO SPEAK OUT.

[justruffin]

Fish Story (1)

I''m sorry, but I disapprove of the whole attitude of this piece, which seemed to be that every penny of government money spent on salmon survival is a "boondoggle", no matter what.

What the story got almost right was the complicity of the present administration, along with those of the past, on every level: federal, state, and local.

However, you missed the main point with regard to Bush: "The cause of the die-off is up for debate: the Bush administration blames warmer temperatures in the ocean where salmon spend most of their lives, but many scientists say man is to blame."

That is no debate! In EITHER case (non-Native) man is to blame: the water temperatures (global warming) AND the dams ... and agriculture and over fishing and so on. In essence, the Bush administration is blaming (in part) itself, having ignored the best science on global warming for their 8 years. Right on for once!

You also stated that the dams were built "with good intentions". Sure ... good intentions to serve the business interests of white people, not Native Americans and certainly not the salmon or anything else. Those "good intentions" were also countered by warnings from scientists about the consequences of the dams BEFORE they were built, but of course who believes scientists?

The salmon and the Natives and everything else lived in harmony for tens of thousands of years ... until WE took over. Do we owe the fish and our Native brethren whatever it takes to solve the problem?

[justruffin]

Fish Story (2)

What is right? RIGHT, not expedient. YES, and we owe it to ourselves to serve interests other than our own gratification.

I agree with others that Ms. Stahl''s whole attitude of seeing waste everywhere she looked serves no one well and every one ill. Frankly the writing for the whole piece seemed to be aimed at ratings by appealing to the largest portion of the viewing public, not serving public good. I too find that offensive, though hardly surprising.

Native interests, especially, were treated ill (I agree) by the piece, to a most offensive degree, and really done so just to serve the "gee whiz" effect rather than to serve ANYONE''s interest or illuminate anyone''s perspective.

Can the world do without salmon and/or Native Americans? Let''s just say the world could do a lot better without the rest of us. Do we owe it to the world and to ourselves, for the sake of rightness and morality, to do whatever it takes to save what did so well without us? What do you think is right? Do we do that, or follow the lead of this fish story and just throw up our hands at everything and criticize?

When are we finally going to accept that ALL the major problems of the world ... things dying and things in short supply ... have one origin: a huge, shameful, wasteful, overblown, overdone, unnecessary, out of control glut of ..... US ? Education on THAT subject is key to them all. Want to cover the reason for dying salmon? Cover the glut of US and what can be done about it.

[amber627]

It seems to me like the problem here is that the fish are born one one side of the dams, lets call this point A, then they go and grow up on the other side of the dams, lets call this point B, but then they need to return to point A to spawn. Perhaps I''m over simplifying this, but instead of building pipe systems and bussing fish all over the place, why don''t they just make an adjustment to point A? Take the eggs (from a hatchery or whatever) and put them somewhere else, where the salmon don''t have to go through the dams to get out of or return to.

[kivinen1]

Leslie,

You loose ALL credibility on this one. The Coho are not extinct. I quit listening after that STUPID comment.

Do a little homework ok? Otherwise, retire and let someone that knows do the job.

[fotobill-2009]

Building the dams was a huge mistake, wiping out the heroic salmon which have been there for millennia.

The industries profiting from the dam care about only making money, and if the salmon are gone, why would they care?

The aluminum industry can manage without the subsidized cheap energy, and the loggers can move their trees by road. The time for the removal of some dams is here. Let the tourism and sport fishing businesses thrive.

BILL

[formoto]

Read the papers, we are having a record run of salmon on the Columbia!

[fisherwoman6]

I wanted to respond to Justruffin--dude, have you seen the native gillnets spread across the Columbia? I am glad 60 minutes had the guts to address this. We have seen, every year, the nets set out across the river so that NO salmon could get by, unless they were swimming quite deep, creeping along the bottom of the river. There really should be some restrictions, like leaving at least one opening for the salmon to get by. The dams also do their damage on the fish, but we do get electricity out of the deal. We gillnet in Alaska, the largest salmon run in the world, but are on serious restrictions by the fish and game who let us fish only when they have their escapement up the river. What is going to ruin the Alaska run though is the proposed Pebble Mine....no electricity out of that, only gold and copper for a foreign company with a lot of toxic runoff to kill off the salmon. Maybe 60 minutes could do an article on the pebble mine before it gets off the ground....maybe some preventative medicine..

[hawkinsjd]

Ask the people who want to remove the dams this:
"Why are there rivers in Canada that do not have a dam anywhere near them let alone on them, that are getting very small salmon runs?" If they can answer that, then maybe we should consider listening to them. You stated that the dams kill approximately 50% of the fish, very wrong. Check that statistic again, you will find it might be 1 - 3%. If it were 50%, we wouldn''t have any runs now. The state of Idaho in the 1920-1930''s killed and blocked the breeding grounds of the Coho. Check out the story of "Red Lake" in Idaho.

We are making decisions based on our understanding of part of the picture. We do not know or understand what happens to the salmon when they are in the ocean. Without this knowledge we cannot be to make sound decisions. It is like saying we know the beach by only knowing about one grain of the sand.

[eldiemer]

Thank you for having one woman on 60 Minutes, but there should be more. Leslie Stahl is excellent, but why show her knees at the beginning? What man thought that up?

[miltoes58]

You failed to mention the fact that the same problem exists on rivers without dams.

[rdog91x]

We now have proof the system in place will not ever work. Money has been and is now being spent to overcompensate for poor design and planning. Nature and people once again pay the ultimate price.

[jaypaul7]

Leslie,

Please provide more research before airing a piece like this.

First, there are documented articles and programs that prove Salmon populations are decimated by seals and sea lions. One seal can destroy hundreds of pounds of salmon in one day. The mouth of the Colombia River has been littered with salmon carcases that seals and sea lions have ruined. The seals and sea lions gorge themselves on the belly fat of the salmon ripping out the stomach area, and leave the majority of the fish wasting on the bottom.

The seals and sea lion populations on the Oregon and California coasts have skyrocketed. They are major contributors to the declining salmon population.

2. The International fishing industry, Japanese and Russians are supposed to only harvest so many tons of Salmon per fishing trawler. What is not being reported is that those fishing trawlers are violating the fishing restrictions right outside of U.S. waters. Each trawler is illegally taking tons of U.S. west coast salmon without consequence.

Maybe the dams have to go. However, first, focus on other areas that can have an immediate impact to improve salmon populations.

1. Govern and enforce international waters where foreignors are committing salmon fishing violations.

2. Immediately implement a plan to reduce the exceedingly high seal and sea lion populations that feed primarily on salmon and have adversely impacted salmon populations.

[oregontom]

What a disappointing and biased story....60 Minutes (or should I say National Enquirer) you should be embarrassed! Lesley, your mind was made up before you ever started the story. Hydroelectric power is one of the cleanest energies we have today. That is not important as it did not fit your predetermined conclusions. Maybe we should burn more coal? More natural gas? We are having record runs of fish on the Columbia this year, but managed to down play that fact. Instead, you take the whining of one person and make himm sound like the hero. Do you remember why you got into journalism? I thought it was to report facts, not editorialize. You have conviced me it is time to give up on 60 Minutes!

[touchet2]

It seems as though everyone talks about the four lower Snake River Dams, but the real problem lies with Idaho and the dams Idaho Power Company built on the Snake River and Clearwater.: Read On:

*** Canyon Dam
Maintained by Idaho Power Company
Height 330 ft (100 m)
Opening date 1967

*** Canyon Dam is a concrete gravity dam on the Snake River (river mile 247) in *** Canyon on the Idaho-Oregon border. The dam impounds the Snake River in *** Canyon Reservoir; its spillway elevation is 1680 feet (512 m) above sea level.

It is the third and final hydroelectric dam of the *** Canyon Project, which includes Brownlee Dam (1959) and Oxbow Dam (1961), all built and operated by Idaho Power Company. The contractor for the *** Canyon Dam was Morrison-Knudsen.

The *** Canyon Dam powerhouse contains three generating units, with a total nameplate capacity of 391 megawatts. Power generation began with two units in 1967, the third came on line the following year.

Lacking passage for migrating salmon, the three dams of the *** Canyon Project blocked access by anadromous salmonids to a stretch of the Snake River drainage basin from *** Canyon Dam up to Shoshone Falls, which naturally prevents any upstream fish passage to the upper Snake River basin.

It was the Idaho Power Company Dams that stopped the passage of Salmon and Steelhead to spawning grounds. Look at the Idaho Dams and that is where the bigger story is! Way to go Idaho!!!!

[goodrich26]

I have but one thing to say about mna''s arrogance and stupidity in causing the salmon disaster, and the fact that salmon belong to the world, not just the Pacific Northwest: "Mr. Bush, Tear down those dams!"

[pcwm2008]

What planet do you folks live on? Gas is over $4.00 per gallon; people are losing their livelihoods right and left; and you put on a piece to "save the salmon". How about a piece about saving the "people of the U.S.".
It isn''t how much people of the NW are saving on their power bills, it''s where would the power come from if the Dams were removed. Coal fired plants. Not on your life. Environmentalists would fight building more of those till their last breath (or unt il the last light goes out). Nueclear (sp) power plants. Same answer. I know, wind power! Of course then the question is, where does the power come from when there isn''t any wind.
To H*** with the Salmon. Let''s think about the people of this country, and how they''re going to make it in these times.

[dboyer6]

Instead of rerunning an 8-year-old story, 60 Minutes should try doing some actual reporting.

First, those millions of dollars spent on salmon recover are paid by Northwest ratepayers, not the federal taxpayer.

Second, below is a link to a story reported last week by the Columbian Basin Bulletin on a record return for sockeye salmon returning to the Columbia River this year. http://www.cbbulletin.com/282092.aspx

[natbrandon78]

Thank you, CBS, for this important and amazing story. As someone who cares very much about the future of our planet and its wild places, I am extremely concerned by how poorly the salmon are doing on the West Coast, especially in the Columbia-Snake River Basin. Last year, only four Snake River sockeye returned to their headwaters at Redfish Lake in Idaho. Just four fish! Those are all that made it through the four outdated dams on the lower Snake River. We have to do something. These dams have to go. The Bush Administration has failed to even consider this option, but it is a necessary first step. Those fish ladders and techno-fixes are just a waste of taxpayer money and are not working to restore the fish. Congress must pass legislation to authorize removal of these dams. Thank you CBS for shedding light on the crisis that is happening with our salmon on the West Coast.

[nonydog]

Terrific synopsis of a complex issue. Many of us who want the dams to come down realize that a lot of work needs to be done to replace the dams'' (limited) benefits. But for several billion dollars, we should be able to do that. And taking out the dams won''t, by itself, save the salmon, but with the dams still there the fish don''t have a chance.
Restoring the salmon is not just about fish; it''s about restoring the people and ecosystems who need the fish to live. Thanks for running this, 60 minutes.

[patford6]

Thank you for re-airing this story. The fact that an 8-year old story on Columbia and Snake River salmon is still largely correct today is sad but true. The waste of American tax dollars on pretending to restore salmon has continued in these years. But the story''s characterization of "the Northwest''s beloved dams" is less true all the time for at least four of them. The four lower Snake dams that are driving Snake River salmon to extinction have lost any iconic status they might once have shared in. For the good of taxpayers and of Northwest progress, it''s time they go. Let''s spend salmon money on something that will work to restore salmon and salmon jobs.

[jrsalmon2]

Thanks to 60 minutes for running this important story! I can''t believe the "reasons" people put forward to explain the tragic decline of five protected salmon stocks (one of which is already extinct) over the past 40 years and the billions wasted on hairbrained schemes to "protect" these commercially valuable fish. "Warming oceans", "native American fishing", "terns" -- none of these "reasons" explain why Snake River salmon populations began a precipitous decline just after the lower four dams on the Snake River were built and none of them explain why (17 years after these populations were listed as endangered) not a single legally-adequate recovery plan has been developed by the agencies responsible for restoring these fish. I''m also fascinated by how many of your viewers are "concerned" about the global warming impacts of four relatively small dams (among thousands of hydroelectric dams in the US) on the Snake River -- I''m sure none of those commentors owns an SUV and they all turn the lights out when they leave the room ;-).

[fstnat]

Hmm - instead of everyone digging in on their side of the argument how about finding solutions based on real world data, not emotion/feelings. We live in an area where there are no dams below us - our streams feed directly into the Columbia river within a few miles and have been affected by the cycles of fish numbers almost as much as those above the dams. According to fish and wildlife our creek is considered pristine and very healthy. The last several years there were great runs of coho with some ups and downs in the mix like this last year. These are cycles that we can not fully explain. Yes people and dams affect the natural world.I have heard of a practical solution that could get most of the fish downstream of the dams. Direct the fish to a very large long pipe under the dam-make sort of a tunnel for the fish to pass through.In the years the runs are minimal the fishing for the most part is already cut off - that is as it should be. In my opinion, there is an imbalance in ocean of some kind either from international fishing and/or a natural imbalance of too many predators or disease or something way more complex than. Maybe CBS could investigate what is going on out in the ocean.
Although taking the dams out seems to be an emotional favorite of some - the cost to the area in floods (potential loss of life) and transportation of food, farming etc is staggering. That is not going to help our stream or the run of fish. Look west to the ocean!

[natbrandon78]

fstnat, you''re right that changing ocean dynamics, particularly in the face of climate change, are also affecting salmon runs. But you miss the point about the dams. Those dams are making an already serious situation worse and could mean the difference between extinction for certain Columbia-Snake River salmon populations, 13 of which are endangered! These fish do not need any additional adversity and though you are right to point out what''s happening in ocean, fixing climate change on the scale needed to affect the entire Pacific Ocean in time to save the fish that are dying now is an astronomically expensive endeavor, not to mention scientifically puzzling. Plus with the millions of dollars wasted every year on trucking those fish around the dams, it is a hollow argument to say that breaching the dams would be too expensive. Indeed, it may be the only way to save the fish. Again, I applaud 60 Minutes for taking on this emotionally and scientifically-charged subject and doing the reporting that needs to be done. Thanks CBS!

[ruby294]

Thank you 60 Minutes for running an update on this issue. The four Snake River Dams are a serious example of government largess benefiting a small number of people. Read your history! The fiscal conservative, Eisenhower, was actually the biggest reason these dams almost didn%u2019t go in earlier than they did! He resisted them because he saw them for what they were in his time; federal subsidies to a small group of beneficiaries (shipping, aluminum industry). Now they are gutting what is left of a 5 million year old genetic history (and calling 180 thousand salmon in 2008 is a %u201Crecord run%u201D is a sick and sad whitewash). If the dams come down we will get REAL record runs of salmon back. Rail lines will deliver goods that barges do now without the constant and expensive dredging, the the small amount of power they produce (4%) will easily be replaced by wind and conservation, and the region will have a river that runs free and offers a multitude of recreational and tourism benefits. A free Snake River will bring salmon and prosperity rather than government waste and biological tragedy. Thanks to 60 minutes for letting the American people in on this most grotesque example of Big Government waste!

[epetlock]

Thank you 60 Minutes for airing this story. This story is not just a regional issue, but rather an issue of national importance. It is a national disgrace that we have allowed our Pacific coast salmon to become so imperiled. This year%u2019s collapse of the pacific salmon is all the evidence we need, to know that something is terribly wrong. No matter what you blame the collapse on, one fact remains- we are losing yet another important natural system that has survived for tens of thousands of years through all kinds of fluctuations in climate, precipitation and temperature and in less that 100 years we have nearly destroyed it. I don%u2019t think that any sane or intelligent person can argue against the fact, with any credibility, that human impact is the reason these fish are in danger. There are many factors including dams, pollution, harvest, climate change and the list goes on. One thing we can say, the common denominator in all of theses is human impact. So now the question is, are we willing to clean up the mess that we have made or are we going to continue down the path of our own eventual self-destruction just so that we can continue to be wasteful and lazy?

[pmw87]

Thank you, 60 Minutes. Shedding light on this important issue is key to restoring populations of wild salmon in the Pacific Northwest. As Ms. Stahl reports, past attempts to protect endangered salmon have proven just as inadequate as they are burdensome on the American taxpayer. Not only are salmon a treasured natural wonder, they provide employment, nutrition and recreation to families across the Northwest. We have a responsibility to protect these marvelous fish, and we cannot let four obsolete dams get in our way. We must urge the federal government to allow their removal. This will allow us to implement safe alternatives to replace the few benefits of these dams while simultaneously protecting our way of life by restoring our miraculous wild salmon.

[idahoan55]

Excellent feature, well done Ms. Stahl.

But it is discouraging that, after seven years,we hear essentially the same exact story on this issue. When will the federal government stop this ineffective taxpayer spending regime?

Extinction is looming, the wild salmon of the Snake River Basin don''t have much time--we could spend billions more on additional ineffective techno-fixes, or invest in removing the lower Snake dams and replacing their benefits.

[ruby294]

Thank you 60 Minutes for running an update on this issue. The four Snake River dams are a serious example of government largess benefiting only a small number of people. We should remember our history! The fiscal conservative, Eisenhower, was actually the biggest reason these dams almost didn%u2019t get built! He resisted them because he saw them for what they were; federal subsidies to a small group of beneficiaries (shipping, aluminum industry) in the NW. But a group of special interests prevailed. Now they are gutting what is left of a 5 million year old genetic history (and calling 180 thousand salmon in 2008 is a %u201Crecord run%u201D is a sick and sad whitewash). If the dams come down we will get REAL record runs of salmon back. Rail lines will deliver goods that barges do now without the constant and expensive dredging, and the region will have a river that runs free and offers a multitude of recreational and tourism benefits. A free Snake River will bring salmon and prosperity rather than government waste and biological tragedy. Thanks to 60 minutes for letting the American people in on this most grotesque example of Big Government waste!

[bar4d]

60 minutes stated the aluminum industry needs power created from the four dams.

The aluminum industry longer exists. They''ve been shut down for several years with no plans to.

There is 4,600 miles of pristine spawning habitat above the dams. The Salmon River, Clearwater River, the rivers in Oregon and their tribs are some.

The four dams are failures in performing the uses intended when compared to their cost to operate, close to one billion per year. Pro dam folks will rail about power production. The dams are run-of-the-river dams constructed as a series of locks for barge traffic. They produce peak power loads in the spring when there is a power glut. They can''t store water to produce power when needed the most in the summer and fall.

The barge traffic is less than 700 trips annually. Salmon and steelhead smolt trips account for 120 of the 700. Barges pay no lockage fees. To put this in perspective, 21,000 vessels use the Panama Canal. 15,000 vessels use the St. Lawrence Seaway. These ships pay lockage fees to support operation. The Port of Lewiston is on the verge of bankruptcy and supported by a special tax the citizens must anti up each year.

Only 37 farmers irrigate from ONLY one dam. Take the dams out and they simply lower their pumps to the new river level. The government pays them millions in pumping subsidies anyway.

[sydneydreami]

The title of this story says it all. This is not simply a "fuss over fish." That is what the ranchers and farmers and power industries want us to think because it trivializes the ecological catastrophe that has been caused by the lower Snake River dams (among many others). Working on behalf of a small number of wealthy and politically connected players, our government has systematically worked to destroy an entire ecosystem. We don''t need the power provided by the lower Snake River dams; it can be replaced today by wind and solar alternatives. And we certainly don''t need to continue to subsidize unsustainable farming and ranching practices in arid areas. The cheapest solution, the only solution, is to remove the dams. Everybody knows that by now, yet the government continues to waste billions of taxpayer dollars to appease the powerful.

[fstnat]

It seems to me that very few people are interested in really finding a solution to the problem. One person says to tear down all the dams and the fish will come back. No ---- not by our experience - it is not just about the dams - there are other very serious challenges that are affecting our fish runs. Until we can find answers to why the fish are not returning in the same numbers to the streams that don''t have
dam(n)s(by some people''s thoughts) we are missing the point. There are streams in Canada that have the same low counts that don''t have dams. What if the international fisheries are destroying our fish runs and we worry about dams and find it is too late for all of the salmon runs!How sad it will be to take away one of the most renewable resources (electric power from dams) that there is and find that no the fish do not come back. Oooopss now what. Again it is not just the dams and by focusing our energies on that one thing we may very well totally miss the problem.

[kaibab3]

Thank you, CBS News. Rebroadcasting this 60 Minutes story was a good step in bringing public attention to the salmon crisis of the Pacific Northwest. The Columbia/Snake River wild salmon are being decimated by the four lower Snake dams, and the federal government is doing little to reverse their decline.

As Leslie Stahl emphasizes, the efforts that have been implemented to protect salmon have cost billions in taxpayer dollars while doing little to save salmon. As stewards of our natural environment who rely on wild salmon for our own wellbeing, we have a duty to protect these precious fish. The limited benefits of the four outdated dams on the lower Snake River are replaceable; but extinction is forever. We must fight to protect these remarkable fish by demanding that the federal government remove four dinosaur dams.

And by the way, reporters have the license to inject themselves and their own responses in these types of feature stories. Those of you who denigrate Ms. Stahl for her work simply don''t like the facts that she reveals.

[bar4d]

The aluminum industry no longer exists on the Columbia. Alcoa closed their two plants and moved them to foreign countries several years ago.

The four dams offer NO flood control. They are run-of-the-river dams with locks, built for barge traffic. In other words the water that comes in passes thru. So they can''t store water for power generation in mid summer, the fall and winter, when it is needed the most.

The river it at low flow after spring run-off and produces the barest amount of power the rest of the year.

The Port of Lewiston is mired in silt and must constantly be dredged by the Corps to keep a 16 ft deep channel open.

Worse, Potlatch discharges one million gallons of super heated poisonous water into the Snake at Lewiston each day.

[ivivy]

Another horror story of how our government is wasting billions of our tax dollars on "trying" to save the chinook salmon. I was stunned and embarrassed for the City of New Orleans and the hundreds of thousands of men, women, children and elderly people who were told there was not enough money to repair levees. The US Corp of Engineers, Government, Congress and the President should be ashamed for choosing fish, over human life. It is time for the American taxpayers to demand accountabiltiy for frivilous spending of government officials. It is no wonder the United States is in such dire straits. Follow the money....iivy

[chesse1957]

So many errors. Let me count the ways.

No, the electricity cannot be replaced with wind and solar. If it could be replaced efficiently, it would have already. Take our 4 Snake River dams and you have to find enough electricity to match the needs of Seattle. Where would that come from? No one who is credible thinks that we can replace oil with wind and solar. Take out four more dams?

Irrigation needs: the farms which draw water from behind the dams need to do more than merely lower their pumps. A river runs in a canyon. Canyons are sloped. In some cases, the pipes would have to run hundreds of feet to reach the water if the dams were removed.

Transportation? No, you can''t ship that much additional wheat through railroads and highways. What happened to the big concern about global warming and the need to reduce the consumption of diesel? Barges are by far more efficient than rail or highways.

[chesse1957]

More...

Save money by removing dams? The investment is already in place with the dams. The marginal cost of producing the electricity is less than a penny a KwH. The marginal cost of adding wind and solar, even if it could be added?

Recreation: come now. Do you really think that the number of kayakers and rafters can replace the recreational boats, sailboats, wind surfers that ply the waters today? Talk to an oldtimer, one who was there before the dams. In the driest summer, the Snake isn''t fit to boat. And it is far too cold in the winter.

Where did the fish go? At least one writer had the sense to note the fish runs in Canada rivers and rivers in the NW without dams have also experienced declines in the fish run. Could it possibly be that the Snake River dams could affect those rivers as well? Might it just possibly be over-fishing in the ocean?

Where is 60 Minutes in comparing the number of fish that leave the mouth of the Columbia versus those that return? Wouldn''t that provide just a hint as to the whereabouts of the missing fish?

[chesse1957]

More yet....

Coho salmon extinct? Not really. Just the run on the Columbia. But that is the same specie as coho salmon elsewhere. Compare the DNA and you won''t find a distinction. It is the Endangered Species Act, not the endanged distinct population act.

National treasure? Let''s see. What would the affect be if we tripled the cost of energy in the NW. What would your standard of living be? If your power costs are $2,000 per year now, are you willing to be billed $6,000 per year upon removal of the cheapest power in the region (to be replaced by the most expensive power)?

Yes, our citizens deserve better than what the government is providing. We should quit wasting the money to try to mollify those who want to remove the dams and recognize that they can''t be mollified. If you want to solve the declining fishery, quit fishing.

President (Theodore) Roosevelt noted the declining population of salmon over 100 years ago, more than 30 years prior to the first dam on the Columbia. Hmmmm. Maybe there is something else that is causing the problem.

Let''s follow the money. Just who is funding "Save Our Wild Salmon"?

[hcunn1221]

Congress should prohibit destruction of the hydro-electric generators until our oil-energy emergency is resolved.
The "60 Minutes" article missed 2 key points:
(1) Who has paying for the "billions of dollars wasted" in fish-saving efforts? If it is local electricity ratepayers, then they are the only ones with the right to complain.
(2) How much electricity is generated by the dams the enviros want to destroy? How much oil at $140/barrel would be required to replace it? How much would the world price of oil be driven up by such a reckless increase in US oil consumption?
--Hugo S. Cunningham
http://www.cyberussr.com

[nonydog]

How did the farmers move their grain before the last dam opened in 1976?
Why wouldn''t that work again? Maybe with some upgrades, of course?
In many, many places, fish can go up and down dammed rivers without much trouble. If the feds had been able to figure out how to do that on this river since salmon were listed in 1991 or 1992, we would have healthy stocks again and the lawsuit would be gone. So it''s more complex than just adding a ladder, or using some barges.
Trying to restore the fishery without removing the dams hasn''t worked very well. What''s the problem with looking at dam removal to see if it''s a better option, and how much it would cost, and whether the dams'' benefits could be replaced? Serious question, looking for a serious answer.

[cleanenergy1]

Wow! I have just read all of these comments, and I am amazed by those who fight the idea of change so vehemently. It is as if change can not possibly be a good thing! We seem to cling to the past... and the way things were done by our fathers and grandfathers (even though those days are LONG gone, and some of their ideas may not have been so great after all). People will stand up for the cheap power of a hydro-electric dam, without researching the entire issue. I can understand why BPA doesn''t want change to occur... cleaner forms of power will not befall any profits their way, and going to solar or wind will be seen as a financial loss. But I find it odd for citizens to buy into the same logic. The idea that our power is so cheap here in the NW and somehow, without four inefficient dams, we will be paying some ridiculous amount, just doesn''t float with this native Oregonian. It feels like a fear tactic... fear of the short term future. We need to embrace the change that is inevitable, and strive to create a world that is viable for our great grandchildren (yes... yours and mine). Please consider that, while uncertain, change might just be a good thing. Thank you for caring about this issue.