The Fuss Over Fish

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

(CBS)  Scientists get more information from robo fish, a rubber beauty filled with sophisticated electronics. As it goes through the dams, its sensors record the impact of the turbines. Price tag: $5,000 a piece. But they're reusable.

But if you think it is all high tech, meet Lucille Worsham who, for more than 15 years, sat all day inside Bonneville dam, staring at an underwater window as one of 65 professional fish counters.

"You know, I understand that they've tried to come up with some high tech way to do it. And they've never come up with anything better than you," Stahl remarks.

"That's true," Worsham replies. "And we're glad, we fish counters."

"Money. All of this has just cost a fortune, this effort to save the salmon," Stahl remarks.

"Billions have been wasted," Ed Chaney says. "Not spent to save the salmon. Billions have been wasted and that’s the real tragedy here."

"You know, we've talked about the barging. They've got pipes. They've got diversionary routes. They've got ladders, all of this manmade, all of it costing money. But the point is to try and save the fish," Stahl says.

"No. The point is to try to avoid fixing the dams," Chaney charges.

"Save the Dam project," Stahl says.

"That's exactly right," Chaney replies. "These are 'save the dam' facilities."

Environmentalists like Chaney are up against a powerful 'save the dams' coalition. Virtually every politician in this neck of the woods is against removing the dams - both Democrats and Republicans. So are the farmers, who are afraid of losing the irrigation provided by the dams that turned what used to be a desert here into an agricultural bread basket. The timber industry is afraid of losing inexpensive barging for their products.

Without the dams there wouldn't be any navigation on the river at all. Aluminum companies and other heavy power users are afraid of losing their bargain priced electricity. They like shifting the focus away from the dams. What do they blame for the salmon's decline? Fishing, particularly by Native American tribes which, under the terms of a treaty, are allowed to catch endangered salmon. And, hard as it is to believe, your dollars pay for that too.

"They've recently paid, I think it's over $500,000, to purchase new gill nets for commercial harvest by the Indian tribes," Lovelin says.

"Harvest of the salmon?" Stahl asks. "The endangered salmon?

"Yeah, that's right," Lovelin says.

"Wait. The government is buying the nets?" Stahl asks.

"The government is buying the nets," Lovelin says. "You can quite literally go on the banks of the Columbia River and buy an endangered salmon for $2 a pound."

[scatt_56]

I''m not sure just what the point of this report was. You present several people, each with a strong, uncompromizing, self-interested agenda, with no way for the viewer to evaluate the issues and form an opinion as to what course makes the most sense. To have any real utility a report like this should end with an evaluation by a competent, disinterested, outside observer. That''s not Lesley or anyone else at 60 minutes.

A few minutes research on the web indicates to me that both the costs of salmon research -- bogus or not -- and the harm to the fishing industry are drops in the bucket relative to the wealth created by these dams. Moreover, the dams create pollution-free, renewable energy at a time when it is critically needed.

As an engineer and a biologist I suspect that the salmon problem can be fixed without tearing down the dams -- if someone really wants to.

[fishpassage]

There is a win-win solution to the problem of declining salmon runs. A fish passage system consisting of a submerged pipeline was designed and first introduced beginning in 1991. The system is called the Boylan Pipeline, named after its founder who is now deceased. Unfortunately the Army Corps of Engineers and other agencies have refused to test the concept, instead committing all of their resources to the failed programs that were pointed out by 60 Minutes. Environmental groups have also opposed the Pipeline concept because their real agenda is to remove the dams. Many biologists and engineers have endorsed the pipleline system and believe that it will succeed if only it would be tried. The problem is that politicians are afraid of the issue and government agencies are stubbronly committed to their failed programs. The Pipeline is a simple solution which would enable salmon smolt to reach the ocean safely. The conduit system protects the smolt from predators and dams; in a stream flow, carrying more uniform water chemistry and imprinting from natal streams and tributaries, to the tidal waters of an estuary. The Pipeline would cost a fraction of other proposals and would offer these advantages: 1.Does not take any water away from users, such as farming. 2. Power generation is unaffected. 3. No disruption with the barge industry. 4. River recreation & business would not be dirupted. There would be nothing to lose and much to gain if only the Army Corps of Engineers would listen.

[krnln]

Let''s see, how can we give half truths and pretend to do a story without actually doing research. Come on, Ms Stahl. We don''t just give cheap electricity to aluminum companies from these dams. Millions of people depend on this otherwise nonpolluting hydroelectricity for power. Shall we replace them with coal plants? And right now, we are talking about more hybrid and electric cars. Where is the extra electricity supposed to come from? Keep up the goofy, superficial reporting and you will push government to give us another dumb solution as bad as the terns they imported. Don''t run stories if you don''t have time to dig deeper.

[clmason3]

I''m a little surprised by the lack of research involved for such an important story. The story seems to suggest that the only sure way to save the salmon is removal of the 4 snake river dams. What about the declining runs of salmon on river systems that are not dammed. How about the fish that are in trouble in watersheds where there is no irrigating, logging, mining? The only thing all these rivers have in common is the fact that salmon are being over fished in the open ocean by the commercial industry. You forgot to mention that we have more fish returning to the Columbia/Snake today then prior to the dams construction. There are almost 4 times more salmon returning today then just prior to Bonneville''s installation. Did you know the commercial fleet harvested 400 million salmon off the pacific coast? Our oceans are being overharvested by methods that are non selective, i.e. drift nets. Our government is trying to save wild salmon yet we still allow the use of gillnets which kill virtually anything that swims into them. Speaking of "wild salmon", do you think that just because a salmon is caught in the ocean it is wild? I would love to know what the percentage of the commercial catch is that actually orginated from hatcheries. Seems like our tax dollars might actually be subsidizing the commercial industry by growing hatchery fish for them to catch and sell in foreign markets. Maybe you could do some research and let us know if the public is being snowed here?

[razorclam00]

Next for the sockeye. Yes there have been some years where only a handfull make it up to Idaho, but lets look at this years run. in the last 3 weeks or so 125,000 fish have been going over the dam and we are just comming up to the peak of the run and we are fishing for them in the columbia. As for the willamette run of salmon all you did was throw a red herring into the bag. There are no dams up there and one has nothing to do with the other. I feel like you need to do a better job giving a balanced report, and maby talk about more important factors... on is the sea lions that are putting a dent into our populations of salmon and sturgeon, and the commercial fisherman. If we can get those two things under control, and bring back many of the fish hatcherys we could have very healthy and sustainable funs of all sub-species of salmon within the next 10 years.

[razorclam00]

First off lets get some more updated material here! This report is 8 years old. Let me point out some true facts here. There is still a good run of Coho salmon in the columbia...where in the h*** did you guys come up with the run being extinct? Starting next week I will be fishing for them in the pacific right off the columbia, then I follow them up river in September.... so if they let the sportsmen and commercial fisherman catch them than it has to be a stable run.

[duffi723]

the way things are. Global Warming. Flooding in the heartland. Tornados. Hurricanes. Earthquakes.
How much can be contribuated to MAN.

When I watched this program, I was reminded of EXPO ''74., Spokane''s worlds fair. The theme was the environment. The feathered persona was Chief Seattle.
Speaking of MOTHER EARTH

http://www.halcyon.com/arborhts/chiefsea.html

[yunirhi]

There is, of course, a whole other side to the story - where the solutions are and how we get there. While "60 Minutes" discussed potential impacts to farmers and electricity consumers, it failed to discuss the fact that cost-effective alternatives are available today that that can replace the current salmon-killing system with salmon-friendly technologies. We can save money and salmon and invest in our communities at the same time.

Clean Energy Solution: The small amount of electricity that the four lower Snake River dams generate can be replaced with investments in conservation, efficiency, and truly clean, renewable energy sources like wind and solar.

Irrigation and Transportation Solution: Farmers can keep farming without these four dams. The irrigation water that is pumped from one of the reservoirs will be available from a free-flowing lower Snake River. And a rail line that runs parallel to the lower Snake River can be upgraded to carry farm products to export markets on the coast.

And we''ll save money! In total, the dam removal/technology replacement solution could cost significantly less than the government''s more-of-the-same salmon plan: $8 billion dollars for the next 10 years that won''t protect salmon from extinction.

[flycaster7]

Thanks to CBS for forward-loking journalism, and to Ms. Stahl particularly for her excellent job on this topic.

The big picture of dams and salmon in the Northwest is often misunderstood. There are 227 major dams in the Columbia River Basin; removing only 4 of them (an affordable and sensible option) opens up pristine salmon habitat in central Idaho comprising 70% of the entire basin''s salmon recovery potential. If we succeed in recovering wild salmon to the Columbia River, it will be because we succeeded in the Snake River. And, to succeed in the Snake River, we need to remove four high-cost, low-value dams that we can live without.

I am convinced that the four dams will eventually be removed, leaving the remaining 223 in the Columbia basin for other purposes. The question is, will that happen before, or after, the wild salmon of the Snake River become extinct? Another question: how much more money will be wasted trying to avoid acting responsibly?

[mckernj1]

FYI Leslie, there is a record run of sockeye salmon going up the Columbia River as we speak. They don''t pass through the four dams you want to breach. They pass through five dams that are larger than the Snake River dams, and on which the Public Utility Districts that own them have, in your words, wasted millions of dollars on fish protective measures like the Corps has installed at their dams. Spring Chinook and steelhead that pass through those PUD dams are listed as endangered, but because they are not owned by the Federal Government for whom you and the environmental groups have such disdain, no one is suing to have them removed. But then why should they? Sockeye salmon are doing quite well thank you passing through five PUD dams AND through four Corps dams on their way to and from the ocean. Incidentally, Fraser River sockeye (that river with no dams) are in severe decline as are many other southern British Columbia salmon stocks. By the way, the fishery agencies stopped fish transportation around the four lower Columbia River dams over a decade ago, so spring migrating juvenile salmon are not afforded the added survival transport around four dams would provide. Maybe that has something to do with the listed status of the upper Columbia spring Chinook and steelhead. Do you think?

[mckernj1]

FYI Leslie, there is a record run of sockeye salmon going up the Columbia River as we speak. They don''t pass through the four dams you want to breach. They pass through five dams that are larger than the Snake River dams, and on which the Public Utility Districts that own them have, in your words, wasted millions of dollars on fish protective measures like the Corps has installed at their dams. Spring Chinook and that pass through those PUD dams are listed as endangered, but because they are not owned by the Federal Government for whom you and the environmental groups have such disdain, no one is suing to have them removed. But then why should they? Sockeye salmon are doing quite well thank you passing through five PUD dams AND through four Corps dams on their way to and from the ocean. Incidentally, Fraser River sockeye (that river with no dams) are in severe decline as are many other southern British Columbia salmon stocks. By the way, the fishery agencies stopped fish transportation around the four lower Columbia River dams over a decade ago, so spring migrating juvenile salmon are not afforded the added survival transport around four dams would provide. Maybe that has something to do with the listed status of the upper Columbia spring Chinook and steelhead. Do you think?

[cosbyt]

Great story!
There are
excellent opportunities to protect salmon, communities, AND
taxpayers by removing the 4 lower Snake River dams and replacing
their limited services with clean, affordable, and effective
alternatives.
- Snake River salmon - with their 900-mile long, 6500-foot high
migration - are a national treasure and among our country''s most
precious and endangered salmon populations.
- Snake River salmon have supported jobs and communities across
the West Coast, and inland to Idaho.
- Columbia and Snake River salmon feed us; they provide us with
a delicious, nutritious food.
- Healthy salmon populations reflect healthy rivers,
communities, and ecosystems.
- Our political leaders need to act to protect our endangered
salmon from extinction and American taxpayers from further waste
and mismanagement.
- Our nation cannot afford to continue to spend public funds on
these kinds of ineffective programs. Our salmon deserve better.
Our communities and our citizens deserve better.
- The growing impacts of global warming make lower Snake River
dam removal (and replacing the energy with clean,
salmon-friendly renewable energy) even more important to protect
these salmon.

Thanks,
Tony Cosby

[sworthen]

Come on, 60 Minutes..., is your research that shallow...? What about the monstrous profits garnered by the power brokers, the ones who buy the same cheap electricity generated from these four dams that the aluminum companies and the farmers do...? Only rather than put it to an economically productive ''end use'', they turn around and sell it for twenty, thirty, or fifty times the purchase price to ''down-coast'' grid users, when those users and thier customers exceed their ''allotments''...! These people are the real political forces behind keeping the dams..., and it is YOURS and MY tax dollar that is funding their "gross" profits...!

I''m curious, was your failure to mention this piece of the ''dam'' puzzle a journalistic oversight..., or just another politically influenced network ''censor-cism''...?

[mckernj1]

In answer to some of the other comments:
The salmon recovery program is funded by the rate payers through the Bonneville Power administration;
A typical barge tow consists of four barges and one towboat with two or three diesel engines. A four barge tow is equivalent to 1.4 trains of 35 jumbo hopper cars that would require six to eight diesel engines. A four barge tow is equivalent to 538 large semi trucks that require 538 diesel engines and highways to travel on.
The dams generate power, but no pollution. Gas supersaturation caused by spill is mandated by the fishery agencies and a Federal judge - spill is not the Corps or BPA''s preference. Congress authorized construction of the dams for public benefit. Only Congress can authorize their removal. Congress won''t because too many of their constituents know the truth - survival at the dams is the highest it has ever been, and the salmon runs are rebounding as we speak. They are fishing for salmon off the coast of Washington, in the Columbia River, in eastern Washington, and in Idaho right now. Let''s see 60 Minutes air those facts!

[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.

[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.

[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

[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"?

[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]

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.