CapitalPress.com
6
Editorials are written by or
approved by members of the
Capital Press Editorial Board.
Friday, March 26, 2021
All other commentary pieces are
the opinions of the authors but
not necessarily this newspaper.
Opinion
Editor & Publisher
Managing Editor
Joe Beach
Carl Sampson
opinions@capitalpress.com | CapitalPress.com/opinion
Our View
Simpson gains consensus on dam removal plan
I
n crafting his plan for the re-
moval of the dams on the lower
Snake River, Rep. Mike Simp-
son has managed to forge consensus
between farm, shipping and environ-
mental interests on his idea. They all
hate it.
Blessed are the peacemakers. They
may be children of God, but often find
surprisingly little support at home.
Simpson, R-Idaho, has not proposed
legislation, but on Feb. 7 released a
$33.5 billion concept for salmon recov-
ery, which includes removing the
Lower Granite, Little Goose, Lower
Monumental and Ice Harbor dams on
the lower Snake River in 2030 and
2031.
It is a bold plan, a grand compro-
mise that seeks to address the com-
peting needs of those who want the
dams removed and those who depend
on the status quo for their livelihoods,
electrical energy, transportation and
irrigation.
In short, Simpsons plan would:
• Require that the electrical power
generated by the dams be replaced,
and that the new infrastructure would
be operational before the dams are
breached.
• Provide money for river resto-
ration, the development of transpor-
tation infrastructure to replace barge
traffic, economic development for
communities impacted by the breach-
ing, watershed projects and irrigation
infrastructure.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Ice Harbor Dam on the Lower Snake River holds back Lake Sacajawea, the source of irrigation water for 47,000 acres of farmland.
An Idaho congressman has proposed breaching it and three other dams.
• Require that all other dams in the
Columbia Basin that generate more
than 5 megawatts of electricity be
granted an automatic 35-year license
extension.
• Prohibit for 35 years any litiga-
tion related to anadromous fish within
the Columbia River system under the
Endangered Species Act, National
Environmental Policy Act or the Clean
Water Act, and stay any ongoing
litigation.
As we said, a grand compromise,
but one that none of the major stake-
holders will accept.
Despite promises that their concerns
will be addressed, farmers and ranchers
worry about whether they will get the
water they need, or will be able to ship
product. Electric utilities worry they
won’t have a reliable source of power
and barge interests worry about their
jobs disappearing.
Environmental interests love the
idea of breaching the dams, but leaving
the others unchallenged for 35 years is
crazy talk. And filing lawsuits is their
raison d’etre.
A group of 17 environmental orga-
nizations says Simpson’s plan would
When Mike Simpson talks,
ag should hear him out
B
UHL, Idaho — For those who know
me, there are few things in this world GUEST
which I feel more passionate about
VIEW
than Idaho agriculture and water. Both have
Bruce
been cornerstones of my life since I first
drew breath and the political career that has Newcomb
largely defined the second half of my life.
They also know that among my most
cherished friendships is the one I share with Con-
gressman Mike Simpson. I have considered him one
of my best friends and closest political allies since we
served in the Idaho legislature together beginning in
the late 1980s.
I’ve watched with interest as Mike rolled out his
energy, salmon and economic revitalization plan ear-
lier this year. I also watched the reaction to it, particu-
larly in the agriculture and water user community. I’ll
be honest, both the rollout and the reactions have left
me disappointed.
So let me start by saying that Mike Simpson cares
as much about Idaho agriculture and water as I do. He
hasn’t just voiced his support, he has proven it through
countless policy wins. Whether it was serving on the
House Agriculture Committee during the dramatic
rewrite of the Farm Bill in 2002 or as a senior member
of the House Appropriations Committee today, Mike
Simpson has fought harder on behalf of Idaho agricul-
ture than any elected official in this state. Period. End
of story.
He’s secured untold millions in agriculture research
funding for our state and its growers. He’s successfully
defeated those who would gut the sugar program or
sought to eliminate grazing on federal lands. He saved
the Dubois Sheep Experiment Station from both Dem-
ocrat and Republican attempts to close it down and he
secured a once-in-a-generation forestry reform package
that has allowed a massive increase in forest manage-
ment, saving timber lands and grazing habitat. As if that
weren’t enough, he single-handedly delisted wolves.
So when I hear people call Mike Simpson a trai-
tor to Idaho agriculture or a sellout to environmental-
ists, I know those aren’t serious people and I know
they don’t know Mike Simpson. Mike Simpson cares
deeply about our state’s agriculture industry and has its
best interests in mind in all that he does.
My disappointment in the rollout of his plan is that
it didn’t initially focus on the benefits to Idaho agri-
culture, energy consumers, communities and more.
Instead, it understandably focused on saving salmon
— a noble goal but as I read the concept, there is far
more in it for agriculture and water users than salmon.
Please consider:
• Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) rates
have increased by over 30% since 2008 — in large part
because of the billions the agency must spend on fish
mitigation.
• BPA power is no longer cheap power. In fact, it’s
quite expensive. Electricity purchased on the open
market is regularly cheaper than that produced by
BPA.
• BPA has spent over $17 billion on its fish mitiga-
tion efforts — passing along enormous costs to rate-
payers and accounting for a significant portion of their
power bills.
• And the agency needs to spend billions more not
just on mitigation efforts, but on upgrades and renova-
tions to dramatically aging infrastruc-
ture that will close down shipping and
put ratepayers in further jeopardy.
Beyond the folly of spending tens
of billions more on fish mitigation and
aging dams for little return on invest-
ment, our current practices have other
consequences. They include:
• Idaho farmers, ranchers, communities and utilities
send enormous amounts of Idaho water downstream to
protect Washington dams. Mike Simpson wants Idaho
farmers and ranchers to keep their Idaho water while
maintaining the benefits of decades old agreements
that protect them from litigation.
• Environmentalists and their lawyers, along with
what has historically been a friendly court system to
their claims, are on the precipice of obtaining court
orders that either force the removal of the dams or
make them so costly that dam breaching becomes the
only option. Or worse yet, the Biden administration
enters into a sue-and-settle agreement that leads to dam
removal in the very near future.
• The ongoing controversy over the impact of
dams on fish, and the unwillingness of regional inter-
ests to even consider removal of the four lower Snake
River dams, has placed undue pressure on other
regional dams including those within Idaho Power
Co.’s inventory. Over the past two decades it’s cost
far more to relicense Idaho Power’s Hell Canyon
Complex dams than it cost to build them — and the
company still does not have a license in hand. Under
Mike Simpson’s plan, Idaho Power, and many others,
get that license.
Whether or not one likes these realities, they exist.
They’re real. They need to be addressed in order to
secure and expand the economic vitality of our region.
Simpson proposes to address these realities, and many
more, to protect Idaho agriculture, Idaho water, Idaho
communities and Idaho’s economy for generations to
come. In return, all he is asking us to do is consider a
fate for Washington’s dams that will almost assuredly
befall them anyway.
Perhaps this happens in my lifetime, but worse yet,
it happens in my children’s lifetime and they are left
with nothing to show for it. Is that the agriculture leg-
acy we want to leave for our children?
With all of that and much more in mind, I encour-
age my friends, former colleagues, neighbors and fel-
low Idahoans to take an Idahoan’s approach to this
important issue. Be thoughtful. Listen to all sides.
Show respect toward one another. Don’t pre-judge
anyone’s motives. Learn from one another. And, ulti-
mately, engage in the discussion.
As President Reagan said, “You and I have a ren-
dezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children
this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sen-
tence them to take the first step into a thousand years
of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and
our children’s children say of us we justified our brief
moment here. We did all that could be done.”
Bruce Newcomb is a lifetime farmer and rancher.
He was in the Idaho House of Representatives 1987-
2006 and was speaker of the House 1998-2006. He
was director of government affairs and special assis-
tant to the president of Boise State University 2008-
2018 and is currently retired on the ranch in Buhl.
speed up salmon extinction and harm
human health, calling it “untenable.”
In releasing the plan, Simpson said
he didn’t draft legislation because an
ambitious concept such as he proposed
needs to involve all the stakeholders
and the states impacted.
We don’t think the plan as proposed
ever had a chance, but Simpson should
be given credit for starting a conversa-
tion. Does anyone want to talk?
We know what everyone doesn’t
want and what they won’t accept, but
what do they want and what will they
accept?
Things I have learned
about farmers
I
n honor of National Ag
Week, March 21-27, I’d
like to share a few things
I’ve learned while working
for Oregon Farm Bureau since
2004.
1. There’s room for and a
need for all types of farming.
Organic, conventional, bio-
tech, no-tech, small-scale,
mid-size, commercial-scale,
direct-to-consumer, contract
for food processors, interna-
tional exports — all can be
found in Oregon and all have
an important, vital place in
agriculture.
The myth that one type of
farming is “good” and another
is “bad,” and therefore should
be pitted against each other is
just plain untrue.
I know farms in Oregon
that grow organic crops on
one field, conventional crops
on another, and biotech crops,
like GMO alfalfa or sugar
beets for seed, on a third.
Other farms stick to just one
farming method.
Farmers decide what to
do based on many factors,
including their customer base,
market potential, the farm’s
location, the crop’s labor
requirements, and equipment
available.
2. Big doesn’t mean bad.
The size of a farm or ranch
does not dictate its commit-
ment to a healthy environ-
ment, care for animals, treat-
ment of employees, or respect
for neighbors.
A farmer with 2,000 acres
cares as much about these
things as does a farmer with
20 acres.
Their day-to-day work may
be different, but their values
and integrity are shared.
Nearly 97% of Oregon’s
farms and ranches — includ-
ing commercial-scale farms
— are family-owned and
-operated. Some are “corpo-
rate farms” that incorporated
for tax purposes or succes-
sion-plan reasons.
These are run by fami-
lies, people raising kids, often
living on the farm, who are
involved in their communi-
ties and are proud of what
they do.
They’re not in the business
of harming their customers,
GUEST
VIEW
Anne Marie
Moss
their neighbors, or themselves.
3. Part of sustainability is
profitability.
Because eating food is such
a personal act, there’s a ten-
dency for consumers to for-
get that the people growing
their food are also running a
business.
Even the smallest farms
must ultimately make a profit
to survive.
Few people get into agri-
culture to get rich quick.
It often involves slim profit
margins at the mercy of many
uncontrollable factors like
weather, pests, fluctuating
commodity prices, and rising
supply costs.
This is compounded by the
fact that almost every realm of
public policy, from transporta-
tion to taxes, directly impacts
agriculture.
When regulations bring
new fees or compliance
costs, it’s very difficult for
most farmers to pass along
those expenditures to their
customers.
4. There’s no such thing as
a “simple farmer.”
Farmers do more than raise
crops or take care of animals.
Farmers are also business
owners, accountants, scien-
tists, meteorologists, mechan-
ics and marketers.
Many are also eager inno-
vators, always searching for
new technology to help them
produce more with less: less
water, less fertilizer, less fuel,
fewer pesticides.
5. There’s more that unites
agriculture than divides it.
No matter the amount of
acreage worked, farming
method used, or number of
animals raised, Oregon farm-
ers and ranchers share core
values: a deep love for the
land, incredible work ethic,
and immense pride in their
work.
Anne Marie Moss is com-
munications director of the
Oregon Farm Bureau.