07/22/05 Arguments on summer spill

07/22/05 Arguments on summer spill

The basic argument for proponents of increased summer spill over some Northwest dams on the Columbia and Lower Snake Rivers is more spill is needed to improve survival rates of juvenile salmon moving downstream past the various dams. The basic argument for opponents of increased summer spill is the projected increases in electrical costs due to power generation lost as a result of increased spill. But before a panel of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals last week, attorneys for both sides of the issue had opportunity to argue other merits as to why a lower court ruling increasing summer spill should be upheld, or why it should be overturned. Making the appeal was the U.S. Government representing agencies like N.O.A.A. Fisheries and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, as well as Bonneville Power Administration ratepayers. The government's attorney, Ellen Durkee, says her client's problem with James Redden's ruling of both the summer spill decision, and the previous ruling that the 2004 biological opinion for Columbia-Snake River management, were given in such a way that the only choice Redden had was to take over management of the rivers for at least the interim. DURKEE: At the very least, it's got to give us some meaningful information as to why it's ordering what it did, and it also needs to take a lot more care than this District Court did on how to structure the order. Government officials acknowledge the reason for reduced summer spill this year was increased return rates of adult salmon in recent years. But Todd True, attorney for the National Wildlife Federation and other environmental groups, says that Redden believed that reason was not good enough. TRUE: In its summary judgment ruling, the District Court specifically found that the analysis, N.M.F.S. conclusion, that we've got better adult returns lately, was arbitrary and capricious & that it didn't conform with the evidence. True argues additionally that prior to this year, the federal government and environmental groups were in agreement that increased summer spill was needed to improve survival. He notes that N.O.A.A. Fisheries first mentioned it in its year 2000 biological opinion, but for various reasons, have yet to implement that option unless, like the last two years, they have been ordered by a court of law. Some of the reasons for the delay in summer spill implementation, and how the spread the risk concept comes into play are discussed in our next program.
Previous Report07/21/05 Summer spill cliffhanger
Next Report07/25/05 Arguments on summer spill, Part two