About the Author
This week, the CleanTech Alliance in Seattle hosted a debate about the future of the Snake River Dams and how best to help salmon and orca populations in Washington state. Sheida Sahandy, the former director of the Puget Sound Partnership moderated the discussion between me and Daniel Malarkey of the Sightline Institute.
Although there are many economic considerations for farmers and families in Washington, my argument was that spending billions of dollars to first destroy the dams and then pay more for the replacement energy was a poor way to increase salmon populations across the Northwest. You can watch my closing argument in this short video.
I also noted that the study supporting removal of the dams had several flaws. Most notably, the authors of the study claimed people across the West Coast would be willing to pay more for electricity to tear down the dams. The survey they used, however, claims removing the dams would “ensure” recovery of salmon – a claim that the rest of the study admits is not accurate. The survey also uses the results of that survey, which was done only in Washington state, and assumes that people in Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and California would also be willing to pay those costs. One only needs to glance at the large differences in political polls across those states to understand why this is not a valid assumption.
I lay out these concerns and others in this 
PowerPoint, which I presented at the debate.
The State of Washington is currently taking comments on the Lower Snake River dams and impact of tearing them down. You can add your comments here.