Subcommittee debate over HR 2073 spotlights energy, navigation and salmon recovery on Lower Snake River dams

WASHINGTON — The House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife, and Fisheries held an extended and often tense discussion on HR 20 73, the ‘‘Defending Our Dams Act’’ sponsored by Rep. Dan Newhouse, which would prohibit federal funds from being used to study or facilitate removal of the four Lower Snake River dams.

Proponents described the dams as essential regional infrastructure. Dustin Scheer, senior adviser to the assistant secretary for water and science at the Department of the Interior, told the subcommittee the Lower Snake River dams produce significant amounts of carbon-free electricity, support inland barge commerce and irrigation, and provide flood control. Clark Mather, executive director of Northwest River Partners, emphasized hydropower’s role in regional reliability and food exports and urged passage of HR 20 73 to prevent studies that could lead to breaching.

Supporters cited studies and numbers on cargo movements and energy; Mather said barging on the Snake River handled nearly 10% of all U.S. wheat exports and argued the dams support ‘‘affordable, reliable energy’’ for the Northwest. Interior’s witness recounted that a prior joint environmental review considered breaching but that the preferred alternative in a prior record of decision did not recommend breaching. The administration’s June memorandum withdrawing from a multistakeholder ‘‘Resilient Columbia Basin’’ agreement (cited by several witnesses) led to the termination of some studies, Scheer said; he added the department currently has no activities affected by HR 20 73.

Opponents warned the bill would hamstring future study of operations and alternatives. Ranking Member Hoyle and several Democrats said the administration’s abrupt withdrawal from the prior agreement eliminated a complex compromise developed with tribes, states and agencies. Nez Perce Chairman Shannon Wheeler told the subcommittee the Snake River and its tributaries are central to his people’s culture and treaty rights, and he called the dams a principal source of salmon mortality in the basin; he argued that banning studies or funding to examine alternatives could ‘‘set the United States on an unambiguous course to destroy wild Snake River salmon runs’’ and undermine treaty-reserved fishing rights.

Members pressed the Interior witness on whether the administration consulted tribes and states in advance of the presidential memorandum; Scheer said he personally did not, and he acknowledged lingering disagreement about process and stakeholder inclusion. Rep. Jared Huffman (D) and other Democrats urged the department to work with tribes and states on a collaborative path for salmon recovery and replacement power if operations change.

Witnesses disagreed about trends in fish returns. Mather and other dam proponents cited data showing higher century-average returns at some Lower Snake River dam sites versus early operation years, and they pointed to federal investments in fish passage and hatcheries. Opponents pointed to species listed under the ESA and to the long litigation history regarding salmon in the basin; several tribal witnesses described cultural and public-health impacts from lost fishing opportunities.

No formal committee action was taken. The bill would, if enacted, bar federal funds from being used for breach studies, breaching operations, or technical assistance for the Lower Snake River dams; supporters said that would provide certainty for regional power customers and river commerce, while opponents said it would foreclose knowledge and flexibility needed for long-term salmon recovery and tribal treaty obligations.

Ending — The hearing record will be held open for post-hearing questions. Committee members on both sides signaled the need for more transparent, inclusive conversations that account for energy needs, treaty obligations and fisheries science.