Seattle needs to increase support for salmon

The City of Seattle is seeking a 50-year federal license for its Skagit dams, likely our last opportunity to require that Seattle help save Skagit salmon and steelhead from extinction.

Over the past couple decades, Seattle has contributed roughly 59 times less per megawatt to Skagit fisheries than our local power utility. Now, Seattle has pulled our community into a contentious federal process in an effort to avoid an equitable contribution.

We write to propose a better path forward.

There are five federally-licensed dams on the Skagit system – two owned by local power provider Puget Sound Energy on the Baker River (a Skagit tributary) and three owned by the City of Seattle’s electrical utility, Seattle City Light.

Seattle’s three Skagit dams have helped make Seattle wealthy by providing Seattle business with some of the nation’s cheapest power and they assist with flood control. But Seattle’s dams also impact the Skagit’s anadromous species and natural systems, completely blocking fish passage as well as preventing silt, sand, wood and other nutrients from moving downstream over time, slowly starving the river of viable habitat.

Since 1995, when the federal government issued Seattle’s current license, three Skagit salmon species have been listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Tribal and non-tribal fishery closures have become the norm.

According to federal, state and tribal scientists, Seattle’s dams are significantly contributing to salmon and steelhead decline in the Skagit.

Salmon and steelhead are the lifeblood of the Skagit, bringing ocean nutrients that support the Skagit ecosystem’s entire web of life, and our whole community has taken on significant sacrifice and cost to protect them.

Under the 1855 Treaty of Point Elliott, the Skagit Treaty Tribes peaceably gave up the Skagit land base and agreed to let the rest of us make our lives here, on the condition that we would keep salmon and steelhead around at commercially harvestable levels, forever.

A deal is a deal. But it is a collective, national obligation, meaning that all of us in the Skagit must reasonably pull our weight.

Over the last quarter century, Seattle has contributed a mere $12 million to salmon recovery. That is approximately 37 times less per megawatt than the Pacific Northwest average. And it is 59 times less than Puget Sound Energy invested in salmon for its dams on the Baker River system, costs that are passed through to local ratepayers, an investment that has allowed Baker River sockeye to recover.

Seattle must contribute its fair share on the Skagit and we also have an interest in ensuring that this is done with a laser-like focus on restoring commercially harvestable runs.

The ecosystem-scale work that is needed will require a significant, up-front capital investment by Seattle, as well as a tightly coordinated and cooperative approach between Skagit Treaty Tribes and the County.

Anadromous recovery in the Skagit is not just Seattle’s financial responsibility. But we should not forget that Seattle generates immense revenue selling green-certified Skagit power to California and elsewhere and it is hard to consider a hydropower operation as “green” when it involves Skagit steelhead and salmon headed toward extinction and puts Treaty rights at risk.

We have run the numbers and an equitable contribution would cost the average Seattle electrical ratepayer something like the price of a latte per month. We do not think that is too much to ask.

We stand with the Skagit Treaty Tribes in their insistence that Seattle contribute equitably to the Skagit, and we are ready, willing and able to help effectively deploy that investment here in the Skagit consistent with the Tribes’ recovery priorities.

The Skagit is a mighty force when it comes together.

Peter Browning, Lisa Janicki and Ron Wesen