Ag and Rural Caucus for July 2025

Resilient Columbia Basin Agreement…what was it? Note the past tense “was” but more below.

“Ex ante mitigation” has long been Ag and Rural Caucus’s position on the Lower Snake River dams. Our position has been that whether you support breaching the dams or oppose breaching, our region needs a Plan B. There are political risks and the litigation risks to the operation of the dams. Congress can turn on a dime, courts can require change. These risks mean that we need to map the current functions of the dams (“services”) and advocate now for the investments needed to replace these functions. The mapping is not hard: energy, barging, and irrigation. Maybe throw recreation into the mix. The “ex ante” part means that the solutions need to be funded and in place before dirt moves.

Ex ante mitigation got a voice in the summer of 2022 when Senator Murray and Governor Inslee wrote “we are adamant that in any circumstance where the Lower Snake River Dams would be breached, the replacement and mitigation of their benefits must be pursued before decommissioning and breaching.”

The Resilient Columbia Basin Agreement followed in the fall of 2023 and was published in December, 2023. The Agreement was between the Federal Government and tribal sovereigns plus the states of Oregon and Washington. “Tribal sovereigns” is important here. The agreement put on hold tribal litigation to enforce the 1855 Stevens treaties that guaranteed the tribes rights to fish at all accustomed and usual places: “exclusive right of taking fish in the streams running through and bordering said reservation is hereby secured to said Indians, and at all other usual and accustomed stations in common with citizens of the United States…”

Eastern Washington irrigators and wheat growers complain that they were not included in the negotiations among the sovereigns. They were not parties to the litigation and had not been injured. The tribes were both.

The Resilient Columbia Basin Agreement was a first step in funding ex ante mitigation. Mr. Trump has reversed that first step: “The negative impacts from these reckless acts, if completed, would be devastating for the region, and there would be no viable approach to replace the low-cost, baseload energy supplied; the critical shipping channels lost; the vital water supply for local farmers reduced; or the recreational opportunities that would no longer be possible as a result of these acts.”

His preface, though, tells the back story: “It is essential to protect Americans’ ability to take full advantage of our vast natural resources to ensure human flourishing across our country. “

Lynda Mapes, is this the hint of culture that we have been looking for? Natural resources are for human use…“take full advantage”? Maybe so, but it does leave unanswered whether there are people who are more human than others.
 
Don
12 July 2025