||| FROM KRISS KEVORKIAN for LEGAL RIGHTS OF THE SALISH SEA |||
Included among these rights are the right “to flow freely, maintain its natural ecological functions and processes including the health and integrity of its waters, banks, and surrounding habitats; the right to flourish, evolve, and sustain the natural migration and spawning of fish vital to the survival of Southern Resident Orcas, a critically endangered species; the right to be protected from activities that harm its ecological balance; the right to clean and unpolluted water which is essential for the health of the river and the well-being of all species and ecosystems that rely on it.”
This resolution was passed after the ECC adopted another resolution on June 22nd, 2024, recognizing the inherent rights of the Southern Resident Orcas. Thus far, in addition to the recent resolutions adopted by the ECC, five cities and three counties in Washington have adopted proclamations recognizing the inherent rights of Southern Resident Orcas. Depoe Bay, Oregon,
and Arcata, CA, have also adopted similar proclamations.
Efforts by Legal Rights of the Salish Sea (LRSS) and Northwest Animal Rights Network (NARN) are being made to secure legal recognition of the inherent Rights of the Southern Resident Orcas in Washington State.
**If you are reading theOrcasonian for free, thank your fellow islanders. If you would like to support theOrcasonian CLICK HERE to set your modestly-priced, voluntary subscription. Otherwise, no worries; we’re happy to share with you.**
What is the current thinking regarding how to generate WA State’s power without the dams?
WA State has a surplus of renewable energies available to use on the grid if the owner of the grid (BPA) will allow them to transmit the available power. Please go to one4salmon.org/energy for more information and references if interested.
Oh great.
Estimates are $13 to $38 BILLION dollars to breach and/or remove the dams … of course inflation has increased the actual future costs.
All four lower Snake Rive dams have both fish ladders and ship/barge locks. It’s not the Elwha River where there is no fish passage.
Best estimate is maybe a 10% return to 19th century wild fish levels. And who would benefit? A handful of river fishing guides, including tribes.
Snake River and tributaries are simply now often above salmon survival rate and nothing is likely to stop the temperatures from increasing. Almost all west coat rivers are having the same temperature issues.
There are more salmon in the Columbia River than before the dams were constructed. Those fish counts per dam are readily available to the public.
Fish mitigation when the dams were constructed were extensive fish hatcheries. They are generally working as planned.
The national priority and billions of dollars should be more green electricity vice o a few more wild salmon since most of the world is moving away from fossil fuels and being replaced by electrical power.
Finally, San Juan County depends on OPLACO, and OPALCO gets there bulk of their power from BPA. Every loss of hydropower has to be made up somewhere else, and every new power generation plan court challenged and delays for years. Lawyers get paid well. Taxpayers and future ratepayers pay most the bills.
I’m a Democrat and my opinion is this is one more very just plain dumb move by the Democrats Environment and Climate Conference.
Time to go to work on how orca whales (dolphins to some) are going to testify since the Democrat ECC wants to give orcas legal rights.
The decision to allow the decimation of a keystone wild salmon species by those in power since the 1970s was misguided. We must shift our approach. Clinging to outdated arguments will not lead us to new, greener, and healthier futures. Instead, it will dig us further into the problems we’ve single-handedly created only because of the dams. We need to change our mindset, if we have an open mind.
The Lower Snake River dams are perfect to highlight our need for change. The loss of hydropower from these dams has been more than compensated for since the early 2000s. But each new megawatt added to the grid is not viewed as an opportunity to innovate or improve. Instead, those who wish to maintain the dams often do so for personal gain, ignoring the potential benefits of breaching the dams— recognized as cost-saving for ratepayers since at least 2001.
Breaching the dams would not even cost in the billions – breaching is just the removal of the earthen berm around the dams. These four dams were built this way to ALLOW for this breaching even back in the 70s, because even back then, they knew this was not a permanent solution.
Historically, transportation along the Snake River was accomplished without these dams, using existing railroads, now taken over by weeds in some places.
Imagine if the $20+ billion spent on ineffective fish trucking efforts, contrary to scientific advice, was instead invested in revitalizing regional rail infrastructure, enhancing our power grid, restoring ecosystems damaged by the dams, or improving the living standards of communities around the Snake River, including tribal communities.
Progress will remain elusive until we shift the conversation from defending outdated practices to exploring how we can improve and seize opportunities to protect endangered keystone species. Consider how few technologies from the 1970s remain unchanged today—cars, planes, phones, even bicycles have evolved. Yet, these dams continue to operate as they did decades ago, hindering our progress and potential for innovation and economic opportunity for the region.
All Snake River wild salmon populations have been on the Endangered Species list since the late 1990s, with 70% projected to reach quasi-extinction by the end of 2025. Claims that wild Chinook salmon numbers have improved since the dams were built are unfounded. Starving Orcas are clear evidence of the decline of the keystone wild Chinook salmon. We must change the conversation if we are genuinely committed to creating a stronger and better Northwest, one that supports healthy native keystone species and an environment we can all breathe in.
I am also a Democrat, though not among those who would give nature’s creatures or places “natural rights.” Nature doesn’t need affirmative rights. What needs to happen is curtailment of the habitual human freedom to abuse natural features, resources and creatures. The difference is important. Giving nonhuman creatures, plants and natural features creates bureaucracies and generally, tends to create only civil liability that well-funded opponents can force a (usually local) government with limited resources to treat gently. Civil enforcement is reluctant, slow and in after-the-fact cases, gentle.
Interestingly, San Juan County once had a provision in its code that allowed anyone to file a complaint concerning any (I think building or land use; not sure which) violation, making citizens watch-keepers of the public welfare. Not anymore. It’s up to the county to decide whether any civil code violation is enforced in any case.
Nature needs watch-keepers, BUT:
And yes, there is the matter of electric power. The Democratic ECC has not done its homework. Enthusiasm is no substitute for knowledge, though in politics it is thought to be with dire results. I won’t go into the power issue except to say that those dams cannot come down until the power issue is resolved. Those who add up megawatts and believe there is enough power are not considering reliability, the one fundamental product that utilities must provide.
We hardly live in a time when we can argue against the need to amplify nature’s rights, we’ve barely left a single stone unturned where we haven’t somehow inflicted some ridiculous amount of harm – be it from microplastics in every organism to burning down rainforests, cutting down life supporting old-growth forests to permanently blocking access to thousands of miles of spawning grounds for keystone species. It’s not because nature “needs” rights, but because we are unable to recognize and understand how to protect nature and all wildlife.
The concept of granting “nature’s rights” aims to shift how we perceive and interact with the environment fundamentally. By recognizing nature as a rights-bearing entity, we elevate its protection to a legal and ethical obligation rather than merely a discretionary action. This approach can lead to more proactive and preventative measures, as opposed to reactive and inadequate attempts to enforce existing regulations. While it’s true that bureaucratic challenges exist, they do now too, the framework of nature’s rights can empower communities and create a legal basis for stronger environmental advocacy BEFORE damage is done. This can provide an additional layer of protection and accountability. Not to mention it also encourages a cultural shift towards viewing the environment as a partner in our well-being, rather than a resource to be exploited. In the context of energy and infrastructure, such as dams, this perspective can drive innovative solutions that balance ecological integrity with human needs.
The older I get the more I realize that there are not many degrees of separation between humans and nature… and that there is something fundamentally and inherently wrong about a “harness and use” mentality that does not work in the best interests of all.
Setting aside for a moment the fact that the size of the human population has become a too big to fail entity in itself, and that as a species we’ve become over-dependent upon over-extracting our natural resources for our survival, (including harnessing rivers for electrical power production), it would seem that affording a living entity (whether it be the Orcas, the salmon, the rivers, our oceans, or our seas) the right of representation with the intention of favoring not only the well-being of the entity itself, but also all of the living creatures (both human and nonhuman) that are dependent upon the entity’s welfare for their own well-being… is an idea long overdue. After all, the end result of the over-extraction of our natural resources, is, in the long run, killing all of us, (Orcas, salmon, rivers, oceans, seas, and humans alike). Putting it another way, “in killing our host we are ensuring our own demise.”
Bill, with all due respect– in light of the above I’m not sure I can fully agree with you when you state, “Nature doesn’t need affirmative rights. What needs to happen is curtailment of the habitual human freedom to abuse natural features, resources ad creatures.” Or, at the very least I feel that your either blind to reality, or that you’re being overly optimistic. For it seems obvious to me that which you claim needs to happen is both late in coming, and is likely not going to happen.
Though I can agree with the latter part of your statement, I’m having trouble with the former. That is, how do you get one, (a curtailment of the habitual human freedom to abuse natural features, resources and creatures), without the other, (the recognition of nature’s right to exist)? I guess on one level I can see your point, after all, giving people human rights hasn’t seemed to have gotten society very far… so why give nature natural rights? Or maybe that’s not where you’re coming from. But if, as I believe you’re inferring, giving natural rights to non-human entities is DOA because of the guiding policies (the very legal concepts) that society is bound by… then isn’t that an indication that there’s something fundamentally flawed with the system itself?
One thing that science, (and most of us), seem to agree on is, “that things need to change.” We say this yet we continually vote for people (at every level) who are going to give us more of the same–more economic driven policies that don’t ensure our long-term viability, policies that will instead continue to support unjust wars without end, and the degradation of our natural resources, leading to ecological overshoot, leading to climate disruption, leading to an increased loss of habitat resulting in a loss of species and an increase in the number of environmental refugees (envirogees), etc., etc., etc. The list, as we all know now, is a self-reinforcing, negative feedback loop that is endless… and is one, again, that is quite literally killing us.
In a world where our future is seemingly determined by the lesser of evils, as we go from “It’ll never happen,” to, “Maybe it’s happening,” to “O.K. it’s happening but it’s happened before,” to “We may die but the earth will survive,” I find little solace in that, and am led to ask… “isn’t survival a better choice?”
If we truly believe that society needs to change, then where do we start? I might suggest that it’s in not continuing to do things in the same manner as we have been. On a gut level I feel that recognizing natural rights is doing something, and that it’s a step in the right direction.
Thanks, Michael. I agree with much of what you say, but I think my comment speaks for itself. A proclamation of rights does not, in fact define those rights beyond grandiose, emotionally satisfying terms. But it is grandstanding. It conflicts with federal law to the extent that the river is navigable at all, and so is invalid to that extent. The dam permits are federal and represent rights granted by the federal government which the state cannot revoke.
Part of the intention of the Rights of Nature movement is to highlight that it does indeed conflict with federal law, and help people realize that federal law prevents the protection of the natural world, and ensures its destruction. Rights of Nature asks people to open their minds to a different kind of law, one that reflects the reality that we are all utterly dependent on a flourishing natural world.