Last week, the Trump administration pulled out of a historic agreement made in 2023 to aid in salmon recovery and renewable energy for tribes. The agreement would have invested more than $1 billion in federal funds for wild fish restoration efforts over a decade and could have potentially led to the removal of the Snake River Dams to help native salmon populations. But, some industry leaders were unsupportive of the deal, including those in the agricultural and port industries who say the dams play a critical role in shipping goods overseas.
Jeremy Takala is the chair of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission. Leslie Druffel is the outreach director for the McGregor Company in Washington and works closely with many in the agricultural industry. They both join us to share their thoughts on the rescission of the deal.
Note: The following transcript was transcribed digitally and validated for accuracy, readability and formatting by an OPB volunteer.
Geoff Norcross: From the Gert Boyle Studio at OPB, this is Think Out Loud. I’m Geoff Norcross. A sweeping agreement to restore salmon runs, boost tribal energy development and provide a pathway for dam removal on the Lower Snake River has been canceled by the Trump administration. Earlier this month they issued a memorandum that revoked what is called the 2023 Resilient Columbia Basin Agreement. That move undid years of negotiating between the federal government and the four tribes that have treaty fishing rights on the Columbia.
Later, we’ll hear from the agriculture industry that relies on irrigation from the reservoirs on those rivers. But first we turn to Jeremy Takala, chair of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission and a member of the Yakama Nation. Mr. Takala, welcome to Think Out Loud.
Jeremy Takala: Hey, thank you. Thanks for having me.
Norcross: I know there was a lot of work that went into this agreement. Can you describe the process and how much work you and others put into it?
Takala: Well, thank you OPB for having me, and Geoff. My name is Jeremy Takala, Yakama Nation Tribal Council, specifically in our fish and wildlife committee as a chair. And also, as you mentioned, the current Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission. I just want to mention there’s quite a bit of challenges that lie ahead, including some of the very concerning termination such as this, which the Yakama Nation was very disappointed on the termination of this RCBA, better known as the Resilient Columbia Basin Agreement. Prior to the signing the agreement, [it] took extensive effort, sacrifices, hosting of those certain individuals to have a real robust conversation, but also to see firsthand the good work that the four Columbia River Treaty tribes and its partners are doing.
We have been co-managers since the fisheries have been here. But also, in the recent years, U.S. v. Oregon also recognizes that the tribes are the co-managers of the fisheries. So utilizing what’s been in our treaty, but also the co-management experience, the expertise, and also utilizing the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission as a great support in providing technical needs in the work that they’re conducting with the four Columbia River Treaty tribes. So a lot of it was firsthand in-person meetings, a lot of back to back weekly meetings, to develop the RCBA and to ensure that we included all the stakeholders, including what you mentioned, the agriculturalists.
And for Yakama Nation, I just want to ensure that we have quite the extensive expertise, not only of fisheries. We also obtain a farm. We produce different apples, pears, cherries, organic farms. And we also have our utility, which is Yakama Power. So, we’re coming into this arena where we have a lot of great folks that are dedicated to the work that they’ve been doing, and also the support that we as Yakama Nation Tribal Council give, and to provide that very robust decision that will result in not only the benefits for the tribes, but also the benefits for the region and the ocean.
Norcross: It’s interesting that you mentioned your farms and your power generation, because some of the critics of this agreement include agricultural and power industries, as well as shipping industries. They feel that they were left out of the conversation when the agreement was made. What is your response to that?
Takala: Nobody was left out. I’ve been in the witness testimony, and the energy and environment that was chaired by Cathy McMorris Rodgers back then. And we’ve had those conversations prior to that before that hearing. And I want to remind our listeners and folks across the country that it was Congressman Mike Simpson who had developed this idea to do something different. We are trying to avoid the extinction ESA threshold, and there is miscommunication that is being narrated, that the counterparts are saying the fish are doing fine. They’re not. Yeah, we might have three stocks that are doing OK. But we’ve also had our own goals of 5 million fish to reach. And given all where the necessary funding is needed, and that’s what this agreement entailed. It also entailed the continuity of services.
And I want to remind folks too, it wasn’t just about dam removal. We all know it takes an act of Congress. But there was this idea to develop reports and studies to see if this was the possibility, to ensure that we have the the barging part of it, transportation, recreation services, energy replacement services, and also the ag water needs. This was a huge package that would have been leading the way to show not only the Northwest, but different parts of our country that we can do something differently to ensure that we don’t see an extinction of our salmon, steelhead, sturgeon, Pacific lamprey population that has sustained us in our culture, our way of life since the beginning of time.
In current times, economically, this provides for our country still, for the Pacific Northwest, Alaska fishery – which is about 18% of our production that is caught – the Washington coastal, Oregon coastal, and also just mentioning the seafood industry, the sportsmen fishing industry. This is a huge benefit overall and we have to ensure that we’re not afraid of doing something differently.
Norcross: What do you think the walking back of this agreement will mean for the recovery of those salmon, steelhead and Pacific lamprey species that you mentioned? Is it going to make the problem worse?
Takala: Well, it will lead to the threshold jeopardy once this was revoked. Working towards that healthy and abundant Columbia basin fisheries, that’s consistency with our tribal treaty rights. And we feel like right now we’re seeing all these different factors which are leading to the decline of fish. There are funding opportunities that are still available. But at the same time, we still need these sufficient funding levels to help address hatchery infrastructure or upgrades, fish passage. Even the budget for upgrades to the fish passage at the hydro operations. I mean, how do you not feel that this package is something of a good deal for everyone? We’re talking about 16 million fish historically during the treaty signing times, to where we’re only seeing 2 million fish returning.
Norcross: And what does that mean for you personally?
Takala: Personally, it’s disheartening. We have a lot of our tribal members in the many different homes, longhouses, churches, shorthouses, that utilize the salmon and other native species in our seasonal round. And what this means is we are more than likely [to] see an impact, short of fish and salmon to be provided for those folks in those homes, but also in individual tribal homes. It’s a food source that has sustained us since the beginning of time.
And the Yakama Nation has given so much up. This is a part of an agreement that will honor and commit to the treaty obligations, and even furthermore, again as I mentioned, the benefit overall for our community.
Norcross: The agreement was built on the idea that the tribes would build renewable energy that would replace the output of hydroelectric power. Do you know what the plans were around that, plans that might be in jeopardy now?
Takala: In respects to the other three tribes, for Yakama Nation, we’ve have developed some responsible energy projects. A lot of our community members are unaware of where they get their power source. Yes, you may get 25%, 50%, maybe close to 100% of your power from the hydro operations. But right now, we’re living in a moment where we don’t have as much snowpack, we have warming water conditions, we have sedimentation build up, we have high predation issues. That was a part of this package agreement, to address the stellar and California sea lions that are impacting our spring Chinook, lamprey and other species that our tribes and everyone relies on. We have invasive fish predators in the waters that are just gobbling up our out-migrating smelt. You have the bird predation as well, gulls that are just looking at these easy target places where there’s slack water.
These are a lot of factors that folks need to really digest or consider and look into. We understand there’s a need for power. We understand that. We understand there’s an increase of population in the Northwest. But we have to plan and we have to be prepared. We have to look at other technologies that are not gonna have a direct impact to our restoration efforts, that’s not gonna have a direct impact to cultural properties where our tribal members still utilize. So that’s the message that Yakama Nation has been pursuing, that tribes have to be the leaders in this work, just as they have been for the fisheries.
I’ve heard really positive comments from some of our sportsmen that said, “if it wasn’t for the tribes, who knows where we’d be at with the fish populations right now?” Yeah, we’re doing OK. But we can do more, we can do better. We can all do better as the Pacific Northwest. And that’s what that’s what we were doing.
Norcross: The RCBA, this agreement, was announced during the last presidential administration. It was undone by the current administration. It’s possible it could be reinstated by the next administration, but who knows? I’m wondering what it says to you about the process of striking major agreements like this, that they can live or die based on who is in the White House?
Takala: We’re feeling the federal impacts, the decision making. This one in particular is really, really disheartening. But overall, we’ve seen some decisions that were reversed saying, “oh, we made a mistake,” rescinding some of those EOs or termination of the federal workforce. But by all means, the tribes, specifically Yakama, Warm Springs, Umatilla, Nez Perce, we work directly with those federal agencies. So it’s a rippling effect. And it’s unfortunate that they couldn’t consult with the six sovereigns or the tribes to discuss what the context of this agreement meant, what it really means to not only the tribes, but to the community. I’m sure most of the listeners all have a favorite seafood. It’s probably salmon, steelhead, lamprey – I don’t know about lamprey – sturgeon. We should all be supporting this for the existence of those native populations. That’s just the simplicity and the point that the tribes want to ensure is the survival of our native species.
And moving forward, we’re gonna still look to other avenues. We’re gonna look for partners. We are looking for mainly the support. Education and outreach is very vital, it’s very important at this time. We need to talk with folks in the big cities. We need to talk to folks in the rural areas. Yakama Nation ceded territories are in rural areas. We’ve had those tough conversations. Those conversations consist of what we have now, the Yakama Basin Integrated Plan, our partners. That’s basically simply mirroring what that group is to what the bigger group is with the CBRI and the six sovereigns.
Norcross: The RCBA came together after years of legal battles, and you’ve spoken very well about the need for education right now. But the courts might also have a role to play here too. I’m wondering if you see more legal battles in the future as you try to reinstate some kind of an agreement?
Takala: Yes, there will be that decision making with the tribes, what the next steps are. Of course, regrouping, discussing with partners, and of course the litigation, especially when it comes to the biological opinion and looking at the ESA listed species. I think it’s gonna come back to that question, did we make a mistake? Yes, there was a mistake that was made.
I don’t know how long we’ve been operating, as the saying goes, “business as usual.” Think about that overall, not just in the fish space or the energy space. But overall, this country has been doing business as usual for how long? And sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. Sometimes, like for instance this issue, it hasn’t been working. And I would hope that the message is clear, the correct narrative is shared.
We’ve known that a lot of our folks that oppose, or counter, invest in a lot of materials that are entirely untrue. They’re not true. It’s unfortunate. Our staff, our tribal folks, we see it firsthand out in the river, we see it firsthand in different food gathering areas or cultural sites. And it’s unfortunate. All we would like is to do something differently to ensure that the survival of fish and the balance of energy is also there as well.
Norcross: Jeremy Takala, it was great to talk to you. Thank you so much.
Takala: Thank you for having me.
Norcross: Jeremy Takala is the chair of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission.
For another perspective, we turn now to Leslie Druffel. She is the outreach director for the McGregor Company, which is an agriculture support company in Washington state. Leslie Druffel, welcome to Think Out Loud.
Leslie Druffel: Good afternoon, Geoff. Thanks for having me today.
Norcross: Jeremy Takala said your industry was represented in the conversations as this agreement was coming together. What do you say to that?
Druffel: We were part of the conversation. What was challenging was the agreements were made under private caucus, essentially. So there was no ability for ag and navigation interests to be able to provide any input on what was within the agreement and what was being negotiated between the U.S. government and the six sovereigns. So that’s the part of the conversation that we were never brought in on.
Norcross: Given that history, when you heard the announcement that the deal was being rescinded, what went through your mind?
Druffel: Honestly, it was mixed feelings. I really believe that fish and dams can coexist as a standard comment, but what’s really frustrating was that the funding for the other fish recovery projects was pulled. And that is not anything that agriculture, the navigation or the power companies are really wanting to do. We’ve been supportive on fish recovery programs, the Pacific coastal salmon recovery, fish mitigation programs, upper Columbia reintroduction, really working hard at making sure that there’s some appropriations for those projects. Really, the only piece that brought us any brightness was that the Lower Snake River dams were not going to be considered for breaching. So it was bittersweet, honestly.
Norcross: There did seem to be a pathway forward that could end up in a scenario where the Lower Snake River dams were actually taken out under this agreement. Did you not think that that would ever happen?
Druffel: I go back and forth on whether or not it’s going to ever happen every day. Every day, I wake up in a different state of mind on whether it’s gonna happen or whether it’s not, and all I need to do is make sure that when I get to the office that I’m working hard to make sure that we can find a way to recover fish. These are incredibly important cultural pieces to our Native tribes and we don’t want that to go away. We have some critical infrastructure with the dams and the lock system that we’ve all created our lives around. And taking those out is far more challenging than any of the studies have been able to show.
Norcross: How critical are the dams and the reservoirs that are behind them to farmers in the Columbia Basin?
Druffel: Two parts. Irrigation is a critical piece to that. The Columbia Basin is an amazing cornucopia of what they’re able to produce, in good ground, a good climate. You add water and you can grow 30 tons of potatoes in an acre. And that’s hard for me to imagine, so I have to piece it down – that’s 6,000 10-pound bags of potatoes on a football field. And that’s a significant amount of food on one acre. And jeopardizing that is really challenging for me to be OK with.
The navigation side of it: as everybody knows, growing food is seasonal. We have seasons that are a big push in the dry land region of Central and Eastern Washington, as well as North-Central, Northeast Oregon and Idaho, for wheat and barley, peas, lentils, garbanzos, canola. And you need to fertilize the ground prior to seeding. And there’s a huge push right before all the growers head out to their field. They may call on a Tuesday and say, “Hey, I wanna seed next Friday. Can we get our fertilizer delivery done today?” So it’s a lot of times a lot of short notice. Obviously, we do this every year, but seasons change, they kind of move. Mother Nature is kind of a fickle mistress, so she moves when spring starts on us.
Just our company alone, we can bring up 4.5 million gallons of liquid fertilizer and move it out. We bring it in, we blend it with other fertilizers to make sure we have the right mix for each field. We move 4.5 million gallons of just what comes up by barge in five weeks’ time, every fall. That’s a huge amount in a very, very short window of opportunity. So that timeliness, our river navigation system helps provide that secure, reliable delivery of product when you need it.
Norcross: I would like, in the last minute or so that we have, to ask you about what you’re thinking about now, given that this agreement is off the table at least for the moment, at least in this administration. What are you thinking about for the future of the basin?
Druffel: Looking at this, without dealing with our administrations – whether it was the previous presidential administration or the current one – there is a way forward for all of us in agriculture, navigation, power, tribes, states, to move forward on projects and really push for the funding to get those projects for recovery efforts done, and continue to do those without removing the dams. I would rather work on that and spend money there then spend time and money in a courtroom with lawyers.
Norcross: So it sounds like you have common cause with a lot of the tribes, but the dams is a real sticking point for you?
Druffel: Yes, it is. But I know we can get through it.
Norcross: Leslie Druffel, thank you so much for the time. I appreciate it.
Druffel: Thank you.
Norcross: Leslie Druffel is the outreach director for the McGregor Company in Washington. We also spoke with Jeremy Takala, who is the chair of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission and also a member of the Yakama Nation.
“Think Out Loud®” broadcasts live at noon every day and rebroadcasts at 8 p.m.
If you’d like to comment on any of the topics in this show or suggest a topic of your own, please get in touch with us on Facebook, send an email to thinkoutloud@opb.org, or you can leave a voicemail for us at 503-293-1983.
