FOLLOW THE SALMON

Reasons to jump into our rivers

At issue: the future of dams

Posted

A young girl, I’d guess about nine, stood with her mother watching the Chinook salmon swim and leap in the concrete holding pens at Tumwater Falls Hatchery. Having recently taken a class on the life cycle of salmon, I was there too, offering information as a Stream Team volunteer.

I’d just explained a bit about how these remarkable fish, after spending several years in the Pacific, had turned around sometime last spring to start a thousand-plus mile journey back to their home in the Deschutes River to spawn. “Why do they jump?” the mother asked.

I began to say something about how strong and athletic these fish have to be to swim upstream against river currents, when the girl jumped to her own conclusion. “I think they jump from jubilation!”

Indeed, these were the survivors—the ones who’d made it back. When the final count is done, staff at the hatchery expect that more than ten thousand salmon will have made the run back to Tumwater.

The ‘escapement’

They’re called “the escapement” because, in the years since they entered the Deschutes as fry, crossed into the saltwater of Puget Sound, and spent most of their lives at sea, they’d escaped being eaten by eagles, seals, whales, bears, and all the other hungry critters, including us, who thrive on salmon.  

And now these prodigious swimmers have returned, where hundreds of delighted watchers like me have come to witness their iconic migration, first at the 5th Avenue Dam and now, finally, at Tumwater.

This arduous return was easier on them a hundred years ago. Descending the Sound on their way home, they made the adjustment from saltwater to freshwater gradually when they reached the estuary where the waters of Budd Inlet and the Deschutes River mixed.

That all changed 74 years ago with the construction of the dam. Suddenly, the salmon’s transition from salt to fresh water became abrupt, an adaptation they had to manage over hours at the base of the dam, while hungry harbor seals stalked them for dinner. On the other side of the dam nowadays, the build-up of silt from the river into Capitol Lake began making it shallower, warmer, and less oxygenated, further stressing the fish.

I was born in a landlocked state without salmon, far from Olympia and its new manmade lake. But by the time I was in high school, dams were going up throughout the U.S. The day before President John F. Kennedy was shot in Dallas, he’d stopped in Arkansas to dedicate a new one.

Years later, I became a reporter there. As segregation’s dark past was trying to fade, dams were reaching their zenith. Yet even then, during what would become the heyday of dam construction, concerns were trickling out. I began reporting on some of those worries.

Two rivers, two dams

This summer, to my delight, I moved to Thurston County, where I was surprised to find two problematic dams waiting. The first is the one on 5th Avenue, smack in downtown Olympia. The other, a less visible one, is the point near Exit 114 on Interstate 5, where two bridges span the Nisqually River—and where a decades-long accumulation of silt around their bases has made them de facto dams, choking the passage of salmon.

I am now beginning to learn about the momentous decisions that have been made—and that will yet have to be made—to correct the environmental harms these structures are causing. The processes in both cases will be incredibly complex.

Dams themselves are simple ideas. What kid hasn’t tried to block a stream with stones? But removing one requires consideration of significant cultural, political, engineering and financial factors, not to mention constraints like the timing of salmon runs and the demands of human transportation.

I think of it like surgery: the careful application of new science to remove well-intentioned devices that were implanted decades ago but which have proven disastrous over time. As with any intense and lengthy surgery, life-support systems will have to be maintained. Similarly, the order and timing of steps will be critical.

New as I am here, I hope to catch up on what has been done so far, to understand where things stand, and to report on these projects as they unfold. I will lean heavily on the work already done and attempt to wade, as fairly as possible, through various interests and options. I will seek help from the many experts and other good folks whose passion has carried these efforts thus far.

Like salmon heading home, we are all embarking on an essential and challenging endeavor. I look forward to sharing it with you.

Editor's note: This story introduces Mara Leveritt, an award-winning journalist and author, who now makes her home in Olympia. Look for her new column, “Follow the Salmon,” every other week in The JOLT.

Comments

2 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here

  • TerryLiberty

    A fine piece of writing and very informative. I've lived in western Washington for 40 years and still learned some things from this essay. I look forward to more from Mara.

    Tuesday, October 24, 2023 Report this

  • Bobwubbena

    We hope you will approach your new assignment with an open and objective review of both sides of the debate about the future of Capital Lake. Critical comparisons of before and after the construction of the 5th Avenue dam, where the salmon could not swim due to natural constraints (Tumwater Falls) and what the impacts of development (location of the City of Olympia) did to shape the future waterfront. The 5th avenue Dam is being improperly blamed for a fishery impact that did not exist before the dam. The construction project that included the dam, the Lake, the fish ladders around the natural waterfalls, all benefitted the salmon run that now exists. The negative water quality in Budd Inlet did not come from the Dam, but rather us humans and natural conditions. The Lake now provides free and valuable treatment of the discharges from human impacts from the upper Deschutes River,including highly oxygenated water that flows into Budd Inlet. Removing the dam will remove the natural treatment process that is more significant than the LOTT multimillion dollar nitrogen removal system. Nor will it treat the 80% and more pollutants that exists in Budd Inlet that arrives on the incoming tide from the North. As a newcomer Mara, please don't just follow the misguided EIS. Do your own research on both sides of the "damn Dam" My projection---removing the dam will cost the community taxpayers over $1.0 Billion. Let's make sure that the DES claims of benefits are even close to being the truth. Hopefully you can report on the facts and not just the emotions.

    Tuesday, October 24, 2023 Report this