Well, that was uncomfortable!
I just sat through the first three days of "pre-licensing" for the proposed Susitna-Watana dam. And, for much of those three days scientists from state and federal resource agencies just grilled state-hired science consultants about the quality of their studies on the project. Each day, critiques flew at Alaska Energy Authority during these initial study review meetings about flawed studies, cut corners, and iffy data that are supposed to justify the state of Alaska's plan to dam the Susitna River. Some of the most respected energy and fisheries experts in state and federal agencies, including Alaska Department of Fish and Game, National Marine Fisheries Society and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (the agency with the final say on the pending dam license) raised these concerns.
At a time when the state's dire budget dominates our attention, I am surprised that so many Alaskans have no idea that the state, through the AEA, is still slowly and quietly plodding along in pursuit of the Susitna dam, and spending state money to do it. As the deficit literally grows by the day, few projects symbolize gross, negligent spending as well as the Susitna dam does -- both in size (705 feet tall) and cost (at least $6 billion).
To date, the state of Alaska has spent roughly $193 million on these questionable studies alone. One notable example of the problematic studies was uncovered in October 2014, when AEA's scientists admitted they had a difficult time differentiating between juvenile coho and chinook salmon. As you can imagine, hearing the state's highly paid consultants admit they didn't know the difference between two critical salmon species left me skeptical about the quality of the investment the state of Alaska has made in this costly prelicensing exercise.
This round of meetings was hardly different from those in 2014, as one study flaw after another was uncovered. Federal and state agency officials, along with independent scientists, quickly identified myriad "significant errors" in study design, execution and results.
I am grateful that these meetings are happening though, because the reviews and criticisms of AEA's research will go on an official record. AEA shouldn't be able to pretend their research is reliable, as they use it to justify building the type of dam the rest of the world has not only stopped even considering but is actively tearing down because of detrimental impacts to fish, rivers and communities. But beyond these meetings, the state of Alaska should stop this fiscal madness and shut this project down.
As of now, Alaska's position appears to be to let AEA slowly advance the Susitna dam despite science and economics pointing to the contrary. The governor appears unwilling to make a hard decision.
In an op-ed printed March 13, Gov. Bill Walker and Lt. Gov. Byron Mallott argued, "When you're facing hard decisions, the human impulse is to procrastinate. We get it. As our team was delving into the options for tackling Alaska's growing budget gap, don't think we weren't tempted to kick the can down the road."
They are right.
But with Susitna, the administration is itself kicking the can down the road. By allowing the project to limp along, quietly draining millions of state funds that could be invested in people or projects that will benefit all of Alaska.
At the beginning of their administration, Walker and Mallott appeared to listen to Alaskans who asked they put fish first, among other items. But the slow pursuit of Susitna is one of many places where their administration is quietly putting our fisheries at risk, rather than putting fish first.
Healthy fisheries and a healthy economy should go hand in hand. The state's fishing industry is valued at $5 billion and sport fishing brings in around half a billion dollars to the state. As for the Susitna River, we know it is the fourth largest producer of king salmon in Alaska. Further, the Susitna drives the upper Cook Inlet commercial fishery that is valued at $35 million and also hosts a sport and recreational economy that employees more than 1,900 individuals.
Speaking of money, AEA has told the administration they need $100 million more to get to the licensing process.
Alaska has already sunk enough into some seriously flawed research. Fixing those flaws is going to require a lot more money beyond $100 million. With nearly $200 million already spent and a potential construction price tag of well more than $6 billion, the Susitna dam is a relic of Alaska's cash happy days with rampant -- and in some cases irresponsible -- spending that was possible due to the price of oil being over $100 a barrel. As all Alaskans know, those days are gone.
Shutting the Sustina dam down for good, not just kicking the can down the road, would show the administration is truly willing to put our economy and our fish first.
Samuel Snyder is the Alaska engagement director for Trout Unlimited and has worked with the community of Talkeetna and the Susitna River Coalition for the past several years to protect the Susitna River from the proposed Susitna dam. He holds a doctorate from the University of Florida's graduate program on religion and nature, where he studied the values and politics of river restoration and trout conservation. His book, "Backcasts: A Global History of Fly Fishing and Conservation," is due out from University of Chicago Press in June.
The views expressed here are the writer's own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary@alaskadispatch.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@alaskadispatch.com or click here to submit via any web browser.