Salmon Spending Cap A Good First Step

The Pacific Northwest pours hundreds of millions of dollars a year into unsuccessful programs aimed at restoring wild salmon runs on the Snake and Columbia rivers. In spite of these programs - and to no small extent because of them - the salmon runs in recent years have spiraled toward extinction.

On Tuesday, the federal government unveiled an interagency agreement that is supposed to place salmon restoration on a budget. Better yet, the agreement calls on salmon programs to establish measurable goals, report on their progress every year, monitor their spending and look to impartial scientists for guidance.

U.S. Sen. Slade Gorton, who has pushed hard for accountability in salmon programs, called the agreement a step in the right direction. The Washington Republican’s support is a good sign. Time has vindicated his position. Not too long ago, Gorton was being attacked for favoring a cap on salmon expenditures.

Now, there is regional consensus that the annual $435 million cap on salmon programs may create an incentive to focus dollars on tactics that work.

In addition, the cap creates some financial certainty for the Bonneville Power Administration, which markets one of the Pacific Northwest’s economic fundamentals - hydroelectric power. Private-sector power marketers have been trying to undersell the BPA, so the agency needs reforms and efficiency to survive. Because the BPA also funds salmon programs, its stability is as crucial to environmental interests as it is to the industries and homeowners that rely on BPA’s electricity.

However, the federal government’s new agreement is only a first step.

The promised criteria to measure the effectiveness of salmon restoration programs still are being devised.

BPA itself faces a sweeping effort to redefine who’s in charge of hydropower and salmon restoration.

It also isn’t clear how well those who spend the salmon money - Indian tribes and assorted public agencies - will go along with truly impartial scientific review of their sometimes dubious programs. Hatcheries, for example, flood river ecosystems with genetically inferior fish. And scientists disagree. Some favor such extremely costly tactics as draining reservoirs and breaching dams.

Whether any of this saves the wild salmon runs remains to be seen. But at least the responsible parties are being pressured to check whether their efforts are as successful at helping wild fish as they are at spending money.

, DataTimes The following fields overflowed: CREDIT = John Webster/For the editorial board