OPINION: Eklutna River debate overlooks benefits of restoration and the future energy picture

The debate about the Eklutna Hydro project has so far overlooked the economic and social benefits of restoring salmon to the Eklutna River and letting the lake and river run its natural course. The current debate only presents two choices: a cheap fix that leaves a mile of the Eklutna River dry and prevents salmon from reaching Eklutna Lake and its tributaries, or a costly fish-friendly reconstruction of the dam. Building a fish ladder would cost residential rate payers, on average, $48 on their yearly electric bill and $18 in property tax. Just looking at rate impacts simplifies the problem and reduces the choice between cheap power and expensive salmon.

Let’s consider the benefits and costs of all options, including the option of closing the Eklutna Hydro project and removing the dam. In addition, let’s not reduce the opposing parties to power companies against conservationists, but consider that Eklutna Hydro is member-owned — owned by every household paying for electricity in the Anchorage and Mat-Su area. As rate payers, we should look at this issue beyond the effects on our electric bills and consider other economic and well-being benefits that a free-flowing Eklutna river provides.

The Eklutna Hydro project was built by the federal government in 1955 and sold to us — members of the Chugach Electric and Matanuska Electric Associations and Municipality of Anchorage — for $6.7 million in 1997 under the legal obligation to protect, mitigate damages to, and enhance fish and wildlife affected by the Eklutna Lake dam by 2027. If we assume that only power costs matter, it’s obvious that we have large incentives to maintain the status quo. Eklutna Hydro is the cheapest power source in Southcentral Alaska. Aside from being cheap to produce, Eklutna hydropower is also valuable for balancing electricity supply and demand when Fire Island wind quits blowing or the sun shades solar panels connected to the grid. Hydropower and other renewable energy are critical for transitioning away from fossil fuels. However, that is not the whole picture. We should also consider the hidden costs and benefits of all the options.

Imagine if we could fill our freezers at the Eklutna River instead of driving all the way to the Kenai. The most recent estimate of the net economic value of sport and commercial fishing in Upper Cook Inlet amounted to $116 million, backing 3,900 jobs. We could help Cook Inlet fisheries by allowing sockeye salmon to return to Eklutna Lake as they have for millennia. We could have significant gains in aesthetic value if Eklutna Lake were allowed to be a natural lake and the free-flowing river was allowed to carve the canyon. We could free our popular Eklutna Lake trails from the constant erosion caused by storing too much water behind the dam.

The benefits of restoring rivers extend well beyond trade-offs between fish and electricity. Free-flowing rivers provide greater ecosystem productivity sustaining wildlife and people. Restoring flow enhances biodiversity and creates resilient ecosystems that can adapt to changing environmental conditions. Water flows help maintain healthy riverbanks, not only providing habitat for plants, birds, and wildlife, but also areas for recreation. Studies have shown again and again that people highly value healthy rivers that support fisheries, wildlife, climate regulation and drinking water.

An economic analysis looking at over 40 studies on the benefits of river restoration found that on average U.S households gain $80 of economic benefits annually from restoring a river the size of the Eklutna. That figure does not even include the economic impacts of restored salmon runs to tourism and commercial and subsistence fisheries.

The current debate also fails to place the decision within Alaska’s future energy picture. Alaskans have barely tapped the first fuel— energy conservation. Alaska’s energy options are rapidly evolving, and the cost of renewables — such as wind, solar, geothermal, micro-hydro and energy storage — is falling sharply. The Bradley Lake hydropower project, which doesn’t affect salmon, is set for another expansion in 2027 that will exceed the power output of the Eklutna Hydro project. In addition, there are plans to develop a large-scale energy storage facility, the largest of its kind in the U.S., near Healy in 2028. It will balance our electric grid — exactly what Eklutna Hydro does — but at a much larger scale.

Let’s decide on how to mitigate the effects of the Eklutna Lake dam not only by considering the engineering costs of two options affecting rate payers, but realizing benefits and costs of all options. A rigorous decision analysis would do just that. Let’s take the time to get this right.

Tobias Schwoerer is Assistant Research Professor of Natural Resource Economics at the International Arctic Research Center at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. He is a member of Chugach Electric Association and resides in Anchorage on the traditional homelands of the Dena’ina.

The views expressed here are the writer’s and are not necessarily endorsed by the Anchorage Daily News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.