Destroying land not the answer

The Friday article by Kari Bray and Chris Winters about the Qwuloot Estuary project was well-written coverage of planned farmland destruction that is “hopefully” of benefit to wild salmon. Long expected, the project is part of a larger movement to “restore” Puget Sound wetlands “destroyed” by European settlement. The movement is of serious concern to persons knowledgeable of U.S. food and farmland needs, and their unconditional certainty as the nation’s population nearly doubles by this century’s end.

The Herald coverage, however, neglects to mention a decisive fact. It is that salmon smolt cannot thrive in warm water, be it salt marine or freshwater shallows on land surfaces re-exposed twice daily at low tide. Every youngster who ever played on a sandy beach will recall the luxurious warmth of incoming tidewater over the sun-exposed sand. The same principle, though less extreme, pertains to tidewater shallows on flooded farmland. Recent aquatic temperature data suggest that in Earth’s warming future, optimal cold temperatures for salmon might not be reached even in deep marine and river waters.

For me, personally, as a lifetime ag researcher and lowland farm owner, I find the movement’s lack of vision outstanding. Even the monstrous Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project (PSNERP) asking $1.1 billion and 20 years, is a monument to tunnel vision. Farmers have always been ecosystems specialists and environmentalists, yet nowhere do the principles of on-farm integration of man and wildlife interests emerge.

It is comforting to learn that the movement’s role for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is that of hired help rather than policy making. For over 70 years I have admired the work of the Army Corps of Engineers in protecting floodplain residents and farmland conservation. The image of the Army Corps of Engineers signing on with projects like the Qwuloot Estuary and the PSNERP, openly designed to destroy farmland, is hard to ignore.

Alex G. Alexander

Everett