Now that the Capitol Lake Adaptive Management Plan steering committee is close to making a recommendation about what to do with Capitol Lake, we’re hearing arguments that the best option is to keep the lake as is. The main argument against removing a dam to restore the Deschutes River Estuary is that it will cost the region too much economically.

For example, the Olympia Yacht Club recently distributed their position and the Port of Olympia also passed a resolution making similar arguments. But, the most blunt argument was made by Rick Taylor in the pages of the Olympian:

People might still jog around an estuary, but the businesses and events built around Percival Landing require deeper water. Destroying the dam will fill Percival Landing with Deschutes River sediment and make navigable water economically unfeasible.

Leaving the lake “as is” doesn’t really mean, “do nothing.” Doing nothing would allow the reservoir to fill up slowly with sediment, creating a marshy and muddy mess. This probably isn’t what opponents of estuary restoration want. They want the lake to be dredged by someone else so they don’t have to deal with sediments deposited in Budd Inlet.

Dredging needs to happen somewhere, by someone. Either the lake will need to be continually dredged or, if the dam is removed, lower Budd Inlet will need dredging to be able to maintain the current commercial port and recreational marinas. In fact, Budd Inlet was dredged regularly for decades before the dam was even built.

While the state government has generously carried the burden of dredging since the dam was built, there is no reason to think that the marinas and the port would have to carry that burden alone if the estuary was restored. I could easily imagine an arrangement where the state and local governments teamed up to ensure a health Deschutes River estuary and a working port. The state could continue to step up to pay for a portion of the dredging and the Port of Olympia or the Olympia Yacht Club won’t likely disappear if they need to chip in too. Dredging of navigable waterways also engages the federal government via the Army Corps of Engineers and their cost-sharing program.

This possible reconfigured cost structure is not a serious argument against bringing back ecological function to Budd Inlet. Damming the Deschutes has already cost the Squaxin Island Tribe plenty in the last 50 years.

We know that South Sound is dying. Squaxin tribal researchers recently conducted a study of how many coho salmon leaving streams in southern Puget Sound actually survive long enough to swim past the Tacoma Narrows. Coho populations have been dropping for more than a decade around here, and we’ve been studying them to understand why.

What we came up with was shocking. Only 3 percent of coho that originated in southern Puget Sound made it past the Tacoma Narrows. Typically around 2 percent of any given salmon run return as adults, so South Sound coho are practically seeing a lifetime’s worth of mortality in only a few miles.

Another reason the non-tribal community argues against restoring the Deschutes River estuary is there are other, more convenient places to restore. They can spend their restoration dollars in places they’ve already decided aren’t better suited for a yacht club or a port. But the Squaxin Island Tribe has no other place to go. The tribe is bound by tradition and by a treaty with the federal government to fish close to home in the same waters they have fished for centuries.

The non-tribal community can point to Budd Inlet and say, “this place is too important economically to ever restore the estuary.” But for the Squaxin Island Tribe, there is no more valuable place to restore than the Deschutes River estuary.

The Deschutes is the largest river in the tribe’s exclusive treaty-reserved fishing area. It has the largest estuary with the most impact on the health of the tribe’s marine waters. By rejecting out of hand the option to bring this estuary back to life, opponents are saying that the tribe’s history, culture and economy are not important.

The Squaxin Island Tribe has always depended on this area’s natural resources culturally and economically. Natural resources are still a major part of the tribe’s economy. The incomes of several hundred tribal members depend on natural resources, including fishing in Budd Inlet.

The argument that restoring the Deschutes Estuary would harm the local economy ignores the portion of the community that would benefit economically. Maintaining the lake is maintaining a state government subsidy for certain beneficiaries. Restoring the estuary will rebalance the costs and benefits in a more equitable manner.

Jeff Dickison is the assistant natural resources director for the Squaxin Island Tribe. He has sat on CLAMP since the committee’s inception and also blogs at the Squaxin Natural Resources blog.