Despite a settlement agreement between the administration and plaintiffs hoping to breach the lower Snake River dams, we don’t think the political calculus has changed all that much.

Nonetheless, ag and shipping interests that were left out of the negotiations need to keep up the pressure on Congress to block any effort to tear down the dams.

At issue are four dams in Washington state on the Snake between Pasco and the Idaho state line.

The dams generate enough electricity to power 800,000 homes, vital capacity in an era when state policy is reducing power generated by natural gas and coal. The dams provide vital transportation for farm inputs and commodities, and facilitate irrigation for crops along the river’s path.

After months of mediation between the government, Indian tribes and environmental groups involved in a long-running lawsuit to protect endangered salmon, the Biden administration reached a settlement that it says puts breaching of the lower Snake River dams “on the table when practical.”

As part of the settlement, the administration committed to hundreds of millions of dollars in spending on wild fish restoration projects, make investments in alternative energy facilities to replace power generated by the dams, alter dam operations to benefit fish, and conduct studies on how transportation, irrigation and recreation services facilitated by the dams could be replaced if they are breached.

But, the administration maintains that only Congress can authorize breaching the dams. That has always been the case, but not one member of either the House or the Senate has ever put forward a bill to breach the dams, let alone replace their vital energy and transportation infrastructure.

In tandem with Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., commissioned a report on the feasibility of breaching the dams. It found that breaching would be impossible until the benefits provided by the dams can be replaced.

Murray offered no legislation.

In 2021, Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, floated a serious compromise plan that would have put upwards of $34 billion towards replacing all of the infrastructure. While he succeeded in sparking discussion, his plan received no support from agriculture and transportation interests — or fellow Republicans in Congress. In the end, he did not introduce his plan as legislation.

Surveys show voters along the Snake River and in adjoining states also have no interest in tearing out the dams — not that the will of the local voters always matters.

Removing the dams without meaningfully addressing the concerns of all stakeholders would be a disaster to agriculture and the general economy of the region. That would take decades, not the eight-year timeframe plaintiffs have proffered.

It would also cost tens of billions of dollars, a hard sell for urban Democrats across the country who won’t see anything tangible from that appropriation.

We have a hard time seeing how breaching will ever be practical, at least as most people would define the term. But, the administration has its own dictionary.

We urge Congress to keep doing nothing.