Letters to the Editor for Tuesday, Nov. 18

On this Veterans Day, gratitude and disappointment

I’m both grateful and deeply disappointed in light of the recent government restart.

Grateful to the eight courageous Democrats who put country over party, standing against the antidemocratic tactics that threatened our institutions. Their integrity offers a glimmer of hope.

But I’m profoundly disappointed in our Washington Democrats who chose to ignore the real pain inflicted on citizens, military families and countless others who rely on the steady function of government. Their silence and complicity during this shutdown were a betrayal of public trust.

On this Veterans Day, the sting is especially sharp. My son, who serves this nation with honor, and his family were treated with disregard – facing the threat of withheld pay, not because of fiscal necessity, but as collateral in a political power play. That’s not leadership. That’s coercion.

Let’s hope this episode serves as a wake-up call. Democracy thrives when elected officials respect the rules of representative government – not when they resort to extortion and hostage tactics. Shame on those who forgot that!

Paul Hutton

Spokane

Who is Baumgartner working for?

Received a mailer from Rep. Baumgartner stating he is working for veterans. Seems misleading. Neither Donald Trump nor Mike Johnson have served in the military.

Stan Cowart

Colbert

Working together?

In the same election a year or so ago, Spokane voters turned down Spokane Schools and Spokane Parks who were both seeking funds for building and improving facilities. At that point the schools and the parks had to decide what to do. They could have fought against each other and competed for taxpayer money. Instead, they came up with a plan to work together and pass both. Earlier this month, that plan worked. That is an example of good leadership. Thank you, Garrett Jones and Adam Swinyard.

Hmmmm. Working together – what a concept! Maybe leaders in the other Washington could learn from this experience!

Tom Armitage

Spokane

Guest column not transparent

The recent guest opinion (“Clean power, a bundant salmon: Both are possible”) on the Lower Snake River dams struck me as deeply misleading, not because of differing viewpoints, but because of what the authors chose not to disclose. One of the co-authors works for the National Wildlife Federation, an organization currently suing to change dam operations. When an advocacy group involved in active litigation writes an opinion about that very lawsuit, readers deserve to be told upfront. That lack of transparency matters.

I’m not a scientist. I work in freight and logistics, helping move goods across the Northwest. But I do understand the importance of dependable, affordable, carbon-free power. The Lower Snake River dams provide exactly that for hundreds of thousands of homes and businesses across our region. They help stabilize energy costs, support manufacturing and agriculture, and keep our transportation supply chains functioning. Removing them would ripple far beyond electricity bills. It would raise costs for families, small businesses and the entire economy.

The opinion paints hydropower as a barrier to progress, but the reality on the ground is different. Communities depend on this reliable power during extreme weather, emergencies and wildfire seasons. Hydropower isn’t a political talking point. It’s a critical resource that keeps people safe and our economy running.

Reasonable people can debate policy, but the public deserves a complete picture, not a one-sided narrative. Our region deserves an honest conversation that weighs all impacts, not just the ones that fit a predetermined agenda.

Matt Ewers

Spokane

Salmon and dams can coexist

The claim that the federal government “turned its back on the NW” misrepresents both the purpose and the outcome of stepping away from the Resilient Columbia Basin Agreement. The fact remains: the agreement was never fully vetted, lacked transparency, bypassed key regional stakeholders, including public power utilities, and the millions of customers who fund the system, and carried consequences far beyond what was publicly acknowledged. Decisions affecting energy reliability, rates, navigation, irrigation, and treaty obligations must be grounded in science, open process, and broad regional consensus, not litigation pressure.

Salmon recovery is a shared and critical priority. But it is inaccurate to suggest that the Columbia–Snake system is on the brink of biological collapse. We are seeing record salmon returns, and while challenges remain, the data shows that decades of coordinated investments in habitat restoration, spill operations, hatchery reform, and advanced fish passage systems are producing measurable improvements. NOAA and independent scientists have repeatedly confirmed that ocean conditions, climate change and predation are far more dominant drivers of salmon survival than the four Snake River dams.

Portraying the dams as the central obstacle to recovery oversimplifies a complex ecological system. These dams provide carbon-free, flexible hydropower essential to integrating renewables, meeting surging load growth, and protecting customers from extreme market volatility. Removing them would raise costs, increase emissions and undermine grid stability, without guaranteeing improved fish outcomes.

We can and must continue advancing both clean energy and salmon recovery without dismantling critical infrastructure that serves the entire region.

Joe Morgan

Spokane Valley