Opposition to McNary: Changing Ways of Life
What I want to talk about today is things that nobody seems to think about or realize, and that's the impact that these dams have had on a way of life. Thousands of village sites, hundreds of burial sites, being removed, being excavated by archaeologists, with the tribes opposing that. Sacred sites, areas where for hundreds of generations I would take my son to go and teach him the ways of our people, our culture, our history. . . Jeff Van Pelt Interview, March 16, 1999
Fish passage
facilities at McNary Dam load salmon onto barges and truck them
below Bonneville Dam for release. Photo by Donna Sinclair
Net hanging on wall at McNary Dam's Visitor's Center. Many different fishing methods were used by Native Americans in the lakes, rivers and streams near the Umatilla Rapids. Stone weights like these were used to hold nets under water. Photo by Donna Sinclair
Because of the predicted demise of the fisheries, the Umatilla and Yakima Indians sought an injunction against the dam almost immediately. But, according to Roberta Ulrich in Empty Nets, U.S. District Court Judge Sam Driver said there was no proof the cofferdam, then under construction, would exterminate fish runs. In April 1948, referring to the 1855 treaties, Judge Driver pointed out "the apparently irreconcilable conflict of interest between two great public policies," the conservation of the Columbia River fisheries and the development of hydroelectric power.
Outrage at the loss of sacred sites also fueled the Umatilla's resentment against the dam. Not only did McNary inundate the riverfront properties of eight communities along the river, it also covered numerous Indian burials. The Army Corps of Engineers suggested the burials lie undisturbed beneath the waters, and the Umatilla agreed. Unfortunately, artifact hunters robbed and destroyed many of the grave sites before impoundment, increasing tension between the Corps of Engineers and the Tribes.
forward