War & Peace Quote by Cathy McMorris

Packed into this tidy list of river benefits is a classic Pacific Northwest political move: treat a sprawling, often bitter regional fight as common-sense stewardship. Cathy McMorris is speaking in the language of multipurpose infrastructure - energy, shipping, farms, weekend fun - because it lets her claim the broad middle before anyone can pin her to the hardest question in the room: what happens when the region's economic machine collides with salmon recovery, tribal treaty rights, and climate-era hydrology.

The intent is coalition-building. By naming four constituencies in one breath, she signals, "I see you" to utilities and ratepayers (hydropower), ports and exporters (transportation), agricultural districts (irrigation), and homeowners and tourism economies (recreation). That cadence matters: it turns policy into a shared dependency, making any critique sound like an attack on everyday life rather than a dispute over environmental tradeoffs.

The subtext sits in "depend" and "fight". "Depend" frames dams as indispensable, not optional - an anchor against proposals like breaching the lower Snake River dams or radically rethinking water allocation. "Fight" casts her as a defender of the region against outside pressure: federal regulators, coastal urban environmentalists, even court decisions enforcing habitat protections.

Contextually, this comes from a politician rooted in eastern Washington, where hydropower and irrigation are not abstractions but livelihoods. It's also a line designed for a moment when Western water scarcity, aging infrastructure, and competing legal claims make river management less about engineering and more about identity: whose needs count as the Pacific Northwest's "best", and who gets to define it.