ROFL ! Well, I'll see yer dam ping and raise ya a dog-gone bump ! 
Posted on 09/05/2002 11:18:56 AM PDT by The Shadow Knows
Report released by Rand Corp. says removal will neither impede growth nor hurt power supply.
WASHINGTON -- Breaching four Snake River dams in eastern Washington would neither impede economic growth in the Northwest nor hurt the region's power supply, according to a new report by the Rand Corp.
The report, released Wednesday, said the dams provide just 5 percent of the power in the Pacific Northwest and could be removed with little impact on the overall economy. Removal of the dams could help the region diversify its power supply, the report said, while providing up to 15,000 new jobs over a 20-year period, primarily in recreation.
The Rand group is an independent nonprofit research and analysis firm. The study was funded by the Pew Charitable Trust.
Environmentalists immediately hailed the report, saying it provided clear-cut evidence that dam removal is in the region's best interest. Conservationists have long pushed to breach, or remove the earthen parts of the dams, to hasten recovery of threatened salmon and steelhead.
"The Rand report rejects the myth that dam removal must pit jobs versus wildlife," said Pat Ford, executive director of Save Our Wild Salmon, an advocacy group. "A healthy economy and healthy ecology go hand in hand."
Bill Sedivy of Idaho Rivers United in Boise agreed.
"I think this is a big deal in the whole salmon issue," he said. "The Rand study confirms what Idaho Rivers United has been saying for years -- removing the dams makes sense for people and salmon."
But Rep. George Nethercutt, R-Wash., whose district includes the four lower Snake River dams, said the report did nothing to convince him that breaching is a good idea. The dams at issue are the Ice Harbor, Lower Monumental, Little Goose and Lower Granite dams in southeastern Washington.
"I think it's a nonsense option for us in Eastern Washington and really in the Pacific Northwest," Nethercutt said.
The costs of breaching are high, he said, while the benefits, if any, are questionable. Partial removal of the dams is estimated to cost at least $1 billion and disrupt activity in the river for years, Nethercutt and other opponents said.
Breaching would end barge transportation to inland ports such as Lewiston that are heavily used by farmers to ship their crops to Portland and overseas. It would also effect irrigation of some farms along the lower Snake and Columbia rivers.
Former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, who remained neutral on dam breaching while in office, said Wednesday that the Rand report convinced him the time has come to remove the dams.
Babbitt, who served as Interior secretary under President Clinton, said that when he took office nearly a decade ago, the idea of removing a working dam "somehow seemed to be an unnatural act."
Now, experience has taught him that "the dams really aren't the pyramids of Egypt," Babbitt said. "Once they've served their purpose, they ought to come down."
Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., has sponsored a bill to allow removal of the dams, but the measure faces long odds. No other Northwest House member has signed on as a cosponsor, and no action has been taken on the bill since December.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which operates the dams, has rejected breaching in favor of a strategy that relies on structural improvements to help juvenile salmon pass by the dams on their way to the Pacific Ocean.
A spokesman for the Corps' Walla Walla district office declined to comment on the Rand report.
The National Marine Fisheries Service, which is charged with restoring salmon and steelhead runs now protected under the Endangered Species Act, rejected dam breaching in December 2000 after studying the matter for five years.
Its alternative plan, labeled "aggressive nonbreach," calls for leaving the dams in place while taking significant steps to restore streams where salmon spawn, reform hatcheries to reduce harm to wild fish by hatchery-raised fish and increase fishing restrictions. The agency says breaching should again be considered if specific goals are not met by 2003, 2005 and 2008.
Federal officials concede that last year's drought set the plan back, but urged patience. They maintain that efforts to revitalize the runs are still on track -- a view conservationists reject.
"If we're on track, we're heading for a train wreck and it's called extinction," said Nicole Cordan of Save Our Wild Salmon.
That this last year, the Snake River has had the largest Salmon run since the 1930's and fishing seasons were greatly extended.
That there has been an extra large return to the hatcheries up river this year. That Salmon are being seen in upland rivers that have not had any for many years.
That the increase in trucking on the narrow two lane roads will increase by tens of thousands (no additional danger, pollution or oil needed (/sarcasm).
The trial drawdown of dams a few years ago to flush the fish to the ocean, killed millions of fish due to trapping them in pools and decrease of oxygen in the water. The tourist trade and commercial trade took a major hit which greatly affected the local economy.
That the seals in the lower Columbia River are sitting with their mouths open as the fish travel towards the ocean (but we can't hurt those poor little cute things).
That farmers will not be affected by loss of irrigation water and additional expense of getting their grain to market.
That loggers will not be affected by additional expense of sending chips to the coast.
That the dams provided power when the grids failed and California was begging for power.
So, let's spend $1 billion dollars to remove 5% of the power supply in the region to help some *fish*?
Maybe we can import more oil from Saudi Arabia to replace that 5%? Or maybe they can buy the power from *California*?
Let the Environmentalist wackos pay the $1 billion and replace the lost power out of their own pockets. Yeah, sure.
This article irresponsibly fails to mention exactly how many MW of generating capacity are involve.
How many 1000 MW nuclear plants will be required to replace these dams? 1? 4? 10?
That's all that needed to be said.
So they're telling us that the tourist trade will bring that many jobs, eh?
Note to Rand: there's a reason why hardly anybody lives in that part of Washington, and it's the same reason that there won't be no 15,000 tourism jobs: In the summer it's hot, dry, windy, rocky, and not terribly pretty. In the winter it's cold, dry, rocky, and not terribly pretty.
The area is not exactly what you'd call a tourist mecca, and removing the dams won't change that one bit.
Did you know that members of DU call themselves Evil-DU-ers? Even a stopped watch is right twice a day. (^:
Its alternative plan, labeled "aggressive nonbreach," calls for leaving the dams in place while taking significant steps to restore streams where salmon spawn, reform hatcheries to reduce harm to wild fish by hatchery-raised fish and increase fishing restrictions. The agency says breaching should again be considered if specific goals are not met by 2003, 2005 and 2008.
So they are going to take the power study over the fish study to help the fish? Spock they are not.
ROFL ! Well, I'll see yer dam ping and raise ya a dog-gone bump !
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.