Skip to comments.
Dam breaching effects questioned
Lewiston MorningTribune and Associated Press ^
| Sept. 5, 2002
Posted on 09/05/2002 11:18:56 AM PDT by The Shadow Knows
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-37 next last
Let's not consider:
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.
To: The Shadow Knows
the dams provide just 5 percent of the power in the Pacific Northwest 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.
2
posted on
09/05/2002 11:30:50 AM PDT
by
07055
To: The Shadow Knows
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,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?
To: The Shadow Knows
The study was funded by the Pew Charitable Trust. That's all that needed to be said.
To: farmfriend; madfly; Ernest_at_the_Beach; snopercod; Grampa Dave
Pew is selling Snake-oil.
(I couldn't resist.)
To: SierraWasp
Just wanted to share some dam ignorance.
To: Carry_Okie; Free the USA; Libertarianize the GOP; Stand Watch Listen; freefly; expose; ...
here's a dam ping!
7
posted on
09/05/2002 1:13:09 PM PDT
by
madfly
To: Willie Green
Electricity Schmelectricity. Who needs it? The Greens were bemoaning the introduction of electricity (along with flush toilets) just last week. Looks like they plan to wean the US from it to save us from ourselves or something...
To: Black Agnes
We can always kill Keiko and keep our lamps lit using whale oil.
To: Willie Green
Heee. Leftists want us to go back to 'hunter gatherer' existences and eat cold uncooked vegetables or something. I think they should give up their trust fund accounts (give them to the needy doncha know) and get jobs!
To: The Shadow Knows
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. 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.
11
posted on
09/05/2002 1:46:33 PM PDT
by
r9etb
To: The Shadow Knows
Has Rand become intertwined with enviro nuts? This makes as much sense as blowing up the perfectly good stadium in Seattle and building a hugely expensive one next to it. Perhaps many actions in this world can be explained by the apparent fact that men just like to tear things down after they have built them up. Think towers of building blocks. :)Blowing things up wins extra points.
To: r9etb
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
Very funny.
To: r9etb
Well said. The tourists only come for the fishing, boating and sailboarding in the reservoirs behind the dams.
To: Libertina
I forgot to mention the lovely Palouse winds that grace each winter in the area....
15
posted on
09/05/2002 2:29:12 PM PDT
by
r9etb
To: r9etb
To tell you truthfully, I moved over from Seattle to Pullman for my first year of college. Although a shock at first, I fell in love with the area. Small towns. Hot shimmering air in the summer. Blue sky and bright sun shinging on snow in the winter. Fields of peas, wheat... Long dusty farm roads. I'm in love with rural America. (And the big cities aren't so bad, either!) Drop me anywhere, I'm flexible. :)
To: Libertina
I grew up in Central Washington, so I know what you're talking about. But I'd sure hate to live out there.
The area is not exactly what you'd call a tourist mecca, and removing the dams won't change that one bit.
17
posted on
09/05/2002 2:40:43 PM PDT
by
r9etb
To: madfly
If any Freeper sees an AP or other mainstream news article straight from the press release of a conservative think tank (thus, based on facts), we can throw a party! Rand and Pew, P.U.
Did you know that members of DU call themselves Evil-DU-ers? Even a stopped watch is right twice a day. (^:
To: Carry_Okie
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.
So they are going to take the power study over the fish study to help the fish? Spock they are not.
To: madfly; maxwell
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-37 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson