Replies

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

The left's primary interest in breaching dams is to undo the capitalistic benefits that the dams represent to communities and states.

And to emphasize to the Americans most affected by the dams they have no control over their public or private property.

And also, that federal laws that have protected water management in this country since early in the last century can be flouted with impunity just because someone says it is "for the environment."