The truth about the dams

Ithaca 37

New member
Joined
Mar 4, 2001
Messages
5,427
Location
Home of the free, Land of the brave
This guy tells it like it is!

"On May 26, U.S. District Judge James A. Redden threw out the National Marine Fisheries Service's third attempt in the past decade to evade the Endangered Species Act and protect four dysfunctional pork-barrel dams on the lower Snake River at the expense of endangered salmon and steelhead.

NMFS claimed the Corps of Engineers' ill-designed fish-killing dams are part of the natural landscape and, therefore, exempt from the act. The court disagreed.

There was the usual immediate flurry of hand-wringing and rending of cloth by the apologists for extinction. They trotted out the usual prophecies of economic doom if the court were to order the dams be brought into compliance with the law. It's all nonsense, of course. It has been extensively documented that fixing or even eliminating the four lower Snake River dams would be an economic boon to the region, and particularly to Idaho. Details are available at www.nwric.org. The bottom line is simply this: The Corps of Engineers negligently failed to design the four lower Snake River dams to pass juvenile salmon and steelhead as Congress intended in authorizing their construction. Disaster happened.

For decades, every effort to reduce the carnage at the dams has been fiercely resisted by the Columbia River Pork Alliance. This is the regional clique of compromised bureaucrats, monopolists, crony capitalists, entrenched pork-barrel economic interests, and allied political demagogues who feed off the output of the federal dams and off each other. Bonneville Power Administration, which sells the energy produced by the federal dams, is the ringleader of the Pork Alliance and principal architect of the NMFS strategy to evade the Endangered Species Act.

This latest episode in federal court is part of a long-running betrayal of the public trust that now threatens extinction of wild salmon and steelhead produced in the vast pristine habitats of the Snake River Basin.

Once numbering in millions, these fish are a priceless, irreplaceable, evolutionary heritage tens of millions of years old. They are being sacrificed solely so Bonneville can wring more money out of the dams to pay its nuclear power-plant gambling debts, cover its losses from speculating on energy futures, and continue to bribe its political supporters with below-cost electricity.

The state of Idaho, of course, is the big loser. Idaho once led the effort to bring the four lower Snake River dams into compliance with the law.

Not any more. Idaho elected officials, notably Gov. Dirk Kempthorne and Sen. Larry Craig, are cheerleaders for the Pork Alliance. Idaho intervened in the recent court case in support of NMFS' losing position. It is not only the four lower Snake River dams that are dysfunctional. The federal courts are the only available antidote for failed public institutions and a vacuum of political leadership. It is time for the court to, in effect, take charge of the lower Snake River dams before it is too late to save the fish and too late to save Idaho from its current political leadership."

Ed Chaney, of Eagle, is president of Chinook Northwest Inc., a natural resource consultancy, and director of the Northwest Resource Information Center in Eagle.

http://www.idahostatesman.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050608/NEWS0503/506080304/1052/NEWS05
 
W. H.,

So you receive no personal benefit from the dams? The companies that have an invested interest and do receive a benefit, do they not employ "the people"? When "the people" elect politicians, do some of them actually know what that person stands for and why, or do most of them just sway back and forth based on which agenda promoter appeals to them the most on election day? Why did you vote for Bush if this is your top issue?
 
BHR- Politicians are supposed to work for the people's best interest. Not a select few who give them the highest donations! BTW, I didn't vote for Bush and this is one of the reasons.
 
The state of Idaho, of course, is the big loser. Idaho once led the effort to bring the four lower Snake River dams into compliance with the law.

That sure is the truth. The people in Idaho should really be pissed off about the Snake River dams causing salmon declines (and maybe eventual extinction) to the Snake and tributaries in their state.
 
Matty Quote:

"BTW, I didn't vote for Bush"

No shit? I'm shocked that a liberal guy like you would chose Kerry over Bush.

Matty, tell me how you voted in Montana's buy the dams initiative in the 2002 election.
 
BHR,

You dont know jack about the dams and why they were constructed to start with.

Study up lad, you'll be outraged.

Nearly every dam in the West was a subsidy given to select individuals/corporations. What started out as a New Deal in the 30's...turned into a complete fraud and rip-off to the American taxpayer by around 1950.

Every dam built after 1950 was a pork barrel project that was justified by shady deals with water cooperatives, welfare farmers, politicians...and the biggest crooks of all...the Corp of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation. It has nothing to do with power, flood control or irrigation. The whole system revolved around which senator could get "his" dam project passed...the way they did that was to back every dam request of every other senator.

Answer this question Paul...how much sense does it make for California to pump water over the Tehachapi Range...using pumps that require 6 billion kilowatt hours of electricity a year?

Thats the game the Corp and the Bureau of Reclamation, along with politicians, have been playing with water for the last 70-80 years. They justify building one (or more) dams to pay for more dams and more water. They sell the public on how the electricity will pay for the dams...they never do. They tell the public that the dams will control floods...they dont. They tell people the dams will pay for themselves...they dont.

A good many of the dams in operation today are not needed and are costing the tax-payer billions and in the end all those billions will have paid for subsidized cement waterfalls.

You dont get it.

As to what I get out of the dams...pennies on the dollar, no salmon to fish, and the largest welfare state ever created.
 
Buzz,

You don't get it. The dams are here. All your babble about how they got here is irrellevent. That's like me whinning about the wolf reintroduction.....to late, it's water under the bridge. It does indicate that you do have an obsessed hatered for dams however. You think dams are a bad subsidized program from the past but social security is good? Social Security is a way bigger welfare program then the dams.

Tell me something, do you believe the guy in the editorial is NON PARTISIAN? Tell me how you plan to replace the electrical generation provided by the Snake Dams you want to breach. Please provide detailed plan, not just hot air. Face it Buzz, 9 out of 10 average citizens if asked about dam breaching would not know anything about it, and once told would consider it a pipedream promoted by a few extreme kooks. Right or wrong that's how it is. Educate us uninformed people Buzz if you want to promote it. Bring some current data to the table. I bet you can't find any current data that's acurate, or you would have already posted it. Prove me wrong.
 
Paul,

What you dont seem to grasp is that dams ARE coming down all over the country.

Twenty years ago, there wasnt even TALK of ever taking dams out...today they're not only talking about it, we're flat getting it done.

You really have trouble getting around an insignificant amount of power produced by 4 dams. Have you ever bothered to learn just how much power those 4 Snake dams provide...and at what cost to the Taxpayer?

Since you like questions, if the dams are breached will the dams still be in place? Will they still generate power?

Are the remaining 138 dams on the Columbia System running with any sort of efficiency?

Do you think the technology on power production in the 138 dams has been updated since the dams were built in the 30's-40's-50's-60's?????

Oh, and Paul, you're flat wrong about S.S. being a larger welfare program than dams....study up, your ignorance is lauguable...
 
Oh, and Paul, you're flat wrong about S.S. being a larger welfare program than dams....study up, your ignorance is lauguable...

LMAO!!!!

That is rich....

The young file money in for the old (I see no problem with this) and there is ZERO return, any extra moneys that go into the SS system get funneled off to subsidize other debacles...

Dams while having their own associated costs still generate a return with a saleable product...

Come on now Buzz, you did the collage thing and I know for a fact econ 101 would have been part of your curriculum, so you either slept thru it or you bought your certification... ;)

I am by no means starting a pissing match, but even with the seething hatred and contempt you show for most things and issues, you can't possibly be saying this quote without a smirk on your face just to see if you can stir the pot.
 
Here's a good editorial: "Judge James Redden's recent opinion creates an opportunity for the region to launch a better course of action than the failed efforts of the past. It would seem that after three tries at the development of a biological opinion we should be in a better position than we are. In fact, not only has the long-term solution the region needs not emerged, salmon politics are now so deeply divided that reaching any negotiated conclusion may not be possible.

We have adequate, reliable science and good technology to implement the solutions to the problems facing the listed species. We do not have agreement on the mix of actions to be implemented. Why? Because the actions needed are not cheap, require water, and everyone needs to make major compromises. We need to arrive at an optimal solution that will achieve fish recovery while protecting key elements of our economy which must include the fishing-based economy. Any permanent solution must fairly represent all interests and meet the requirements of the law. Until that is achieved we will continue to keep the listed species at risk and will squander all the investments to date if we are not careful.

We need a better approach. A colleague of mine refers to the current situation as having evolved from delusion to denial to dithering without decisions. The famous "Four D" model. We were deluded by thinking that we could have it all, in denial about the real effects of developing the hydro system, presently dithering with minor tweaks of river operations and no decisions for large-scale tests like greater spill or pool drawdowns.

It is clear that nothing will change without strong and courageous leadership. Recovery is expensive and cannot occur until we get serious about this. Dithering has led to delay which has protected the status quo but has left the region still at risk of losing significant fish resources. The last thing we need is another biological opinion that comes to the same end as the previous three. It is time to get serious about finding a solution. Difficult decisions must be made and commitments to those decisions need to be honored, because much is at stake for the future of the region. We must continue to maintain a strong economy while recovery is managed and we cannot allow the high level of internal conflict to continue. Leaders of the region have not been strongly committed to making the hard choices, and falling back on spin and mythology to manipulate politics will continue to fail. We need hard-nosed common-sense solutions that are based on a high probability of success.

It is time for the governors, federal executives, tribal leaders, and salmon managers to convene a better process that assists negotiations among the many stakeholders that will provide acceptable alternatives for implementation. Cooperation and collaboration must become the rule rather than the exception it is now if we are to ever work through the complexity of this mess. The time is right for honest efforts because without it we will most likely be faced with no recovery. That would be a legacy of failure. We can and must do better."

Rod Sando is former director of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game and will retire soon as executive director of the Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Authority in Portland, Ore.
 
Elkcheese,

Do you want to retract your stupid assed statement now....or after I thrash you on the economics of dams?
 
I guess a thrashing is in order.

Shall we start on the 4 Snake River dams and add up some "economics"?

Why not.

Salmon recovery efforts alone, over the next ten years will cost 4.35 billion.

The estimated cost of just maintaining the locks on the 4 Snake dams and 4 Columbia dams will be 43 million a year.

How about this good deal the taxpayers received?

"Vol. VI No. 38 November 13th, 2001

A FISHY DEAL

The federal government dished out more than $500 million in credits to a federal agency for salmon recovery that was never done.

The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) markets federal government electricity in the Pacific Northwest. Under the Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Act, BPA is supposed to treat salmon on par with energy. In return, the government reimburses BPA with repayment credits for a share of lost money due to water used for salmon recovery efforts.

This year, however, BPA wants to use more than $500 million of its federal credits to repay over 80 percent of its annual treasury loan payment. The agency is also trying to borrow an extra $2 billion from federal taxpayers without clear definition of what the money would be for. The problem is that the agency did next to nothing to protect salmon this year.

BPA avoided salmon recovery efforts by declaring a financial emergency allowing them to use water to produce more power. A portion of that water is supposed to be spilled over the dams on the Columbia River system to help salmon migrate. As a result of the BPA spilling very little water this year, millions of juvenile salmon that are essential to replenishing salmon populations did not survive.

A congressional appropriations committee turned down the agency's request for increased borrowing authority and both houses of Congress passed the energy and water spending bill without that provision. The agency's request for the increase resulted from poor fiscal management and special deals to the aluminum industry.

BPA signed agreements to provide 11,500 megawatts of power despite only having the capacity to provide 8,500 megawatts. Instead of instituting an announced substantial rate increase and ending the sweetheart deals with aluminum companies, the agency chose a smaller increase and largely ignored the salmon.

To meet the promised energy deliveries, BPA had to buy power, at sky-high prices, back from the aluminum companies. The $2 billion that the agency tried to borrow is about the same amount as the profit aluminum companies made from reselling power to BPA.


The value of the credits which Bonneville Power Administration is receiving demands stricter scrutiny from Congress. The agency did little to help salmon, yet it received hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer-funded credits as a reimbursement for protecting salmon. BPA must follow the spirit and letter of the law and do much more to protect salmon in return for the credits they have received. Taxpayers should not be forced to bail out this fiscally irresponsible agency.

For more information, contact Keith Ashdown at (202)-546-8500 ext. 110 or [email protected]
 
How about the annual cost of the 11,000 miles of barging waterways...just a cool 786 million a year (1995 cost), all compliments of the taxpayers.

How about the subsidized power the BPA provides for around 15% less than market value to the aluminum industry...only a cool 200 million a year...and a net loss to tax payers to the tune of 935 million between 1986-1995. Of course thats not counting the exemption they receive for their 1 billion dollar share of the WPPSS debt...

How about the 26 billion that the Tennesee Valley Authority is still in debt to the taxpayers for? Or the 14 billion they've invested in nuclear power plants that havent produced a single mega-watt of electricity? What kind of simple interest would they be required to pay, just to stay even with a debt of that size? May as well add that into the cost as well...should we say 6% interest just for the sake of argument?

Speaking of moth-balled nuclear plants...the NW has about 6 billion invested in nuclear power plants as a result of the regions reliance (mainly aluminum industry) on cheap power provided by the NW dams...again, not a single mega-watt of power has been produced for the taxpayers cool 6 billion.

If you want to start talking about some real money...the above is really "chump" change...we can dive (pun intended) into the money and water issues involved with the San Joaquin Valley, the Colorado River projects, and the Arizona water projects. Those projects put the "pork" in pork barrell projects.

Should we also ask some questions about why we dammed and flooded eastern U.S. lands that receive enough rainfall to grow valuable crops...while we subsidize farmers in the West to grow alfalfa, corn, hay and other low-value crops (compliments of HEAVILY subsidized water from dams)? Is that being fiscally responsible?

Still think S.S. is a bigger welfare situation than dams?

I tend to disagree.

But, if tweedle dee (BHR) and tweedle dumb (elkcheese) want more "proof"...it aint a problem, theres several thousand more dam projects that we can investigate and continue to add up the costs to taxpayers.
 
Kenetrek Boots

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,603
Messages
2,026,465
Members
36,243
Latest member
asgmiami1
Back
Top