These are the same issues that concern those of us in the Mississippi
watershed. There are forces here who want to deepen the shipping channel
also. Eventually all you have is a channel and dreg.




At 01:54 PM 2/18/96 -0800, you wrote:
>
>Jon. Anderson wrote:
>
>> And shouldn't the other uses of the river be considered in discussions of
>such a >major plan?
>
>The recurring need to dredge the channel of the Columbia River is the main
>reason why we are unable to forget past practices that contributed a variety
>of poisons to the sediments. Not to say that some poisons aren't still
>being added, but the dredging stirs up heavy metals, PCBs, DDE, and who
>knows what all where it can be resorbed into the food web to harm the health
>of many animals such as (at the very least) river otters, mink, osprey, and
>bald eagles. New, cleaner sediments often seal off the old and make the
>contaminants less available. In the Columbia, we keep stirring it up and
>allowing the bad stuff to resurface. Discussions of channel deepening
>definitely need to include solutions to this long-term problem.
>
>Kelly McAllister
>alleyes at tssnet1.tss.net
>
>
jerry pruett "In the field of observation,
rochester, mn chance favors only the mind
which is prepared." L.P.