Dale,

On Sun, 21 Feb 1999 08:13:03 -0800 (PST) you wrote:

>dennis rockwell posted some of the nonsense that is becoming
increasingly common on the question of >breaching the four lower snake
river dams to facilitate the recovery of the upper basin salmon runs.
although he
>was (understandably) more than a little vague

Vague? How so? and why understandably?

> he made two assertions:
>1. removing the dams would destroy irrigated agriculture on the
columbia plateau and the whole region >would dry up and blow away. the
problem with his argument is that it has no basis in reality: the four
lower snake >river dams are not designed to produce irrigation and there
are no irrigation diversions from the dams.

So, tell me, what are those irrigation pumps with their suction pipes in
Snake behind Ice Harbor dam and their discharge pipes running up the
slopes to the ochards and grain fields on the land above? I've seen them
with my own eyes and touched them with my own hands. Are you telling me
that I'm hallucinating them?

> the columbia basin project which irrigates the area around othello
draws its water from grand coulee dam. any >impact on irrigation thus
would result from a lowering of the level of the water in what are now a
series of >slackwater reservoirs. this might increase the height of
pumping requirements.

Thus making them economically unfeasible. Every foot you have to raise
that water costs more. You make my point for me.


>2. the amount of habitat present in the basin is greater now than
in the past because of the habitat >management areas that the corps has
constructed to compensate for the habitat that was destroyed when the
>dams flooded the existing riparian habitat. two points to note:
> a. the amount of habitat remains constant since all land
is habitat for something.

Well gee, no shit, but if you really thought I was that stupid, why are
you even bothering to respond?

>the primary change in the columbia plateau has been a change from
sagebrush/bunchgrass steppe habitat to >monoculture agriculture habitat.
the result is that the previous steppe species sharp-tailed grouse, sage
>thrashers, sage sparrows, pymny rabbits, etc. --

Unlike Idaho which somehow managed to plow up its shrub-steppe, put it
into agriculture and left all the native species you mention unaffected.
:-) This whole arguement is so hypocritical - you want to tear down
some dams that affect salmon runs in Idaho, then start by tearing down
the dams on the Snake and it's tributaries in Idaho that have no fish
ladders. If that doesn't help, then come see us about the dams in
Washington. We'll talk.

>have been replaced with other species -- starlings and house sparrows,

What's plow is plowed, which is why I and many of my neighbors are
working so hard to preserve the Hanford Reach and the FEALE Reserve, but
criminy, Dale, didn't you even read the species list I included with that
posting you're so hot about?


> b. there was a lot of riparian habitat in the region
prior to its inundation behind the dams. the >creation of reservoirs
drowned a flood plain that was far richer than the current, rather
sterile reservoirs might lead >the unobservant to believe. thus it is
far from clear that we now have more riparian-type habitat than existed
prior
>to the construction of the four lower snake river dams.


I guess you would have had to have seen it both before and after as I
have. Before the dams, much of the Snake between Pasco and Lewiston
looked as it does now (excluding the riparian habitat which the Corps has
created), like a canal with stone walls.


>the debate on breaching the dams is not aided by vituperative rhetoric
such as calling those favoring removal >salmon worshippers anymore than
it is advanced by calling those opposed to removal greedheads.

Greedheads. Yep. That's us all right. God damn us all to hell for
trying to feed, clothe and shelter our families when what we should
really do is just die and get out of the way so that the really smart
people who know what's best for everybody can run things their way.

> the recent anti-dam rallies have replaced facts with fear. Mr.
Rockwell sadly contributes to the degradation of >discussion with his
hyperbolic nonsense.

Golly. I must have forgotten to put the little smilely face - :-) -
behind my salmon worshipper joke. Still, it a pity that some people have
themselves wound up so tight over this issue that they can't recognize
humor when they read it without having to have it explained to them.

>the issues are subject to reasonable disagreement:

Yea, I get it now, you're reasonable and I'm full of hyperbolic nonsense.


>*** without a removal of the dams, the probability of restoring
the upper basin salmon runs is essentially nil.

That's one opinion.


>*** removing the dams will result in a loss of approximately 5%
of the region's hydroelectric capacity
>*** removing the dams will result in the loss of slackwater
shipping from the ports between lewiston and >wallula which will mean
increased transportation costs for shipper currently served by those
ports as well as >increased air pollution from the transportation that
replaces barges.


Increased shipping costs?! Increased pollution?! Your understatement
here is so incredible that I am reduced to citing facts to explain it's
enormity. The volume of grain or fuel that is moved in four barges which
make up the standard river tow powered by one(1) river tug would require
one hundred and forty(140) 100 ton jumbo hopper railroad cars (1.4 unit
trains) or five hundred thirty eight(538) 26 ton semi trucks to replace
it. The rail lines do not currently exist that could handle even a
faction of that volume. And as for roads, our present roads can barely
handle their current traffic. I say you should try this experiment
around Twin Falls first. If the folks there like the impact it has on
them, then I bet they can convince us it's a good idea.


>there are real costs and real benefits. unfortunately, many of the
people who benefit most directly from the current >subsidies that the
dams represent have been unwilling to base their arguments on the loss of
those benefits and >have instead turned to fear.

I'll say it for you. Darned straight my neighbors and I are afraid.
Afraid that a bunch of out of touch unban dwellers and eco-elitists would
happily sacrifice our standards of living and ways of life so that they
can have the warm marshmellow experience of breaching these dams and
pretending to themselves that they've done something significant for the
"enviroment". Are you saying that we here in southeast Washington have
somehow experienced a greater share of the largese of government
furnished subsidies and benefits than any other parts of the West? The
West would have never be settled in the first place without all kinds of
government subsidies, so I hope you're not trying to make people believe
that Idaho hasn't milked that cow too.

One last thing. As long as commercial and sport fishing for salmon
continues, I think you're going to have an awfully hard time convincing
the people around here to get on the dam breaching wagon. I think Ill go
birding instead.


Dennis K Rockwell
Kennewick, Washington
denniskrockwell at juno.com

"Cynicism is what passes for insight among the mediocre." Joe Klein

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]