On Sun, 21 Feb 1999 denniskrockwell at juno.com wrote:

> > Dennis Rockwell 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?

please re-read my statement. and the following paragraph which was in
the original.

> > 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.

you assert but offer only generalities. if pumping an additional few
hundred feet will render the operations unprofitable i would not be
opposed to bailing out the corporations involved. but please do note that
the pumpers have a right to the water and do not have a right to any
reservoir level. their right to the water is not being taken.

>
> >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?

because you make wild assertions that some people who have no investigated
the issues might think made sense. i don't think that you are stupid and
never said so. i said that you made ideologically motivated false
statements.


> >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.

this is a classic red herring -- an example of nonsensical statements. i
did not say that the activities in southern idaho did not destroy habitat.
i merely responded to your claim that there was more habitat now than
there was in the past by pointing out that the new and improved habitat
that you were touting so loudly did not replace what had been destroyed.

perhaps you are unaware that moscow is located in northern idaho.

<snip>
>
> >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.

such utter nonsense.

> > 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.

it is the consensus of the scientists.

>
> >*** 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.
>
> >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.

much of the last two paragraphs are name-calling and scare tactics
that have little basis in reality. furthermore the recurrent tactic of
pitting idaho against washington really makes little sense: they are not
"your" dams, mr. rockwell, anymore than they are mine. as a us citizen i
have an equal share with you in them and in determining what we ought to
do with them.

i have no desire to sacrifice anyone's "standard of living." i think that
the record is fairly clear that the disruptions are minimal. you
disagree.

i must admit to wondering if mr. rockwell owns stock in a barging company.

dale goble
moscow
gobled at uidaho.edu