Become a friend of

   the Klamath Bucket  

            Brigade

   Send Donations Here

     All donations are tax  

             deductible

 

 

 This Website is Dedicated to

 Alvin Alexander Cheyne

January 10, 1921 - June 17, 2005

 

GovTrack.us is an independent tool to help the public research and track the activities in the U.S. Congress, promoting government transparency and civic education through novel uses of technology.

 

 

 

 

      

 

Paying for folly

Albany Democrat Herald Editorial

February 12, 2009

The legislature no doubt will approve a bill, SB 76, authorizing Pacific Power to collect a monthly surcharge of $1.50 from each customer toward the $180 million cost of eventually tearing down four hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River. Not that it will do any good, but here’s a better idea: Amend the bill to charge the dam-removal fee only to those customers that want the dams removed.

At a time when we’re not supposed to burn anything to generate power, and when wind and solar and all the other alternatives don’t come close to meeting the demand, it is just plain stupid to tear down hydro dams in the hope that fish runs will once again thrive. (They won’t because of many other factors, mainly the growing population of the Northwest.)

It’s true that the federal relicensing of the dams would cost even more, but only because of various requirements. Making relicensing so onerous is just as bad a policy as taking the dams out.

In either case, struggling consumers in Oregon should not have to pay for something that dumb. (hh)

   DH Reader Comments
 

orguy wrote on Feb 12, 2009 2:37 PM:

" How about carrying this line of thinking to the national level? What a nifty little precedent that would set. Hasso's idea would create millions of number cruncher jobs. They would figure out how much tax money goes for each specific, and then we would pay based on whether or not we support the cause. Just think, in order to make it work, a new department of government could be created, also adding a million or so new jobs. It could be called the Division of Divsions. They could invent survey forms, mail them, document the results and figure the amount of taxes owed based on people's preferences. Don't you really appreciate guys who say they stand for small government and efficiency, and then in going about trying to save a buck and a half, they cost us billions. The Republican thinking and action on that Klamath water issue has already cost taxpayers 230 mil for fish related issues.......Keep it up.......you'll hit another billion in nothing flat. "

 

Illusions wrote on Feb 12, 2009 2:41 PM:

" Hasso, I feel your pain. However, the is a body of evidence that shows that dam removal does improve fish passage, fish survival, procreation etc. It has been demonstrated on North Eastern Rivers. Unfortunately I am doing this on my stupid blackberry so I can't provide you with the links, but you can find them.

I am still of a mind that improving fish returns is a good investment. I'm sure you have seen and written about the economic disaster the coastal towns have suffered. We can reverse that, in part, by removing the dams. "

 

Barefoot wrote on Feb 12, 2009 5:13 PM:

" >Amend the bill to charge the dam-removal fee only to those customers that want
> the dams removed.

You really want to open that door, Hasso?

I don't like the job that schools are doing- I don't want to pay taxes for that. I got caught in a traffic jam last week, I don't want to pay taxes for that. I will never go over that bridge in Portland, I don't want to pay for that. I will never get pregnant, I do not want to pay for any health care for pregnant women. A police officer gave me the evil eye, I wasn't hardly speeding just a little, he almost stopped me. I don't want to pay taxes for that.

I think you have a brilliant idea, Hasso, anything we don't like, we don't have to pay.

I am thinking when your paper misspells something in a headline, it should be free that day.

Okay? "

 

gregking wrote on Feb 12, 2009 8:59 PM:

" The writer is understandably disturbed that a major energy company would foist onto rate payers the cost of removing dams on the Klamath River. However, this is the way the law is set up, so if one wants dam removal then the rate payers will need to cover the cost.

The writer does not want dam removal and seems to equate dams with clean energy. However, PacifiCorp's Klamath River dams are anything but clean. They grow toxic algae at levels 4,000 times higher than what the World Health Organization considers a "moderate" health risk. The algae impacts salmon all the way to the mouth of the river.

The dams block 350 miles of critical salmon spawning habitat when at current count endangered Coho salmon are running at 2 percent of historic numbers. The dams produce only about 1 percent of PacifiCorp's total power generation.

Would most Oregon rate payers be willing to contribute $1.50 per month to prevent extinction of salmon? I think so -- it's about half the cost of one latte. Also, wind and solar can and should make up for the lost power. Studies show that this is this possible, and in fact there is a provision in the deal with PacifiCorp to make this happen.

I don't understand why it is "just plain stupid to tear down hydro dams in the hope that fish runs will once again thrive." It sounds like a smart thing to me, starting with the hundreds of millions of dollars that sport and commercial salmon fishing, dependent on the Klamath run, brings into the region every year. Stupid is sitting on the shore watching the fish die and doing nothing about it. And yes, Oregon rate payers would also have to pay for fish ladders, and dam removal is cheaper. Ladders are usually ineffective. So rate payers could fork out $3 per month for something that doesn't work. How stupid is that?

Dam removal is smart, relatively cheap, and most of all, it's the right thing to do.

Greg King
Klamath Campaign Coordinator
Northcoast Environmental Center
Arcata, California "

 

orguy wrote on Feb 13, 2009 9:32 AM:

" Thanks, Greg. "

 

Barefoot wrote on Feb 13, 2009 10:43 AM:

" hey, Orguy... stop stealing my chops! "

 

orguy wrote on Feb 13, 2009 11:40 AM:

" Can't we share the same sledgehammer? "

 

scpwrx wrote on Feb 13, 2009 12:06 PM:

" We already pay a surcharge on our power bills for poor people, and now you want another surcharge to pay to remove the dam? How about you find a way to control the algae? "
 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material  herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have
expressed  a  prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit
research and  educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml