Sometimes we get so involved with legal and political
issues we forget to look at the facts on the ground.
This water debate sure seems to fit this profile. Here
are some real facts:
The dams on the Klamath River:
Store a lot of water.
Provide a lot of green power at low cost.
Allow flood control and management of water in general.
With fish ladders installed, would allow for fish runs
and habitat. So why would we blow these up?
The only advantage I can see
for this expensive procedure would be to enhance fish
runs, but in fact, if the money is spent on fish
ladders, we can have the fish anyway. Why not have it
all?
It seems to be that too much say is given over to Indian
tribes and not enough to the general public’s welfare.
Perhaps this is due to a lot of cash sloshing around
from casinos or perhaps it is due to legal maneuvers and
tactics, but the facts on the ground are for keeping the
dams, not blowing them up. Electric rates will zoom if
these dams are removed.
Take the money that would be used for demolition and for
building the next bunch of coal-burning power plants
(very un-green) and use it instead for fish ladders.
Also the money spent so far on lawyers’ fees and legal
hassles would have probably paid for the fish ladders.
Corrine Edwards
Klamath Falls