A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment
September 18, 2007
3. Watersheds
Guest Opinion: Behind the dams on the Klamath River -
MURREITA CREEK:
Opinion: Life up, or by, the creek - North
Guest Opinion: Behind the dams on the
By Jim Cook, chairman of the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors and Marcia Armstrong, member of the Board of Supervisors
There is a clamor on the
Unfortunately, this has become one of those issues in which reasoned discussion and scientific due diligence has given way to the power of important political interests, ideological stances and romanticized visions of run of the river results.
This debate has intensified, and is now coming to a head, as a result of a request by PacifiCorp for a new federal license to continue to operate its
Yet, there is a very important reason why PacifiCorp has made it absolutely clear that it will not bear any responsibility for taking out dams. They have no clear idea as to what is in the tons and tons of sludge and sediment that have been collecting at the bottom of these structures for more than 50 years or how to remove the material safely. Quite simply, they are scared stiff by the prospect of so much legal liability.
As a result, if the dams are to be removed, it will only be if some other entity is created to buy them and take them out. If the utility that owns them is so fearful that removal could potentially unleash an environmental disaster, it naturally makes those of us who live here very apprehensive. Given these legitimate concerns, which no definitive studies have yet to allay, it is particularly frustrating that so little focus and creative energy have been expended on looking at other options to help promote our fishery resource.
No community in Northern California has done more to lead in Coho recovery than
And certainly more must be done on the Klamath, including the installation of more fish ladders and ensuring that those upstream are prudent in their use of water for irrigation and agricultural purpose. There is much evidence to suggest that these, and other similar measures, would substantially improve Coho conditions without the fear of an environmental catastrophe that dam removal poses.
Moreover, scant attention has been paid to the other major environmental consideration -- in an era of global warming consciousness, substantial amounts of clean, cheap hydro power is being precipitously removed and potentially replaced by coal-fired power. This is hardly a plus for our planet or our ratepayers.
Finally, there needs to be some appreciation of the cumulative impacts of environmental regulations on communities such as
We understand that we are swimming against the current on this issue. Yet, we hope that this explanation of the perspective of those whose day-to-day life would be most affected promotes a more rigorous and thoughtful public discourse over the most prudent approach to returning the Klamath to health.
Jim Cook is chairman of the
http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/384431.html
MURREITA CREEK:
Opinion: Life up, or by, the creek
By Phil Strickland, Temecula resident and regular columnist for The Californian
Standing at the end of
We are not without ideas, even plans, regarding the stretch of weeds -- sorry, native flora -- that on rare occasion becomes a raging river.
Why, we even have an official
It likely will be completed in 2010. At least that was the plan in 2003, 10 years after the project was conceived and three years after the feds agreed to authorize $90 million for it.
At the time, Dusty Williams, general manager of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, was pretty darned excited.
"This has really gone really fast for a federal project," he said. "A normal federal project takes 18 to 20 years."
That was then, this is now.
As Williams recently said, getting approval for the funds doesn't mean anything. Only $11 million has been allocated thus far from the approved $90 million, but now the cost has grown to $117 million.
That's a 30 percent lightening of our pocketbooks.
In addition, the optimal completion date reportedly now is 2014.
Temecula Councilman Jeff Comerchero recently said the project likely won't be finished before 2025. You gotta love an optimist.
In the meantime, it has been suggested that Temecula create a riverwalk not unlike
Of course, those cities had a leg up: a river with water in it.
The plan here apparently would involve a dam or series of locks to create a river, along which we would stroll.
So we dam a dry creekbed, build a riverwalk and, lacking the completion of the flood-control project, wait for the next deluge to inundate everything -- again.
Though acknowledging the desirability of riverwalk, Councilwoman Maryann Edwards says her efforts will be to get the flood-control project completed. It too, she points out, would add to the ambiance of
Thing is, without the feds doing what they said they would do in regard to flood control, about all we should do in regard to a riverwalk is talk and plan.
Don't hold your breath. The feds are busy squandering money trying to rebuild
Frankly, the Murrieta Creek project -- one that likely would be far more successful at a fraction of the wasted dollars -- appears to have become just another "toss the great unwashed a piece of the cookie" project with us now in the "these things take time" phase.
We needn't wait until the flood work is complete to plan and even begin a riverwalk, but we must be certain of the dates for the disbursement of our promised flood-control money.
Guess that's just too much to ask.
In the meantime we're up the creek, or maybe sold down the river. #
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/09/18/opinion/strickland/23_24_339_17_07.txt
####
No comments:
Post a Comment