Another nail in the coffin
- Thread starter Calif. Hunter
- Start date
BigHornRam
Well-known member
MattK,
There were few "facts" in the TU website to look past. Lots of opinion however. I would be strongly in favor of eliminating all subsidies to farmers and ranchers. It is those subsidies that encourage the marginal ones to continue to hang on. The good farmers will benefit in the long term with better prices for their product. But if we are going to do this than we have to cut ALL subsidies across the board, and if we have to prioritize, cut the least important subsidies first. Where does cheap food come on your priority list?
There were few "facts" in the TU website to look past. Lots of opinion however. I would be strongly in favor of eliminating all subsidies to farmers and ranchers. It is those subsidies that encourage the marginal ones to continue to hang on. The good farmers will benefit in the long term with better prices for their product. But if we are going to do this than we have to cut ALL subsidies across the board, and if we have to prioritize, cut the least important subsidies first. Where does cheap food come on your priority list?
BuzzH
Well-known member
BHR and Ringer, choke on these facts:
Restoring the Lower Snake River
Saving Snake River Salmon and Saving Money
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS BY PHILIP S. LANSING, ANALYTICA
ADDITIONAL TEXT BY EVE VOGEL
Snake River salmon once swam in the millions, travelling up to 1,000 miles inland to remote Idaho, Washington, Oregon and Montana streams. Until the 1960s Snake River Chinook, sockeye, coho and steelhead provided a living resource that supported ancient cultures, a vibrant fishing industry and diverse inland ecosystems.
Today, we have almost lost this natural treasure. Snake River coho are extinct and returning Snake River sockeye can be counted on a few fingers. Snake River Chinook and steelhead are listed under the Endangered Species Act, and are only slightly further from the brink of extinction.
Restoring the Lower Snake River would save approximately $87 million each year.
The people of the Pacific Northwest and the United States care about salmon. We care enough that in the past 20 years we have spent, even by modest estimates, $1.7 billion trying to bring salmon back to healthy population levels - more than has ever been spent on any other endangered species. A 1997 poll from the Northwest's largest newspaper The Oregonian showed that salmon protection is the number one environmental concern in the state; 86 percent of Oregonians want to preserve salmon runs in the Columbia and Snake Rivers. In Washington, over 70 percent of people believe protecting wild salmon is important.
Up until now, the money we have spent has not worked to save Snake River salmon. We have paid to transport salmon for hundreds of miles in trucks or barges just to get them past dams. We have built million-dollar dam by-pass systems, and supported hatcheries just so a few young salmon will survive the gauntlet of dams. We have released water from upstream dams, foregoing some power production, to increase flows as salmon migrate through the dam-impounded reservoirs.
We have been poor stewards: our fish are still dying. It is time to stop treating the symptoms and address the root cause of their decline. Dams kill salmon. Fish die going through turbines, or become traumatized, disoriented and easy prey as they come out of dam by-pass systems, trucks and barges. Spilled over dams, young salmon smolts survive better, but when spills are managed poorly, the smolts may become afflicted with gas bubble disease, a salmon version of the bends.
Perhaps even more significantly, dams destroy rivers, and salmon need rivers. What used to be the Lower Snake River is now a series of slow-moving reservoirs. Young migrating salmon take weeks or months longer than before dam construction to find their way to the ocean. On their slow journey, they can find few places to feed in the drowned river reaches.
The dams that the Snake River salmon cannot survive are the four Lower Snake dams: Ice Harbor, Lower Monumental, Little Goose and Lower Granite. Before these dams were built, the Snake River salmon survived - albeit at reduced numbers - the hurdles of the Lower Columbia dams. Since the last of the four Lower Snake dams, Lower Granite, was built in 1975, every Snake River salmon species has been listed under the Endangered Species Act.
The four Lower Snake dams were built to provide hydroelectric power, river transportation to Lewiston, Idaho, and inexpensive irrigation. Today, they provide about 5 percent of the Pacific Northwest's electricity, allow shipment of about 3.5 million tons of grains each year, and reduce irrigation costs for thirteen large farms. These economic benefits are dwarfed by the money we have spent unsuccessfully to reduce the dams' impact on salmon.
We need to stop throwing money at failing efforts to help Snake River salmon survive the Lower Snake dams and reservoirs. We need to restore the Lower Snake River and restore the Snake River salmon.
Saving Snake River Salmon by Restoring the Snake River
Restoring a River
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before the dams were built, the Lower Snake River flowed freely, sustaining millions of salmon.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently the four dams create a series of long, slow reservoirs. Salmon die both in the reservoirs and at the dams.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
River restoration would require breaching the earthen portion of the dams and allowing the river to flow freely past the concrete structures.
Some of the largest areas of pristine salmon spawning and rearing habitat in the Northwest are in Idaho, on tributaries of the Snake River. If enough salmon can survive the trip down the Snake and Columbia Rivers and return to Idaho habitat as adults, populations can become sustainable. Scientists from the State and Tribal Fisheries Agencies' Analytical Team have predicted that if the Lower Snake River is restored, salmon populations can recover. They predict an 80 to 100 percent probability of returning spring and summer Chinook salmon populations to the levels of the 1960s within 24 years. Recovery to those levels would allow removal of these runs from the Endangered Species list, and prevent the need for expensive restoration efforts.
Until recently, it was politically unthinkable to consider removing or retiring large dams, no matter what their ecological or economic damage. Now the Army Corps of Engineers, the very agency that built and operates the Lower Snake dams, is seriously considering removing the earthen portions of the four dams to return the Lower Snake to a natural river and hence restore the salmon. Their findings are expected in an Environmental Impact Statement in 1999.
Economic Concerns and the Purpose of this Report
The proposal to restore the Lower Snake River has raised alarm in some quarters. Opponents argue that we cannot afford the economic losses that would result from losing the Lower Snake dams. The electric power, river transportation, and inexpensive irrigation they provide are seen as essential to the Northwest economy.
Given how much has already been spent to reduce the impact of the dams, it is reasonable to ask how much more it would now cost to retire the dams and restore the Snake River.
This paper addresses this question:
Would restoring the Lower Snake River to free-flowing conditions cost or save money?
This question is a bit more complex than simply adding up annual spending on keeping the dams in place and comparing it with the costs of restoring the river. What is required is a comparison of the actual net economic benefit provided by the dams at present with the net benefit that would result from river restoration.
In other words,
Which is greater: Net economic benefit of Lower Snake dams and reservoirs or net economic benefit of restored Lower Snake River?
Net economic benefit is a technical term meaning economic return to society after all costs are accounted. Net benefit is typically a positive amount, but it can be negative when hidden costs are included in the reckoning. For the Snake River dams, the benefit is negative.
Net economic benefit is very different from economic impact. An impact study might focus, for example, on the impact of a proposed course of action on a local community. There will be many different impacts in different areas if the Lower Snake River is restored, some positive and some negative. Our benefits analysis does not address local impacts. Instead, it takes a broader view and focuses on changes in overall economic wealth.
Comparing Net Economic Benefits:
Dams and Reservoirs vs. Restored River
The following table summarizes the costs and benefits provided by the Lower Snake dams and reservoirs, and by a restored Lower Snake River. This report details calculations of net benefits for both sides of this table. The results of this analysis are significant.
KEY FINDINGS: (Relevant report sections in parentheses)
The Lower Snake dams and reservoirs require the Bonneville Power Administration to spend $194.4 million every year on salmon restoration. (Section 1, p. 13, and Appendix for Section 1, pp. 26-29.)
Taxpayers and electric ratepayers subsidize electric power production, river transportation and irrigation from the Lower Snake dams and reservoirs. With all costs accounted, these three Lower Snake dam "benefits" actually produce a net benefit loss to the economy of $114 million every year. (Section 3, p. 25.)
Electric power from the Lower Snake dams is not competitive. It costs 2.44 cents per kilowatt-hour. If we restore the Lower Snake River and purchase power elsewhere, we could provide energy for 1.87 cents per kilowatt-hour. (Section 2, pp. 17-18 and Appendix for Section 2, p. 29.)
River transportation on the Lower Snake is expensive and heavily subsidized. Although river shippers pay only $1.23 per ton to go from Lewiston, Idaho to Kennewick, Washington, taxpayers and electric ratepayers pay an additional $12.66. The total cost to ship one ton of goods on the Lower Snake is $13.89. In comparison, rail costs only $1.26. (Section 2, p. 19-21 and Appendix for Section 2, pp. 30-32.)
Thirteen agribusinesses pump water from the Ice Harbor reservoir. Together, these farms earn a net $1.9 million per year. But taxpayers and electric ratepayers subsidize these farms with $11.2 million. If the farms paid their full costs, they would lose $9.3 million every year. It would be cheaper to buy these farms outright and end their production altogether. (Section 2, pp. 22-24 and Appendix for Section 2, pp. 32-34.)
Restoring the Lower Snake River
Saving Snake River Salmon and Saving Money
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS BY PHILIP S. LANSING, ANALYTICA
ADDITIONAL TEXT BY EVE VOGEL
Snake River salmon once swam in the millions, travelling up to 1,000 miles inland to remote Idaho, Washington, Oregon and Montana streams. Until the 1960s Snake River Chinook, sockeye, coho and steelhead provided a living resource that supported ancient cultures, a vibrant fishing industry and diverse inland ecosystems.
Today, we have almost lost this natural treasure. Snake River coho are extinct and returning Snake River sockeye can be counted on a few fingers. Snake River Chinook and steelhead are listed under the Endangered Species Act, and are only slightly further from the brink of extinction.
Restoring the Lower Snake River would save approximately $87 million each year.
The people of the Pacific Northwest and the United States care about salmon. We care enough that in the past 20 years we have spent, even by modest estimates, $1.7 billion trying to bring salmon back to healthy population levels - more than has ever been spent on any other endangered species. A 1997 poll from the Northwest's largest newspaper The Oregonian showed that salmon protection is the number one environmental concern in the state; 86 percent of Oregonians want to preserve salmon runs in the Columbia and Snake Rivers. In Washington, over 70 percent of people believe protecting wild salmon is important.
Up until now, the money we have spent has not worked to save Snake River salmon. We have paid to transport salmon for hundreds of miles in trucks or barges just to get them past dams. We have built million-dollar dam by-pass systems, and supported hatcheries just so a few young salmon will survive the gauntlet of dams. We have released water from upstream dams, foregoing some power production, to increase flows as salmon migrate through the dam-impounded reservoirs.
We have been poor stewards: our fish are still dying. It is time to stop treating the symptoms and address the root cause of their decline. Dams kill salmon. Fish die going through turbines, or become traumatized, disoriented and easy prey as they come out of dam by-pass systems, trucks and barges. Spilled over dams, young salmon smolts survive better, but when spills are managed poorly, the smolts may become afflicted with gas bubble disease, a salmon version of the bends.
Perhaps even more significantly, dams destroy rivers, and salmon need rivers. What used to be the Lower Snake River is now a series of slow-moving reservoirs. Young migrating salmon take weeks or months longer than before dam construction to find their way to the ocean. On their slow journey, they can find few places to feed in the drowned river reaches.
The dams that the Snake River salmon cannot survive are the four Lower Snake dams: Ice Harbor, Lower Monumental, Little Goose and Lower Granite. Before these dams were built, the Snake River salmon survived - albeit at reduced numbers - the hurdles of the Lower Columbia dams. Since the last of the four Lower Snake dams, Lower Granite, was built in 1975, every Snake River salmon species has been listed under the Endangered Species Act.
The four Lower Snake dams were built to provide hydroelectric power, river transportation to Lewiston, Idaho, and inexpensive irrigation. Today, they provide about 5 percent of the Pacific Northwest's electricity, allow shipment of about 3.5 million tons of grains each year, and reduce irrigation costs for thirteen large farms. These economic benefits are dwarfed by the money we have spent unsuccessfully to reduce the dams' impact on salmon.
We need to stop throwing money at failing efforts to help Snake River salmon survive the Lower Snake dams and reservoirs. We need to restore the Lower Snake River and restore the Snake River salmon.
Saving Snake River Salmon by Restoring the Snake River
Restoring a River
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before the dams were built, the Lower Snake River flowed freely, sustaining millions of salmon.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently the four dams create a series of long, slow reservoirs. Salmon die both in the reservoirs and at the dams.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
River restoration would require breaching the earthen portion of the dams and allowing the river to flow freely past the concrete structures.
Some of the largest areas of pristine salmon spawning and rearing habitat in the Northwest are in Idaho, on tributaries of the Snake River. If enough salmon can survive the trip down the Snake and Columbia Rivers and return to Idaho habitat as adults, populations can become sustainable. Scientists from the State and Tribal Fisheries Agencies' Analytical Team have predicted that if the Lower Snake River is restored, salmon populations can recover. They predict an 80 to 100 percent probability of returning spring and summer Chinook salmon populations to the levels of the 1960s within 24 years. Recovery to those levels would allow removal of these runs from the Endangered Species list, and prevent the need for expensive restoration efforts.
Until recently, it was politically unthinkable to consider removing or retiring large dams, no matter what their ecological or economic damage. Now the Army Corps of Engineers, the very agency that built and operates the Lower Snake dams, is seriously considering removing the earthen portions of the four dams to return the Lower Snake to a natural river and hence restore the salmon. Their findings are expected in an Environmental Impact Statement in 1999.
Economic Concerns and the Purpose of this Report
The proposal to restore the Lower Snake River has raised alarm in some quarters. Opponents argue that we cannot afford the economic losses that would result from losing the Lower Snake dams. The electric power, river transportation, and inexpensive irrigation they provide are seen as essential to the Northwest economy.
Given how much has already been spent to reduce the impact of the dams, it is reasonable to ask how much more it would now cost to retire the dams and restore the Snake River.
This paper addresses this question:
Would restoring the Lower Snake River to free-flowing conditions cost or save money?
This question is a bit more complex than simply adding up annual spending on keeping the dams in place and comparing it with the costs of restoring the river. What is required is a comparison of the actual net economic benefit provided by the dams at present with the net benefit that would result from river restoration.
In other words,
Which is greater: Net economic benefit of Lower Snake dams and reservoirs or net economic benefit of restored Lower Snake River?
Net economic benefit is a technical term meaning economic return to society after all costs are accounted. Net benefit is typically a positive amount, but it can be negative when hidden costs are included in the reckoning. For the Snake River dams, the benefit is negative.
Net economic benefit is very different from economic impact. An impact study might focus, for example, on the impact of a proposed course of action on a local community. There will be many different impacts in different areas if the Lower Snake River is restored, some positive and some negative. Our benefits analysis does not address local impacts. Instead, it takes a broader view and focuses on changes in overall economic wealth.
Comparing Net Economic Benefits:
Dams and Reservoirs vs. Restored River
The following table summarizes the costs and benefits provided by the Lower Snake dams and reservoirs, and by a restored Lower Snake River. This report details calculations of net benefits for both sides of this table. The results of this analysis are significant.
KEY FINDINGS: (Relevant report sections in parentheses)
The Lower Snake dams and reservoirs require the Bonneville Power Administration to spend $194.4 million every year on salmon restoration. (Section 1, p. 13, and Appendix for Section 1, pp. 26-29.)
Taxpayers and electric ratepayers subsidize electric power production, river transportation and irrigation from the Lower Snake dams and reservoirs. With all costs accounted, these three Lower Snake dam "benefits" actually produce a net benefit loss to the economy of $114 million every year. (Section 3, p. 25.)
Electric power from the Lower Snake dams is not competitive. It costs 2.44 cents per kilowatt-hour. If we restore the Lower Snake River and purchase power elsewhere, we could provide energy for 1.87 cents per kilowatt-hour. (Section 2, pp. 17-18 and Appendix for Section 2, p. 29.)
River transportation on the Lower Snake is expensive and heavily subsidized. Although river shippers pay only $1.23 per ton to go from Lewiston, Idaho to Kennewick, Washington, taxpayers and electric ratepayers pay an additional $12.66. The total cost to ship one ton of goods on the Lower Snake is $13.89. In comparison, rail costs only $1.26. (Section 2, p. 19-21 and Appendix for Section 2, pp. 30-32.)
Thirteen agribusinesses pump water from the Ice Harbor reservoir. Together, these farms earn a net $1.9 million per year. But taxpayers and electric ratepayers subsidize these farms with $11.2 million. If the farms paid their full costs, they would lose $9.3 million every year. It would be cheaper to buy these farms outright and end their production altogether. (Section 2, pp. 22-24 and Appendix for Section 2, pp. 32-34.)
BuzzH
Well-known member
And heres the economic breakdown:
ECONOMIC BENEFITS AND COSTS OF LOWER SNAKE DAMS AND RESERVOIRS
BENEFITS
Hydroelectric power generation
River transportation
Greater returns to farmers who use inexpensive irrigation water pumping
COSTS
Operations and maintenance
Salmon restoration spending
Support for river transportation and irrigation
ECONOMIC BENEFITS AND COSTS OF RESTORED LOWER SNAKE RIVER
BENEFITS
End expensive, failing salmon restoration
End dam operations and maintenance
End navigation and irrigation supports
Restored fishery
COSTS
Removing earthen dam, re-routing roads, etc.
Replace power
Replace transportation
Irrigator buyout or additional support
We make two major assumptions in calculating net benefits. First, we assume ALL power generation constraints adopted to restore Snake River salmon under the Endangered Species Act will be removed if salmon are restored and thus removed from Endangered Species Act protection. Second, we assume there are benefits from restored Snake River fisheries but their calculations are beyond the purview of this paper. The first assumption increases our calculated economic benefit with river restoration and the second assumption decreases it.
Restoring the
Lower Snake River
would save approximately $87 million each year.
Conclusion
Restoring the Lower Snake River would produce an economic benefit of $87 million each year. This includes the costs of replacing Snake River hydro-power, ending the barge transportation system, and buying out the thirteen farms that use Lower Snake water for irrigation.
Restoring the River:
Summary of Net Yearly Costs and Benefits
The following tables summarize the money lost to the economy because of the Lower Snake dams and reservoirs and the economic losses caused by a restored Lower Snake River. The difference is the savings that would result each year from retiring the four Lower Snake dams and restoring the Lower Snake River.
COSTS WITH DAMS:
Managing dams and reservoirs.
The Snake River dams and reservoirs require on-going operations and maintenance. They also cause damage to the Snake River salmon. Government agencies and society pay for this damage when we haul salmon, flush water for fish instead of electric power turbines and otherwise attempt to make the dams and reservoirs less lethal to fish.
Providing hydropower, river transportation and irrigation.
Transportation and irrigation as provided by the dam-reservoir system are heavily subsidized by taxpayers and electricity ratepayers. U.S. taxpayers subsidize production of crops that are irrigated by water pumped with subsidized electricity. Local taxpayers support the ports necessary for river transportation. Water consumed by irrigation and river transportation cannot be used to produce power; electricity ratepayers' costs are higher because of this foregone power.
In addition, grain shippers pay a fee to ship goods; this private cost is an additional cost of river transportation.
ANNUAL COSTS WITH DAMS:
$ (MILLIONS)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Managing dams and reservoirs
Operations and maintenance .................... $33.6
Salmon restoration spending ................... $194.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Providing hydropower, river
transportation and irrigation
Transportation costs .................................... $6.4
Irrigation costs ........................................... $1.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
WITH DAMS: ......................................... $236.2
COSTS WITH RESTORED RIVER
Restoring and managing a restored Lower Snake River.
Restoring the Lower Snake River would require physically removing the earthen portion of the dams and re-routing infrastructure like roads and bridges. Operations, maintenance and salmon restoration spending would be unnecessary in a natural river.
Providing electric power and river transportation.
We assume that if the Snake River is restored, hydroelectric power and river transportation may need to be replaced with other sources of power and shipping.
Loss of irrigation.
Although irrigation pump in-takes could be extended to natural river level to make irrigation possible even with the Lower Snake River restored, it is an expensive proposition and one whose full economic effects are unknown. We calculate benefit assuming that irrigated lands are purchased outright and their farm production is lost.
ANNUAL COSTS
WITH RESTORED RIVER :
$ (MILLIONS)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Restoring and Managing
restored Lower Snake River
Restoration .............................................. $25.6
Operations, maintenance and Snake River
salmon restoration ..................................... $0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Providing electric power and river transportation
Replacement power ................................ $115.6
Alternative transportation ............................ $4.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loss of irrigation
Purchasing lands ........................................ $2.0
Loss of net crop returns ............................... $1.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
WITH RESTORED RIVER: ............ $149.5
ECONOMIC BENEFITS AND COSTS OF LOWER SNAKE DAMS AND RESERVOIRS
BENEFITS
Hydroelectric power generation
River transportation
Greater returns to farmers who use inexpensive irrigation water pumping
COSTS
Operations and maintenance
Salmon restoration spending
Support for river transportation and irrigation
ECONOMIC BENEFITS AND COSTS OF RESTORED LOWER SNAKE RIVER
BENEFITS
End expensive, failing salmon restoration
End dam operations and maintenance
End navigation and irrigation supports
Restored fishery
COSTS
Removing earthen dam, re-routing roads, etc.
Replace power
Replace transportation
Irrigator buyout or additional support
We make two major assumptions in calculating net benefits. First, we assume ALL power generation constraints adopted to restore Snake River salmon under the Endangered Species Act will be removed if salmon are restored and thus removed from Endangered Species Act protection. Second, we assume there are benefits from restored Snake River fisheries but their calculations are beyond the purview of this paper. The first assumption increases our calculated economic benefit with river restoration and the second assumption decreases it.
Restoring the
Lower Snake River
would save approximately $87 million each year.
Conclusion
Restoring the Lower Snake River would produce an economic benefit of $87 million each year. This includes the costs of replacing Snake River hydro-power, ending the barge transportation system, and buying out the thirteen farms that use Lower Snake water for irrigation.
Restoring the River:
Summary of Net Yearly Costs and Benefits
The following tables summarize the money lost to the economy because of the Lower Snake dams and reservoirs and the economic losses caused by a restored Lower Snake River. The difference is the savings that would result each year from retiring the four Lower Snake dams and restoring the Lower Snake River.
COSTS WITH DAMS:
Managing dams and reservoirs.
The Snake River dams and reservoirs require on-going operations and maintenance. They also cause damage to the Snake River salmon. Government agencies and society pay for this damage when we haul salmon, flush water for fish instead of electric power turbines and otherwise attempt to make the dams and reservoirs less lethal to fish.
Providing hydropower, river transportation and irrigation.
Transportation and irrigation as provided by the dam-reservoir system are heavily subsidized by taxpayers and electricity ratepayers. U.S. taxpayers subsidize production of crops that are irrigated by water pumped with subsidized electricity. Local taxpayers support the ports necessary for river transportation. Water consumed by irrigation and river transportation cannot be used to produce power; electricity ratepayers' costs are higher because of this foregone power.
In addition, grain shippers pay a fee to ship goods; this private cost is an additional cost of river transportation.
ANNUAL COSTS WITH DAMS:
$ (MILLIONS)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Managing dams and reservoirs
Operations and maintenance .................... $33.6
Salmon restoration spending ................... $194.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Providing hydropower, river
transportation and irrigation
Transportation costs .................................... $6.4
Irrigation costs ........................................... $1.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
WITH DAMS: ......................................... $236.2
COSTS WITH RESTORED RIVER
Restoring and managing a restored Lower Snake River.
Restoring the Lower Snake River would require physically removing the earthen portion of the dams and re-routing infrastructure like roads and bridges. Operations, maintenance and salmon restoration spending would be unnecessary in a natural river.
Providing electric power and river transportation.
We assume that if the Snake River is restored, hydroelectric power and river transportation may need to be replaced with other sources of power and shipping.
Loss of irrigation.
Although irrigation pump in-takes could be extended to natural river level to make irrigation possible even with the Lower Snake River restored, it is an expensive proposition and one whose full economic effects are unknown. We calculate benefit assuming that irrigated lands are purchased outright and their farm production is lost.
ANNUAL COSTS
WITH RESTORED RIVER :
$ (MILLIONS)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Restoring and Managing
restored Lower Snake River
Restoration .............................................. $25.6
Operations, maintenance and Snake River
salmon restoration ..................................... $0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Providing electric power and river transportation
Replacement power ................................ $115.6
Alternative transportation ............................ $4.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loss of irrigation
Purchasing lands ........................................ $2.0
Loss of net crop returns ............................... $1.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
WITH RESTORED RIVER: ............ $149.5
BuzzH
Well-known member
BHR, we dont have to give up electricity...theres many studies that have shown that simply increasing effeciency a tiny amount on the 130+ dams that would still be in the Columbia River Basin would not only compensate for the 5% loss, but also ADD electricity to what we have NOW. You could run every light in your house all day long and still have steelhead and salmon.
As to the corporate farms, I personally dont rank 13 farms and their "profit margin" ahead of anadromous fish and the economics created by sport/commercial fishing. Also, there are many, many, many ways to compensate them...as the above article points out.
You're arguing about pure BS and emotion, looking out for the most highly subsidized grain transport system, inefficient dam operations, and 13 corporate farms.
Bottom line is, if you take out the Snake River dams, EVERYTHING you listed would be compensated for...and you'd save tax dollars....Why you arent on board is an absolute freaking mystery.
Apparently logic, fiscal responsibility, and having anadromous fish is beyond your ability to comprehend. Arguing with you is pointless as you cant see nor accept the truth in this matter.
Go buy your farm-raised salmon fillet and shut your pie-hole.
As to the corporate farms, I personally dont rank 13 farms and their "profit margin" ahead of anadromous fish and the economics created by sport/commercial fishing. Also, there are many, many, many ways to compensate them...as the above article points out.
You're arguing about pure BS and emotion, looking out for the most highly subsidized grain transport system, inefficient dam operations, and 13 corporate farms.
Bottom line is, if you take out the Snake River dams, EVERYTHING you listed would be compensated for...and you'd save tax dollars....Why you arent on board is an absolute freaking mystery.
Apparently logic, fiscal responsibility, and having anadromous fish is beyond your ability to comprehend. Arguing with you is pointless as you cant see nor accept the truth in this matter.
Go buy your farm-raised salmon fillet and shut your pie-hole.
Ithaca 37
New member
Has anyone noticed that BHR and ringer merely give us their uninformed opinions and we keep smothering them with well documented studies and facts on every issue?
So the paper was written in 1998? You guys have written how many posts abusing those with differing opinions? Lot of expended energy so the dam breaching must be very close to reality. Oh, and I guess those salmon I been catching on the Oregon coast every fall with clipped fins are all farm raised? Let me know when the breaching is scheduled so I can fly up to see it. I probably couldn't get a road that would get me close enough. Might need to bring my ATV.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Ringer,
The dam breaching is close to reality, stay tuned....
As to those fin-clipped mutants reared in cement ponds and fed sheep guts pressed into pellets that you've been catching...you can have them. I'd much rather catch wild fish myself...for reasons beyond what your simple mind could ever begin to comprehend.
This is the exact reason posting research is wasted on you, you're a clueless, old, broke down has-been...afraid of reality and afraid of the truth. While you're busy sitting on your ass and dying, others are out making a difference in issues like this. I find it pretty funny that people in their 50's are the most ignorant age group of individuals I've ever met. They dont stay up to speed on current events, yet think they know everything, bitch about getting old, wish they would have done this or that, and are mostly miserable bastards. You cant tell them anything, explain anything to them, or hit them over the head with enough facts to get them to see reality. You're a case study. Of course there are exceptions, and when I find that rare exception, they are usually a good source of information.
Go jump on the ATV, find a nice steep cliff, grab Thelma or Louis, and get on with it...
You're wasting my time.
The dam breaching is close to reality, stay tuned....
As to those fin-clipped mutants reared in cement ponds and fed sheep guts pressed into pellets that you've been catching...you can have them. I'd much rather catch wild fish myself...for reasons beyond what your simple mind could ever begin to comprehend.
This is the exact reason posting research is wasted on you, you're a clueless, old, broke down has-been...afraid of reality and afraid of the truth. While you're busy sitting on your ass and dying, others are out making a difference in issues like this. I find it pretty funny that people in their 50's are the most ignorant age group of individuals I've ever met. They dont stay up to speed on current events, yet think they know everything, bitch about getting old, wish they would have done this or that, and are mostly miserable bastards. You cant tell them anything, explain anything to them, or hit them over the head with enough facts to get them to see reality. You're a case study. Of course there are exceptions, and when I find that rare exception, they are usually a good source of information.
Go jump on the ATV, find a nice steep cliff, grab Thelma or Louis, and get on with it...
You're wasting my time.
Why thank you Buzz. We never met but I bet your father, if you know who he is, would be proud of the way you turned out. If we ever meet you got some splainin' to do, Lucy. You and the boys may be the youngest and brightest but you are not the most polite. LMAO. I am gonna finish the last of this twelve pack and off to bed. Get to work at 4am every day.
Ithaca 37
New member
Hey Buzz, I just turned 57! 
BuzzH
Well-known member
Ithaca,
Did you read this part?
"Of course there are exceptions, and when I find that rare exception, they are usually a good source of information."
Did you read this part?
"Of course there are exceptions, and when I find that rare exception, they are usually a good source of information."
Ithaca 37
New member
Sure, but I couldn't help kidding you. 
JoseCuervo
New member
BigHornRam said:
Paul,
We have been thru this before..... Idaho Power has a Green Option, that allows customers to voluntarily pay more for power that come from re-newable sources. I am sorry you can't remember shit that you are told. :BLEEP:
Now answer why you don't want Wild Salmon and Steelhead runs in Idaho?
And you never did answer why you chose to spend your $$$$$ on a vacation in Idaho on a Wild and Scenic free flowing river, instead of sitting in some backwater of a dam on the lower snake. Did you somehow think the value of a free flowing river, like the Middle Fork of the Salmon is more enjoyable than sitting in slackwater next to a fish killing dam?
Ringer- I believe there is a picture of Buzz, His Dad and Brother with some white-tail that were taken this year. I'm sure his dad is pretty proud of him and would probably agree with the above statements. I'll ask him tomorrow about the statements. Oh, he's very proud of the fact his two sons are able and willing to hunt and fish with him. He takes a lot of pride in that. As for the dams, he hopes to see the wild salmon runs and to fish with his two sons and grandson. He thinks it would be a great legacy for future generations, dams aren't a legacy.
Matt-I saw the photos and was just having a little fun with the Buzzard. If it is truly not a major sacrifice for humans I would love to see a big return of wild fish. More fun to catch. If the program is to convince judges to do something that will be tilting at windmills and ends up hurting a bunch of people then I am against it. I still don't understand how the returns will substantially improve due to the lower dams unless the barging and chutes at Bonneville are working better than the studies indicate. Are wild fish in substantial numbers below the Snake dams? If not then is the agenda to get the small battle won then push to breach them all?
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Buzz,
Your "data" is full of holes. Here's one example:
"Electric power from the Lower Snake dams is not competitive. It costs 2.44 cents per kilowatt-hour. If we restore the Lower Snake River and purchase power elsewhere, we could provide energy for 1.87 cents per kilowatt-hour. (Section 2, pp. 17-18 and Appendix for Section 2, p. 29.) "
Use bad information like this and it's easy to make your case. How about some REAL numbers. Show me all the Appendicies they refer to in your literature. How about some more current literature? And with the ways to improve the efficencey of the remaining dams. Why aren't they doing this now if it's cost effective? What about future growth in electrical consumption? Our population continues to grow, does it not? What forms of electrical production to offset the lost electrical production of the dams would you be in favor of if we breach the dams? Coal fired, nuclear, natural gas? Don't those have other negative enviromental costs as well?
If you want dam breaching to move forward, you are going to have to have realistic solutions to all these questions, along with realist dollar figures for what it will cost to actually acomplish this.
Your "data" is full of holes. Here's one example:
"Electric power from the Lower Snake dams is not competitive. It costs 2.44 cents per kilowatt-hour. If we restore the Lower Snake River and purchase power elsewhere, we could provide energy for 1.87 cents per kilowatt-hour. (Section 2, pp. 17-18 and Appendix for Section 2, p. 29.) "
Use bad information like this and it's easy to make your case. How about some REAL numbers. Show me all the Appendicies they refer to in your literature. How about some more current literature? And with the ways to improve the efficencey of the remaining dams. Why aren't they doing this now if it's cost effective? What about future growth in electrical consumption? Our population continues to grow, does it not? What forms of electrical production to offset the lost electrical production of the dams would you be in favor of if we breach the dams? Coal fired, nuclear, natural gas? Don't those have other negative enviromental costs as well?
If you want dam breaching to move forward, you are going to have to have realistic solutions to all these questions, along with realist dollar figures for what it will cost to actually acomplish this.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
MattK,
I'm guessing in Buzz's case the apple didn't fall very far from the tree. You sound like you came from the same tree as well.
I'm guessing in Buzz's case the apple didn't fall very far from the tree. You sound like you came from the same tree as well.
MarvB
Well-known member
Not to tiptoe into the frey here but only to ask a question....where/what is the source of the 18mil power? When I'm seeing 3-4 year MidColumbia strips trading between $45-50/Mw on the market and know that I've just inked a 10year deal for around $40 at the Oregon border (and that doesn't get the energy to my system without fees and transmission losses) how would Idaho be able to purchase such under-valued market energy? BPA isn't going to just cut them a deal to be good neighbors and trying to purchase long term firm energy isn't easy in the post-dereg era.
...again post starting a pissing match, I'd just like to get on board myself at those prices T-Bone, you wan't some of this too??
...again post starting a pissing match, I'd just like to get on board myself at those prices
T-Bone, you wan't some of this too??Similar threads
