[iltos]

almost fourty years ago, four dams were built on the lower snake river...they generate electricity, provide inland ports for eastern washington, and have tamed a rugged stretch of river

for several years, concerned about the drop in salmon runs, environmentalists have been calling for their removal

easy to peg this as another environmental wacko solution...
except that local residents are seriously looking at the alternatives.

On the Snake River, Dam’s Natural Allies Seem to Have a Change of Heart
By FELICITY BARRINGER
Published: May 13, 2007

The wheat Bryan Jones grows in Eastern Washington begins its journey to Asia on barges along the lower Snake River. The river, once a wild, muscular torrent, was made barge friendly a quarter-century ago by four of the nation’s most controversial hydropower dams.

A tame river keeps Mr. Jones’s business viable. So why is he is spending time with the guides and fishermen who want to remove the dams?

“I always believed dams were economically too big of a hurdle to attack,” said Mr. Jones, who is 52. “But I began to realize that we are potentially losing runs of salmon” along this tributary of the Columbia River.

the area's economic viability is not just dependant on farming, and this is the growing realization.....what can be argued as just another case of whining about environmental degradation is shaping up to be a controversial arguement about local control of significant economic issues.

lewiston is one of the inland ports the damns created....and one city councilmen there finds himself wondering if bryan jones isn't right

“When they created these dams in the 60s and 70s they said we’d have a lot of economic development,” a promise that never materialized, said Mr. Klauss, who is 47. Now the sediment trapped behind the Lower Granite dam requires constant dredging just to make a small passage for boats and the levees may need to rise higher to keep the city safe in storms.

the rest of the city council still supports the damns, as does congress

Congressional ties to the Bonneville Power Administration, which provides electricity from the dams to regional utilities and businesses, are many, and few politicians want to back an action that could raise electricity bills and cost jobs.

in '05, a federal judge ruled in favor an EPA challenge to the damn's operations. the feds appealed, stating

that the Columbia River dams could not be removed because they were an immutable part of the landscape, having been built before the Endangered Species Act went into effect. It suggested habitat restoration would save the fish population.

which i take to mean that the damns are so old that they should now be considered as a part of the natural habitat....this in spite of that fact that, with the one exception of a record run in '01, salmon populations have seen a steady, and recently increasing, decline in the area.

the premise that fourty year old structures, built by man, have earned a place as part of the natural habitat, is astounding, imo, in its attitude towards the environment....many folks will argue that it's simply a result of this administrations arrogance, foolishness.....what have you.....personally, i think it runs deeper than that -tho in this case, it certainly adds significantly to the arguement that the safeguards of the EPA has been undermined by this administration

last month, an appeals court upheld the 2005 ruling

Under the federal government’s theory, the appeals court held, “a listed species could be gradually destroyed, so long as each step on the path to destruction is sufficiently modest. This type of slow slide into oblivion is one of the very ills the Endangered Species Act seeks to prevent.”

NOAA is due to publish a report later this year, a "biological opinion" describing a fish protection plan...the federal judge has warned

....that if it fails to meet his viability test, he may have to take drastic action — presumably, taking the running of the Columbia River hydropower system into his own hands, as another federal judge, W. Arthur Garrity, did in the 1970s with Boston’s schools after the local community could not find a way to desegregate.

i don't know what that "viability test" is, but everyone in this has something to consider.

a/ the bonneville power administration is concerned that loss of electricity production will damage the region's growth....tho apparently, the damns only provide about 5% of the grids output.....5% !!! ....stephen wright, the BPA's administrator, believes that loss would “magnify substantially” the current challenge of feeding the region’s growing hunger for power without raising costs......but a wind power solution, providing enough power to electify manhattan, is coming under consideration as a replacement.

(why is it that a 3% human contribution to global warming is peanuts, but a 5% contribution to the electrical grid will magnify stuff? )

b/ the national fisheries service institute "argues that dam removal alone would not be a quick fix to what ails the fish. Given the impact of factors including agricultural runoff, culverts, cyclical changes in ocean temperature and the amount and location of ocean-borne food available to salmon, 'We would say the solution is a comprehensive plan that addresses the life-cycle of fish, gravel to gravel.' ”.....this strikes me as the "more studies" approach ....you'd think it they truely knew what the problem was, they'd already HAVE a comprehensive solution....i mean, salmon run declines are not new....what have they been doing all these years?

it is this debate, prompted by the courts, with lots of feds having differing opinions about what is best for the folks, and the fish (izme!!) in eastern washington, that is prompting the locals to take an interest.

As former Gov. John A. Kitzhaber of Oregon said in an interview, “by not talking to each other, not trying to figure out the real economic issues, we’re setting up a situation where someone else is going to figure out our future for us.”

[BanditFlyer]

Sorry, I haven't read the article, and this post is a bit off topic, but, can't we do both? Can't they use fish-ladders to let the fish move up and downstream freely?

[iltos]

Originally Posted by BanditFlyer

Sorry, I haven't read the article, and this post is a bit off topic, but, can't we do both? Can't they use fish-ladders to let the fish move up and downstream freely?

not off topic at all....and i don't know the details, bandit....i lifted the quotes from a nytimes article this morning, interested mostly in the community rethinking this whole issue has stirred..i love it when sides that traditionally feel they have little in common suddenly find themselves on the same side, and start looking at alternatives....struck me as very 21st century

[Paquadez]

Iltos: interesting post and topic.

There is an arrogance in man that tries to justify his rapine of the environment with the old saw, "Economic Development".

I have been hearing this now for circa 40 years...........................

As yet, I have not seen one such project honestly deliver on its promises.

One of the core problems with any development here natural environment is concerned, is the holistic impact on extant wildlife: and the subsequent knock on effects to mankind.

Any project, anywhere is going to create such impact: much of this is unseen, unless experts with a wide range of expertise are included in the pre-development EIR (Environmental Impact Report). They rarely are, as the developers main desire is to finish the project and bank the cash!

Stated power output of any electricity generation project rarely meets its objectives.

In the UK we suffered a rush of nuclear plants in the early 50s, using the original Magnox reactors at Dungeness A, Sizewell A, Bradwell, Berkeley, Hinkley Point A, Oldbury, Trawsfynydd, Wylfa, Chapelcross, and the Hunterston A site.

None have reached their design power output: all have demonstrated significant capital cost over runs. None has earned a profit in terms of return on capital cost.

Yet each and every one has changed the immediate local environment and additionally, blighted the lives of those living around them.

Paq

[iltos]

Originally Posted by Paquadez

There is an arrogance in man that tries to justify his rapine of the environment with the old saw, "Economic Development".

I have been hearing this now for circa 40 years...........................

As yet, I have not seen one such project honestly deliver on its promises.

seems some folks in eastern washington would agree with you, paq

in another thread recently, you said something about one of the effects of globalization being the death of the huge company (citing the movement of a few towards banking)

instead, companies would become sort of amalgems of different, smaller speciality operations, coming together for their mutual benefit.

perhaps, in discussions like this one about the damns, where local communities begin to understand the stake they have in their own economies, as well as the concern they have for their own environments, i.e., quality of life, we are seeing something similar at work in political circles?

i know the folks in my little town got wind of developers moving in and have taken action, forcing the city council to put all "redevelopment" issues to a vote of the people before rubberstamping them.....it has so far brought about an upheaveal in a city council election, with some "conflicts of interest" bringing about the removal of three councilman....and still the money is talking ....

two plans for four story projects -in this town that only knows a two story business district- were miraculously approved for building in a single day (i've a project for a one story home addition in the building department and don't expect it out for three weeks!)....and this approval was given....the day before the ballot measure calling for a community vote on all redevelopment....

holy scumbags, batman

[BanditFlyer]

Another thread-jack, sorry

Originally Posted by iltos

in another thread recently, you said something about one of the effects of globalization being the death of the huge company (citing the movement of a few towards banking)

I don't remember anything by Paq to that effect recently, but I do remember an old discussion Paq had with Gibble that said something similar. And I disagree. I think business runs in cycles, some favoring the large companies, some favoring the small ones.

Originally Posted by iltos

perhaps, in discussions like this one about the damns, where local communities begin to understand the stake they have in their own economies, as well as the concern they have for their own environments, i.e., quality of life, we are seeing something similar at work in political circles?

That reminds me of the "range wars" of the old west, and the more recent war between fisheries and lumber in the Pacific Northwest. These are wars between industries that don't compete directly with eachother, but still compete for use of resources. The Lumber industry won their war and the fisheries in the Pac Northwest suffered from it as a result of the erosion that was washed into rivers and streams due to the lack of trees.

[iltos]

not thread jacks, bandit....these are the issues

Originally Posted by BanditFlyer

That reminds me of the "range wars" of the old west, and the more recent war between fisheries and lumber in the Pacific Northwest. These are wars between industries that don't compete directly with eachother, but still compete for use of resources. The Lumber industry won their war and the fisheries in the Pac Northwest suffered from it as a result of the erosion that was washed into rivers and streams due to the lack of trees.

so maybe the question becomes: does the competition for resources between companies in a local economy bear any responsibility for the effects on the local environment?....as those effects will have an influence on other economic components.....that's pretty much what the whole environmental movement is about, isn't it?.....it's been tweeked by those who take issue with the concept of social responsbility to sound like a bunch of "gaia" nutjobs who go around hugging trees and kissing bunnies....

but it is, as its a heart, about a sustainable economic system.....huge american lumber companies have their fingers in a lot of local economies.....the fishing industry (from what i understand of it -and the japanese ocean going factories aside) tend to be more local.....

so why did the lumber companies win?...they probably offer more jobs where they take an interest....they probably have a stronger lobby in washington....and they probably have more money to speak with than the local fishing industry...and, as at the turn of the 20th century....what's the harm in a little run off?....nature can handle it....erosion is, after all, a "natural process"

so logging, without consequence, becomes a part of the natural habitat

until the consequences start to manifest themselves.

so...again....when the locals start putting up a fuss, and talking about all this stuff....i'm all for it.

[Paquadez]

Iltos: This goes back to what indeed I did say recently, Stakeholder Theory.

Once government, business, local councils et al realise that everyone is in fact a stakeholder, then things might change.

For example, with the dams: in a way, the salmon are stakeholders. I am not suggesting for a moment that they ought to be considered in this sense, other than the potential ecological damage to salmon stocks if they are denied access to traditional breeding grounds.

Which leads on neatly to the core of stakeholder theory.

Simply put, if a dam deprives salmon of traditional spawning grounds, then this act can also destroy fishermen's livelyhoods on the other side of the World and lead to dietary problems for those who rely on salmon as essential protein.

Thus it is critical to consider any project holistically and to adequately understand its total impact cost: despite the wonderful social benefits trumpeted by the developers!

Bandit:

It was here:

http://forums.techguy.org/civilized-...ts-past-4.html

Everything runs in cycles, Bandit; business included.

However, the current cycle started in the Industrial Revolution and most major corporations can be traced back to that time, as they tend to be an agglomeration of large now non-existant enterprises.

So if I and others are indeed wrong in the next 25 years, one business will own the World!

If not, in another 150 years, we will be back (dues to cyclical law) to wghere were at now!

Paq

[BanditFlyer]

Originally Posted by iltos

not thread jacks, bandit....these are the issues

Somehow, I thought that my posts were not directly related to what you wanted to discuss. If I was wrong, cool.

Originally Posted by iltos

so maybe the question becomes: does the competition for resources between companies in a local economy bear any responsibility for the effects on the local environment?....

I got a different question - how do you incentivize "right action"? The lumber industry in the PNW wasn't a problem until a corporate takeover of which my memory is exceedingly vague. Uptill that time, the fisheries industry took care of it's environment, and the lumber industry took care of it's environment. No one was interested in killing the goose that laid the golden egg, so they made sure not to reap too much for fear of losing next year's crop.

So how do you incentivize people to not kill the goose that laid the golden egg? (I'm expecting some interesting feedback from Paq on this)

Originally Posted by iltos

as those effects will have an influence on other economic components.....that's pretty much what the whole environmental movement is about, isn't it?.....

not really sure about that

Originally Posted by iltos

it's been tweeked by those who take issue with the concept of social responsbility to sound like a bunch of "gaia" nutjobs who go around hugging trees and kissing bunnies....

The thing I've noticed is that the bunny-kissers seem to draw better ratings than those of us who actually reason things out before opening our mouths. The silent majority is silent because they aren't very entertaining. No one wants to hear them talk. On the other hand, everyone likes a good episode of the Jerry Springer show where you can count on a tree hugger to proclaim "Keel Whitey!"

The nuts get all the airtime. Should they? I dunno, they're entertaining, so ....

Originally Posted by iltos

so why did the lumber companies win?...

I don't remember. I think part of it was that they had an influence in Politics. The fisheries didn't.

Originally Posted by iltos

they probably offer more jobs where they take an interest....

I don't think that was the case. Like Walmart taking 1000 jobs but offering 750 jobs that each pay less than the 1,000 they replaced, I think it was more an issue of "might makes right".

Originally Posted by iltos

they probably have a stronger lobby in washington....and they probably have more money to speak with than the local fishing industry...

I'd agree with you, but it would only be an opinion. Like I said, I don't remember. I'd have to google it. Too lazy. Bummer.

Originally Posted by iltos

so...again....when the locals start putting up a fuss, and talking about all this stuff....i'm all for it.

There's got to be a better way though. I'm thinkin'

[iltos]

Originally Posted by BanditFlyer

I got a different question - how do you incentivize "right action"?

i'll give you my answer to your question, if you give me your answer to mine
mine runs like this....in a market economy, incentive comes from the economics of the market....from both the consumer and producer....to me it's got less to do with the consequences of an action (logging creates erosion) as it does with WHY so few are capable of anticipating them until they see a picture of a big brown plume in the ocean at the mouth of a river.

a business is supposed to be a long term deal....it is supposed to look towards the future...so one incentive might be to look into that future and project today's actions on tomorrow's consequences for profits and grownth....to see, for example, that if you take a dump in the same place you take a bath...you're eventually gonna get sick....maybe even die.

everybody keeps telliing me how smart we are, as a species.....

but when we come to business models, we have historically worn blinders, imo...and to do that successfully, we have to skim over consequences of our actions that do not have a direct bearing on our bottom line today.....a tacit assumption, i quess, that "others" will take care of "their" problem (to which we, in fact, contribute)

so we historically "lay stuff off" on the future....eventually, it seems, people figure it out, tho, and start screaming......

that'd be the consumer side of the "incentive"

as the world gets smaller, and resources get more scarce -and are MORE CLEARLY interrelated (thank you environmentalists and science), it becomes a business incentive to start considering an acitivity's place in the whole of it....because it will influence the bottom line.

[BanditFlyer]

Originally Posted by iltos

i'll give you my answer to your question, if you give me your answer to mine
...
everybody keeps telliing me how smart we are, as a species.....

Just kind of reflecting in general. In a post a couple days ago or so, I mentioned an airline that cut costs and became the darling of Wall St. Unfortunately, there's a fairly convincing argument to be made that their cost cutting resulted in the deaths of over a hundred passengers. So, the point is that , when competition gets too fierce, the goose that lays the golden egg gets it's neck stretched. People suffer, the environment suffers, etc.

The libertarian in you might argue that the market will , therefore, prevent people from going to that airline, but that argument seems a bit of a stretch, mainly because some tragedy actually has to occur for it to happen.

[TooBad]

Originally Posted by iltos

i'll give you my answer to your question, if you give me your answer to mine
mine runs like this....in a market economy, incentive comes from the economics of the market....from both the consumer and producer....to me it's got less to do with the consequences of an action (logging creates erosion) as it does with WHY so few are capable of anticipating them until they see a picture of a big brown plume in the ocean at the mouth of a river.

a business is supposed to be a long term deal....it is supposed to look towards the future...so one incentive might be to look into that future and project today's actions on tomorrow's consequences for profits and grownth....to see, for example, that if you take a dump in the same place you take a bath...you're eventually gonna get sick....maybe even die.

everybody keeps telliing me how smart we are, as a species.....

but when we come to business models, we have historically worn blinders, imo...and to do that successfully, we have to skim over consequences of our actions that do not have a direct bearing on our bottom line today.....a tacit assumption, i quess, that "others" will take care of "their" problem (to which we, in fact, contribute)

so we historically "lay stuff off" on the future....eventually, it seems, people figure it out, tho, and start screaming......

that'd be the consumer side of the "incentive"

as the world gets smaller, and resources get more scarce -and are MORE CLEARLY interrelated (thank you environmentalists and science), it becomes a business incentive to start considering an acitivity's place in the whole of it....because it will influence the bottom line.

When it comes to business here in the US, they do not, for the most part, ever look at the long term anymore. They can only see to the next quarterly report. Same with our government also.

As to everyone telling you how smart we are as a species, I have been railing against the arrogance of human's opinion of our intelligence for quite a while. There is a very good article by Burt Pretlusky today that pointed out how self-esteem has become such a priority in our education system that the idea that one should actually accomplish anything to proud of has been replaced with self-esteem for its own sake. The tipping point for Burt was an international group of students where the American kids, the ones that were almost last in science and math, having the highest opinions of themselves.

Globalization of business is, IMHO, just the next step in the cycle of corporations swinging from "vertical integration" to divesting to the "core competencies". The difference being with globalization, there is a political component to this that did not occur in past times.

It would be better if we could foresee the consequences of decisions such as the logging vs fisheries, etc. Unfortunately, I think most of the time short term gains for those that make the decisions will continue to rule. Most people either don't care, or don't have the time or resources to educate themselves in all the issues present in any of these decisions.

That is why I choose my name here, it is simply TooBad for everyone. I think we should have a backup plan!

[Paquadez]

Toobad: Globalization of business is, IMHO, just the next step in the cycle of corporations swinging from "vertical integration" to divesting to the "core competencies". The difference being with globalization, there is a political component to this that did not occur in past tims.

Most globalisation has been achieved by acquisition: few major transnational trading corporations succeed in pioneering their own exclusive brands in other countries. Cross-Cultural difference takes over..............

Thee are a few, a very few companies who succeed in marketing and selling their own product and brand abroad: Microsoft is one example.

Truly successful business grows however oragnically, not by acquisition..

The concept that globalisation can and will continue, ad infinitum is flawed: since eventually one company will own the world!

However business history study demonstrates that corporations rarely persist past 50 years.

Paq

[TooBad]

Originally Posted by Paquadez

Most globalisation has been achieved by acquisition: few major transnational trading corporations succeed in pioneering their own exclusive brands in other countries. Cross-Cultural difference takes over..............

Thee are a few, a very few companies who succeed in marketing and selling their own product and brand abroad: Microsoft is one example.

Truly successful business grows however oragnically, not by acquisition..

The concept that globalisation can and will continue, ad infinitum is flawed: since eventually one company will own the world!

However business history study demonstrates that corporations rarely persist past 50 years.

Paq

I agree, but the 50yr lifespan of corporations can be somewhat accounted for by the changing of names due to aquisition. Auto companies have all been around, at least US and European, for closer to 100 yrs. Many smaller corporations have ceased due to being aquired by larger ones. No telling how long these huge multi-national conglomerates will last as I think they are so diverse as to collapse of their own weight at some point.

[iltos]

Originally Posted by TooBad

When it comes to business here in the US, they do not, for the most part, ever look at the long term anymore. They can only see to the next quarterly report. Same with our government also.

sadly....some truth in this, TB

backtracking a bit

Originally Posted by Banditflyer

Can't they use fish-ladders to let the fish move up and downstream freely?

startin to dig into this a little....found this

So now the Snake River is plied by grain boats, while salmon are vacuumed up into trucks, driven around the series of dams, and then dropped back into the river in a weakened and disoriented state.
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2007/01/25/duncan/

"save our wild salmon" is one of the organizations that is spearheading the dam removal. http://www.wildsalmon.org/...it was founded in 1991, very much as a environmental movement by folks in the region who truely love their wild salmon....
they've a page on their website devoted just to poems and stories about them.
but they ain't just "tree huggers"....their approach is very pragmatic and speaks with the voice of economics.
from their site

New Congressional Legislation Tackles Urgent Fiscal and Environmental Crisis

Bill seeks complete, unbiased studies of federal salmon recovery options
Sport and commercial fishermen, conservation groups, and taxpayer and clean energy advocates are united in their support of new bi-partisan Congressional legislation that would restore sound science and fiscal responsibility to failing federal salmon recovery efforts in the Columbia/Snake River basin. Introduced by Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) and Rep. Tom Petri (R-WI), the Salmon Economic Analysis and Planning Act (H.R. 1507) authorizes independent economic and scientific review of federal salmon restoration efforts.

Failure to protect and restore endangered wild salmon in the Columbia and Snake River Basin has cost United States taxpayers and Northwest ratepayers billions of dollars over the past two decades. Declining runs have curtailed fisheries and hurt regional economies throughout the Pacific salmon states of Alaska, California, Oregon, Washington and Idaho.

this appears to be a bipartisan effort

“The bottom line is clear,” said David Jenkins, government affairs director for Republicans for Environmental Protection (REP). “The financial cost of maintaining and operating these dams far outweighs their benefits. It will be cheaper for taxpayers and better for utility ratepayers to remove these dams and replace their current benefits than to continue funding the status quo.”

as to the national fisheries institute's argument calling for a "comprehensive study", that appears actually to have already been done...titled "revenue stream"

http://www.wildsalmon.org/pressroom/revenue-stream.cfm "Revenue Stream" was researched and prepared by staff of Taxpayers for Common Sense, Save Our Wild Salmon, Republicans for Environmental Protection (REP), Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations and the Institute for Fisheries Resources, Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association, NW Energy Coalition, Idaho Rivers United, and American Rivers.

...tho there is no indication that the report has a political "stamp of approval" yet....

a revision to the "extrapolation of the numbers" corrected a mistake in the initial report, correcting downward the savings to the feds that would come about by the removal of the dams

BACKGROUND
An error was made when calculating “Additional Salmon Recovery Costs Necessary after Lower Snake River Dam Removal” (page 7 of the report).

Correcting the error, which resulted from mistakes in extrapolating and comparing dollar figures from studies in 1998, 2004 and 2005, increases the range of additional required salmon recovery costs after dam removal from $95.6-$116 million per year as projected in the report to $78.1-$128.7 million per year corrected.

This represents an annual difference of $17.5 million less on the low end of the range and $12.7 million more on the high end.

As a result, the report’s 10 and 20-year comparisons have been revised as follows:

10-year, Low Estimate: Removing the dams saves $1.83 billion (versus a savings of $1.65 billion)

10-year High Estimate: Removing the dams costs $0.12 billion more than keeping dams (versus a savings of $0.01 billion)

20-year Low Estimate: Removing the dams saves $4.91 billion (versus a savings of $4.61 billion)

20-year High Estimate: Removing the dams saves $1.35 billion in savings (versus a savings of $1.59 billion)

if your interested in the what the 'costs' are....here's a chart from the report
http://www.wildsalmon.org/library_fi...art.page11.pdf

this is frankly looking more and more like a case of bureaucratic inertia....a simple unwillingness to undo what has been done...echoing the feds arguement (paraphrased) that the dams have been around so long they've become part of the natural habitat.

there is a fascinating article (from the oregon observer, published in '00) that explores the tactics used to defend what i'm calling this "inertia"....it echoes much of what has been said, on both sides of the fence, about the other side, and its use of fear mongering to instill an arguement in the minds of we the people.
the article is here

my teaser for anybody who's waded in this far....from the article (bolding is mine)

The implication is clear. The job losses predicted by the Corps do not rise anywhere near the level of "disaster," "nightmare," or "sledgehammer" for either the local or the regional economy. But wait. It gets worse. The Corps has overestimated the long-term losses and underestimated the long-term gains, making these predictions from the politicians and editorial writers, these Chicken Little cries of alarm, look even more preposterous.

The tool the Corps employed to estimate the impact of breaching on jobs and incomes "presents," as the Corps itself states, "a picture of the economy at a single point in time" and that point is 1995. Furthermore, the Corps assumes "the long-run effects are permanent and continue for the 100-year period analyzed in this study."

reminiscent of the attitude that's been discussed in other posts upthread, imo....a "static" view of "analysis"....maybe to avoid the criticism that "nobody can predict the future"....more likely tho, reflecting an attitude that, if we control the present tightly enough, we will also control the future.

a major philosophical schism that drives this, and most, issues related to environmental concerns, imo