|03-26-2003 05:31 AM|
|timwatts||Jim, Thats was the Wampanoag Indian name for the Matfield River in Brockton Massachusetts. It was once one of the major spawning areas for American Shad in the Taunton River system. Today it's a effluent sluice for the city's waste water treatment plant.|
|03-25-2003 10:02 PM|
Tim, I would like to know about your location,Is it a slip or did your fingers get stuck on the keys, Ahuquannissionwaumissoo, This is sure a mouth full. 23 letters.
|03-25-2003 06:31 PM|
|timwatts||While this bill would not effect large profitable dams out west it would strangle us here on the east coast. For instance, the dams on the Presumpscot River in Maine do not have fish passage. Most of these dams, (and many throughout New England) have profits of under 250k per year. If this bill is passed the dams owner ( SAPPI, South African Pulp and Paper) could succesfuly argue that they should not have to pay 4 million for a fishlift if the dam only makes a quarter million per year. That stinks, many of these dams like the ones on the Presumpscot, Kennebec and Sebasticook are owned by multi billion dollar corporations, their feet need to be held to the fire on these issues. Put up the passage or pull down the dam (preferably the latter).|
|03-24-2003 09:44 AM|
One dam on the Columbia just put in a 160 million dollar smolt by pass system that looks like it may actually work.
Yup I said $160,000,000. The utility company who owns the dam will be able to use 10% more water during the 60 day smolt migration period. The amount of profit from being able to use 10% more water to make power will be at least $800,000 per day. Yup that's right $800,000 more profit per day than if they could not use that 10%. If it is a 60 day window on by pass then this power company will in theory be able to pay off the project in about 3.3 years.
The by pass system should last at least 20 years before being replaced. Even if power costs stay the same for those 20 years I wouldn't mind making that type of profit for the investment.
If this dam can do this type of expensive project and yet still make a large profit what are the other dam, (damn) owners talking about?
Let's face it we are in a 4 year period where anyone who wants to be really greety can lobby in Washington DC and has a good chance to get what they want. Screw the environment.
|03-24-2003 08:43 AM|
Tim, for the heads up on this. Looks like the wheels of Troy are grinding away on what little, and few, recent improvements we have won re. the "Enviroment".
|03-24-2003 07:08 AM|
|juro||Done. Thanks Tim... and to the moderators, this is a model of the type of system we need to put into place for similar form letters, American Rivers does a great job... now let's see if we can do right by our anadromous species.|
|03-24-2003 06:46 AM|
Heads up on proposed Hydro Improvement Act
Heads up on Hydro legislation.
H.R. 1013 the Hydroelectric Improvement Act will if passed make it more difficult to provide fish passage and make it more difficult to remove Hydro Dams in the future. American Rivers has some detailed info on it and a electronic letter you can sign on and send to appropriate legislators.
It appears that this bill as currently written would allow dam owners to argue and force regulators to consider the argument that fish passage is to expensive in relation to the profit of a given hydro facility. This would be a significant change from the current process, which recognizes that providing fish passage is a fundamental responsibility of dam ownership.
There is a lot at stake here, so if you have a spare moment go to http://www.americanrivers.org/takeaction/ and let your legislators know how important this is. We need to keep the OUR in our rivers.