Court rules against Bush administration's fish-protection plan
The Great Judicial Smackdown of 2007 continued this week, with a federal appeals court ruling that the Bush administration's plan for "protecting" fish on the Northwest's Columbia and Snake rivers violates the Endangered Species Act. The feds had claimed that the rivers' hydroelectric dams could be made safe for the 13 listed salmon and steelhead species that must navigate them. They also said that since the dams were built before the ESA became law, they shouldn't be considered for removal or alteration. But the three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court called that argument "little more than an analytical sleight of hand" and issued a stern reminder that, when it comes to the ESA, "compliance is not optional." The coalition of sporting and environmental groups that had challenged the plan was pleased by the ruling, with a Sierra Club regional director saying, "Two decades of federal failure and dishonesty must stop here." He added, "Our region needs a scientifically sound, economically viable solution." Good luck.
straight to the source: The San Diego Union-Tribune, Associated Press, Jeff Barnard, 09 Apr 2007
straight to the press release: Earthjustice, 09 Apr 2007
see also, in Grist: The River Dry
John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles
Skeptics claim global warming is fake after top scientists’ emails hacked at CRU
Comments
View as Flat
edarnold41 Posted 7:49 am
10 Apr 2007
Permalink
blueberrysushi Posted 11:40 am
10 Apr 2007
But what would that entail? A lot more than removal of the dams! The Indians who lived along the banks of the Columbia had trade and established communities, but they were also able to move upslope when the floods came. My grandma remembers before the dam, when the downtown would flood. The concrete post office and courthouse and brick shops do not make for a nimble town.
I would love for the dams to be successfully removed. I think we could compensate for the loss of electricity, somewhere, somehow. A larger issue, in my mind, is what to do about the river that we have created (placid, slow) and how to deal with the river we have submerged.
Permalink
chethro Posted 12:14 am
11 Apr 2007
"The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has estimated
optimistically that the four dams combined provide
about 1,100 - 1,200 average megawatts (aMW) annually to the region. That figure, on its surface, amounts to only about five percent of the region's total energy use. Moreover, hydroelectric power can be an unpredictable and unreliable
A closer look shows that when the Northwest needs
electricity the most, the lower Snake River dams
produce the least electricity. Typically, regional electricity demand is highest in winter, yet, in the winter months these dams combined generate only about 560 aMW - about two percent of the region's energy needs. That is because the dams are "run-of-the-river" dams, with almost no water storage capacity. Thus, in winter months when most of the water in the region lies frozen in mountain snowpack, the lower Snake River dams generate less electricity."
I'm concerned with replacing renewable energy with fossil fuels, however it would not be difficult to replace this lost renewable energy with regional efficiency measures, and a modest investment in new renewable energy infrastructure i.e. wind, solar, geothermal, etc...
Permalink