When the removal of the dams takes place how can we see to it that the silt is filtered first to remove all the gold which has to be in the sediment that has built up over 50 to 100 years. If this is not done first would we not lose this value and wouldn't this same sediment moving down stream create a masive fish kill off?
Now to have the value of this gold put to use building the vastly needed renewable power to reduce the cost to operate the pumping system for the 220,000 acres that are leased to local farmers here in the Klamath Basin. This can be done through the creation of a decentralized power agreement would become a public private partnership structured as a farmers coopertive. Would you consider this as a means to teach our nation and the world about citizen stewardship and regional sustainability.
Considering our Constitution starts with "We The People" of the United States in order to form a more perfect union,establish Justice,insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,promote the general Welfareand secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.
Like the draft KBRA released in February, the agreement in principle with PacifiCorp is defective. Few seem to want to discuss the hard details of either of these agreements. Perhaps that is precisely because the deal points are troubling when actually examined and interfere with the feel good story that is often promoted.
Let's be frank - just as the President was in his Klamath press release today when he concluded the release by stating - "Together, we have produced an agreement that will greatly reduce the risk of future shutdowns of the irrigation system." That, and delivering other guarantees and sweet heart deals to the administration's agribusiness supporters in the basin, is in large part what these two deals have been about. But the Klamath is about much more than agribusiness.
This administration did not suddenly get religion on salmon and river health. Look, the house has been foreclosed upon and the administration is in the process of stripping the fixtures. Why we would applaud that is a mystery.
Just what does the AIP do? Well, the AIP
1. does not remove any dams but does suspend operation of the Clean Water Act and California's Environmental Quality Act as to these dams for many years. Oregon and California's Clean Water Act "401 certification" processes are now halted by the AIP. The dams need to be removed, but not at the expense of other important conservation values in the basin. The FERC relicensing process that has now been short circuited was a huge opportunity to see that result in our lifetimes.
2. does not remove any dams but does attempt to force Bonneville Power to the table to deliver cheap electrical power to Klamath Basin irrigators, in effect overruling the decisions of the Oregon and California Public Utility Commissions ramping those irrigators to 21st century power rates over time.
3. does not remove any dams but does provide multiple "off-ramps" from the pathway to dam removal that reduce the likelihood of the result being touted - dam removal - from ever occurring.
4. does not remove any dams but does "indivisibly" link the AIP with the seriously flawed Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement that provides guaranteed water for agribusiness in the basin but NO guarantees of water for fish and wildlife in the Klamath River. The KBRA does NOT mandate that ag get by on less water (the plug above gets it wrong again) IF the baseline one uses for comparison is the existing requirement for Klamath River flows under the Endangered Species Act - which is really the only relevant baseline for comparison because it is the only currently legal baseline for river flows.
5. does not remove any dams but does attempt to lock in 22,000 acres of commercial and environmentally damaging farming on Lower Klamath and Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuges for the next 50 years. These were historically two of the premier waterfowl refuges in the United States. They are the only two refuges in the country that allow large scale commercial farming. With the AIP and the KBRA, the status quo will prevail for another fifty years on these refuges. We will be managing large parts of these refuges as commercial farms, not as national wildlife refuges.
6. attempts to immunize PacifiCorp from liability associated with the dams.
7. saddles ratepayers and taxpayers in Oregon and elsewhere with costs that ought to be paid by PacifiCorp.
9. attempts to saddle the Obama administration with various directives and procedures for addressing Klamath issues in the future.
Let's be clear- environmentalists were NOT at the table during the negotiation of the AIP. The AIP was negotiated in secret by the feds, PacifiCorp, Oregon and California. The final AIP was only rolled out to the so-called conservation caucus YESTERDAY (Wednesday) and was essentially presented as a done deal. Oregon's governor signed the AIP within a few brief hours of the AIP being presented to the participating conservation groups. If that is the "national precedent" your intro above refers to, we're in for a heap of trouble.
One basin west, in the Rogue River Basin, multiple dams have been and are being removed without the sweet heart deals or the scientifically suspect guarantees being made in the Klamath. I suggest if you are looking for a national precedent, and a place where dams have actually been removed and are in the process of being removed, the place to look is the Rogue, not the Klamath.
Perhaps a future show could examine the question "What does allowing commercial agricultural development on two of the nation's most important National Wildlife Refuges have to do with removing dams from the Klamath River?"
Buried in the fine print of the "deal" announced today is that it can only go forward if Congress passes a $1 billion Bush administration plan for the Klamath Basin. In addition to money for lots of special interests, it also locks in an agreement to leave salmon with less water in drought years than they currently receive, an locks in Bush administration policies allowing commercial agriculture to be the top priority for land management on Tule Lake and Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuges. These are vitally important resting, feeding, and nesting areas for migratory birds along the Pacific Flyway.
So why does this dam deal require us to put agribusiness ahead of wildlife on a National Wildlife Refuge? And why would anyone want to cut this deal now, with just a couple of months left before Bush leaves office?
So let me get this straight. The Bush administration, the guys who caused the Klamath fish kill, announce a non-binding plan to keep talking about a plan to eventually remove dams, but not before 2020. And Oregon ratepayers get stuck with a $200 million dollar tab, while US taxpayers get stuck with a $1 billion dollar tab. Oh, and the plan also requires sacrificing river flows for salmon and wetlands for wildlife.
And this is a good thing?
Seems to me that a lot of people are lining up for their share of the $$, and politicians are clapping themselves on the back, and no one is really asking whether this deal actually helps the fish and wildlife (you know, the critters this is supposed to all be about in the first place).
How and when will the need for clean water in the Klamath be addressed? Why wasn't water quality considered in the settlement or the AIP?
My family has ranched and run a fly-fishing business on the Williamson River in the upper Klamath basin for almost 100 years. I've worked closely for the last ten years with tribal people, moderate environmentalists, and other farmers and ranchers. Thoughtful people have worked at the grass roots level to craft agreements that will continue to move this basin out of Crisis and toward restoration and hope. This has not been easy, and we are proud of where our basin is headed. We look forward to people who want to see a healthy fishery, healthy tribal communities, and sustainable agriculture move forward with us. I think a point must be made--and has become clear to me over years of painful work in this place-- you do not improve the natural resources by having people pitted against one another. Thanks to all of you out there who support this incredible basin moving forward.
The question Vainix, is what is sustainable agriculture in the basin? It is not sustainable to provide guarantees of water for agribusiness in the Klamath Project while providing NO guarantees for flows in the Klamath River or lake levels in Upper Klamath Lake and listed fish under the ESA. This will not solve the conflict and does not represent a balanced solution. This deal continues the root cause of the crisis - which is that too much water has been promised to too many interests. Until we bring demand for water back into balance with what nature can provide, legitimate interests, including ag, tribes and fish, will suffer in the basin.
John Devoe's statements shows his (and the anti-farm organization that he represents) abhorrence for farmers and agriculture in general. It also shows his ignorance with respect to the agreement reached by tribes, conservation groups, farmers and fishermen. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to read through the agreement and see that the ONLY guarantees are for fish, not farms. The ESA and Clean Water Act are the law of the land. That doesn't change. Many view the biggest flaw with he agreement is that it doesn't provide enough certainty for the family farms of the Klamath Basin.
What has been achieved here with these two agreements is historic, bi-partisan and simply amazing. We as residents of the state should embrace this. This may be a model for solving water conflict issues throughout the west.
Thanks John for the question. For example the tribal people in this basin have lived and fished here for 14,000 years. Their fishery is tied directly to their culture. I can guarantee you that they will not sell out their fishery. Tribes have been joined by the environmental community, tribes and agriculture to move this community out of crisis. Miles of river are being restored in this basin. Ranchers and farmers are drastically changing flow regimes in this basin. We are talking about fully changing the way we irrigate in this basin. Just as Wild Oregon comments that there is not enough flows for fish in these agreements--the far right in agriculture in this basin thinks that the flow hit to agriculture are extreme. In terms of should there be agriculture left in this basin--I will answer yes. It is part of who we are, and I invite you to come to the basin and meet some of the people who are working very hard to both restore the fishery and maintain community.
Vainix, As you no doubt know, the Hoopa tribe has not joined and does not support either the AIP or the KBRA.
I appreciate the cost concerns that your speaker is expounding upon; certainly nothing is free, especially energy. But lest eveyone forgets, even though hydropower seems "green" in the short term, it is by no means green over time. The necessity to bring our waterways back to their natural state is worth it. Sure the timeline and timing is worth debate.
Perhaps the questions should be posed to PacifiCorp folks is do they REALLY believe that dam removal is ultimately a good thing for the whole of society (including nature).
This may sound a little starry-eyed, but I do believe that dam removal will help salmon populations in the long run. I'll pay all the taxes and extra power costs needed in order to have a healthy, natural Klamath River and salmon in the Sprague and Williamson. The scale of this dam removal is truly historic and deserves praise from all parties.
True, the salmon population would increse, but if the dams would not be taken out, you could save your tax dollars and energy costs for a fishing trip to somewhere else, like Alaska or somewhere. True, I do support Oregon products, I believe that the need for cleaner forms of energy is more important.
I disagree somewhat with Mike Carrier about the sustainabilty of farming in the Klamath Basin. Agriculture in the Klamath Basin has long been subsidized by PacifiCorp rate payers through lont-term rate contracts through US Bureau of Reclamation. Back when I was working for PacifiCorp in the 80's and 90's, Klamath irrigators were paying 1/2 cent per kilowatt-hour while the rest of Pacificorp's customers were paying 5 cents per kWh.
Basin agriculture is no longer covered by these contracts. These contracts phased out several years ago.
Yes, but the deal attempts to route BPA power at cheap rates to the basin. There are also credits that are power subsidies in the KBRA. The contracts, pursuant to rulings of the Oregon and California Public Utility Commissions, were terminated but rates are now in the process of ramping to normal rates.
Boy, this PacifiCorp guy sure is a professional BS'er, isn't he? So worried about taking care of his "customers".
But by law a corporation has to take care of their shareholders, not their customers, and he sure avoids the idea that his shareholders made a market bet and therefore took a risk and ought to be given the result of taking their risk instead of unloading the risk onto the public and keeping the rewards to the shareholders. Capitalists are always so proud to tell you that they are risk-takers but when the actual risk comes around they want the public to take the hit.
They privatized the profits and socialized the risk onto the public. Socialism for shareholders and capitalism for the public.
The shareholder-owners of the dams did the DAM-age to the publics' fish and environment and the shareholder-owners ought to be held accountable to repair the DAM-age they did.
The shareholders took out the profits for many many years, now it is time to acknowledge the risk they took to get those profits and make them pay to take out the Dam-aging dams!
There will be NO fish or farms if global warming happens.
How could we spend money to get rid of a zero carbon renewable energy source?
The money we spend on removing this renewable energy source could be spent on more renewable energy to reduce global warming.
If this setback to solving global warming happens, where will the electricity come from to make up the electricity los by dam removal?
Closing the dams, reduces production of green energy. Where in the AIP does it provide for replacement of the "lost" green energy and who pays for the capital costs to replace the green energy and when?
Carbon-free does not equal green. Those dams destroyed ecosystems and damaged endangered species. Why don't we put in wind turbines along the canyon as an example of real green energy?
Sure, the dams are low/zero carbon energy sources, but I've read that there are viable opportunities for replacement energy from renewable sources. Solar, wind and geothermal have all be mentioned. Is this true and who would operate these resources. Is community energy a possibility
Is there any precedent for a community owning its own power resources? It seems like a great idea. The basin has plenty of sun and wind, and taxpayers could fund development of and own these resources.
I agree with this idea. I think there are tremendous resources in the Basin and if I read thing right, the agreements between stakeholders and the AIP with PacifiCorp seem to promote this notion as one piece of the replacement power issue.
"Is there any precedent for a community owning its own power resources?"
Eugene is a great example. EWEB, Eugene Water and Electric Board.
If I recall correctly the City of Los Angeles also owns their own resources and therefore escaped the Enron attacks on California and the West Coast.
Now Klamath irrigators are paying PacifiCorp from 1.002 cents per kWh to 1.794 cents per kWh.
PacifiCorp residential customers are paying effective rates of 7-9 cents per kWh.
I have worked for the Klamath Tribes as a fisheries biologist for 20 years, and as a member of the Klamath Tribes Negotiation Team have been deeply involved in settlement negotiations. I want to make a few points that are responsive to what I am hearing on the show.
1. The KBRA increases and firms up water allocations to the Wildlife Refuges, significantly improving conditions on the refuges.
2. Also, the KBRA significantly changes how much water the Klamath Irrigation Project will divert - in dry years the reduction is as much of 100,000 acre ft. Statements by Oregon Wild on the broadcast were incorrect on this point.
3. Klamath River flow outcomes of the KBRA have been endorsed by Dr. Thom Hardy, who has done the most in-depth study of instream flow need for fish in the Klamath River.
4. This not about politics, it's about responsible and effective resource management. We have two choices - we can pursue regulatory actions and subsequent litigation and let the court's manage our resources, OR we can pursue collaborative solutions that work for multiple parties. We pursued regulatory/litigation strategies for many years, and can tell you that they are very poor tools to improve conditions on the ground. Collaborative approaches laid out in the KBRA allow our energy and funding to be put towards solutions to the real problems in a way that will avoid litigation.
5. The Klamath Tribes would not be supporting these agreements if they were not the best approaches to restoring our fisheries.
This agreement is a very positive step, BUT?.people need to understand that this dam removal is NOT a ?silver bullet? for fish restoration and environmental improvement in the Klamath Basin. In fact, the larger environmental problems will remain to be dealt with?.notably, huge nutrient loads and warm water temperatures from the river?s source from the Upper Klamath River will still be a significant problem, and major water diversions will still occur. Let?s not be a Pollyanna about this! There are no other workable plans to address these at the moment.
As you no doubt know, having run the models yourself, in the late summer and fall, the KBRA would reduce streamflows in the Klamath River as compared to current requirements for coho salmon under the ESA. In fact, the low flows contemplated under the KBRA model are less than half of current flows required for coho and well below flows in 2002, the year of the tragic fish kill on the Klamath. That's not balance, that's unacceptable.
The KBRA delivers more water to the Project irrigators than they get under the current Biological Opinion for coho. In order to claim a reduction in ag deliveries of water, as you and others have done, you must use an artificially constrained historical record of water use that DOES NOT INCLUDE the years when coho have been listed under the ESA. Thus, the KBRA represents a rollback of the streamflows called for by the best available science.
Of course, Hardy only supported the KBRA in a highly qualified manner after he initially expressed serious concerns with it that have not been addressed.
To say that these deals are not about politics. . . . sorry, I think we all know that politics are playing a major role in this process.
Let me clarify. Politics are involved in everything. For example, I have been deeply involved in Biological Opinion processes - which you characterize as "best available science" - for many years. I have consistently been dismayed by the extent to which politics play into those processes - the fact is that politics are a pervasive reality and cannot be avoided. Having said that, I repeat - neither the KBRA nor the AIP is about politics, it is about responsible management of our natural resources. That does not mean politics were not involved - they are pervasive - but it does mean that other considerations were much more important and drove the decision-making.
I would suggest that it is incorrect to believe that the coho BO process is immune to politics. I intentionally refer to the BO as a process because, rest assured, it will change in the future; it?s a big mistake to view it as static, or as some form of salvation for coho. It's not a wise management strategy to rely solely upon regulatory action. In the end the courts manage the resource, and they are simply not up to the task.
Yes, I ran the models. Simulations dealt with the period from 1961-2000, because the Project shutoff in 2001 and water bank implemented thereafter posed significant challenges to accurate simulations. Simulations do not yet include the effects of the Drought Plan called for by the KBRA, and so the 2 driest years (1992 and 1994) show much lower flows in the simulation than would be realized in reality. Those are the only two years in the KBRA flow regime that drop below September flows during the 2002 fish kill, and all settlement parties are well aware that the goal of the Drought Plan is to address that situation. Not only is your characterization of the KBRA flow regime incorrect, it completely ignores the major flow increases in Klamath River flows during the spring and early summer period when smolts are out-migrating to the ocean. This time period was the focus in the KBRA, because high mortality of smolts is frequent. Make no mistake, the KBRA represents a major improvement in Klamath River flows, targeting the life stage that has suffered the greatest losses over the years.
The KBRA is does not represent some ?rollback? of flows. It contemplates flows in a river without the lower four dams and with extensive ecosystem restoration conducted in both the Klamath River mainstem and in the tributaries above Upper Klamath Lake. It contemplates a collaborative balance that no litigation outcome could remotely approach. It provides large flow improvements, a major reintroduction program for salmon and steelhead, a vitally important ecosystem restoration program, and improved and firm water supplies for the refuges, among other important elements for effective resource management. And yes, it also provides benefits for agriculture, elements of the agreement that are very important, because agriculture is here to stay, and is the dominant land use on the aquatic systems that need much of the restoration work. If we want successful restoration in the long term, landowner?s needs must be dealt with equitably.
Finally, to those who want to destroy the KBRA and the AIP, I say this ? do so at the peril of the Klamath River ecosystem. Settlement is our best hope.
I think people need to accept that this effort to help the fish is going to involve a lot of compromise. Not everybody is going to get everything they want. It is going to be hugely expensive to take these dams out and not everybody is going to ever thing the costs of getting these dams out will be distributed fairly. While it would be best for the fish to take the dams out today, this big of a project is going to take a long time to get going. Nobody has ever removed 4 dams of this size on a major river system before. This deal is a good thing, not a perfect thing, but definitely a good thing.
It seems to me that there is a lot of work to be done in preparation for the damn removal.
-New localized sources of wind, solar, and geothermal energies need to be established.
-Industrial agribusinesses need to pursue more sustainable practices such as cover crops during winter, partial poly-culture techniques, water harvesting ditches on contour, ect.
-Incentive for perma-culture and local agriculture support.
-Stream bed restoration, storm-water management, erosion prevention.
These changes will be hard for some but the dam removal is the beginning of a chain of positive reactions. And the transition will be much easier if we begin now. Just taking down the dam will not solve all the problems. Farmers need to transform their practices just as much as the fishing industry needs to manage sustainable operations.
I would like to know why we are focusing on hydro-electric dam removal when removal of coal fired power plants would be far better for the environment. As an Oregonian, I believe environmental protection is one of our biggest concerns today, so I ask: How will the power generation removed from the Klamath river, be replaced? It will add stress to our national power grid and increase the need for coal power. I find it hard to believe that the bush administration has the best interests or our country in mind. Why are they championing this agreement? To protect the coal industry?
Instead of closing hydro-electric dams, lets close coal fired power plants and replace them with wind and solar power.
Having lived in Klamath Falls for the past 27 years, I've witnessed the impacts of limited water for both the ecosystem and the people that depend on it. While it's tempting to characterize the opposition as either "agribusiness that would sacrifice fish for profit" or "environmentalists who want to drive farmers out of business," these characterizations are true only in the very small minority of people on each side.
I don't see "agribusiness," I see farming and ranching families who live in a county where the average household income is less than $34,000, people who love the land and for whom conservation is a given.
I don't see "environmentalists," I see people who love the natural beauty of the Klamath Basin, and the fish and wildlife within it, and who will work tirelessly to protect them.
And I see Tribal members who revere the fish and the river as gifts from the Creator that sustained them for centuries, until just a few years ago.
But for many years, the minorities have used characterizations to drive fear and polarize people against one another, thereby perpetuating a multi-million dollar legal nightmare. Sometimes agricultural interests have prevailed, with inadequate flows going downstream and thousands of fish dying. Sometimes environmental interests have prevailed, with irrigation water to farms being shut off as in 2001.
But in 2005, a few Tribal members and a few irrigators started talking. "There has to be a better way," was perhaps the only thing they had in common. That, and an awareness that they had invested millions of dollars in lawsuits that resulted only in a pendulum that swung from one side to the other, usually depending on which party was in office. Other groups and agencies became involved and ultimately, they found they had more in common than they had thought ? Sustainable Fisheries AND Sustainable Local Communities.
The proposed Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA) is 257 pages long, with more to be fleshed out for the "off-Project irrigators," those farmers and ranchers above Klamath Lake whose irrigation is not through the Klamath Reclamation Project. But the essence is a series of give-and-take moves for fish, farmers, ranchers and Tribes.
The fish get the dams out, so they can migrate up to their historic spawning grounds in the Upper Basin. They get more water, especially in dry years, and much-needed restoration of historic habitat and water quality.
The farmers & ranchers get an amount of irrigation water they can depend on when they plant in the spring, and if they give up water, they get compensated for it. They also get start-up funds for a renewable energy program to offset the increasing power rates.
The Tribes get to help restore their historic fisheries to levels that can again sustain them, and they get resources for economic development while the fisheries are rebuilding.
The Klamath National Wildlife Refuges, prime breeding-grounds and preserves for migrating birds, also get more water. And the counties get reimbursed for any losses to their tax bases due to dam removal.
Is it a perfect agreement? No way. Much work remains, especially for off-Project irrigators.
Is it better than suing each other ad nauseum? By a long shot.
To remove the four dams along the Klamath River would undermine the local farmers ability to irrigate thier crops, especially during dry times. The artificianl lakes provide farmers with a year-long acess to water. The dams also provide much of the electric power to Klamath county. Why take out a source of hydroelectric power in this troubled time? Not only will the removal of the dams take away farmers' ability to water their crops, but it will also diminish the size of Klamath Lake. Klamath Lake is an important stop for migratory birds going to Mexico from Canada. The removal of the dams would diminish the size of Klamath Lake, forcing the birds to seek else where for rest.
There are plus sides to the removal of the dams, the river would be opened up again to salmon migration. Salmon would be able to spawn on the Klamath River again, giving the fishing indrustry a facelift.
Forgive me for offering some alternative perspectives.
The reservoirs behind the four dams that are being removed are not used for irrigated agriculture, as is the case with most dams in the west. The two dams that do provide for agriculture are the Link River and the Keno Dams. They will remain, with fish ladders.
The dams don't provide the electric power for Klamath county. They do contribute 160 megawatts of power (about 2% of the PacifiCorp's total capacity), and they have said they will be replaced with energy from solar, wind or other renewable sources.
Upper Klamath Lake levels are part of the considerations for managing flows, for migratory birds as well as fish, and dam removal will not diminish the size of the lake.
Hydroelectric power is indeed clean energy, and in that sense it's a valuable source of energy. At the same time, the dams have had a serious impact on the ecosystem of the Klamath Basin, including water quality and salmon. It's only by taking all that together, the pluses and the minuses, that we can understand the decisions made this week.
I forgive you, you're right, I posted that with out knowing much about it; now I know
"Sure, the dams are low/zero carbon energy sources..." This statement is not entirely true.
Concrete or maybe Portland cement is energy intensive to produce therefore is considered to have high amounts of embedded energy. That energy releases something like 5% of the total amount of (man made, including cattle, I think) CO2 into the atmosphere. How many trees, that are carbon sequesters, are taken out of service when they are flooded and killed? Killing trees is not carbon neutral. I like using trees for building, but I do not call it carbon neutral.
I think it is pointless to consider something as being "green" when it is contributing to the destruction of the top river life forms. Coal isn't green energy and neither are dams. Lets remember that Germany, which is about the size of Oregon but farther north and cloudier than Oregon has been purchasing much of the world's supplies of solar PV panels for years because they are committed to getting off coal and oil are doing so under worse conditions than we have here. Also black silicon has been developed that absorbs photons, is it 100 to 500 times more efficiently that regular PV panels? Also carbon nanotubes can be used for very efficient solar PV panels as well as super capacitor/batteries, they require carbon and cellulose, both abundant, low toxicity, low cost, low negative impact environmentally, light weight, so it might be a good green energy substitute for dams and coal. Why don't we know the answer to this?
Anyone interested about reading up on dams might wish to read the book:
"Green" also implies low or no negative environmental impact, so lets try to keep in mind fish are part of what we are talking about helping, and fish, at least used to be part of the natural environment. Now that the fish populations have been devastated to the point that the commercial fishing season was canceled this year, perhaps taking the dams out starting 12 years in the future and likely taking years to complete is a fair and balanced approach. At that point in time I hope someone checks to see how the salmon and steelhead are doing because if they are extinct, perhaps leaving the dams in would be "greener" than removing them.
I am not sure how we would feel about denying most members of another species access to its spawning grounds and continuing this for 12 years until we *start* to take it down, I do not think this would be acceptable, nor would I call it fair and balanced. I know who should give the most the soonest and it isn't the fish.
I seem to recall dams have a life cycle that is something like 60 or 80 years because of silt build-up behind the dam. I wonder if the dams have reached the end of their life cycle, or will around 2020? The generosity of the power company is so wonderful!
I am trying to understand the logic, if power company management chooses an expensive generating system, the customers pay extra, but in the years when people forget about the cost, the share holders get the money. I didn't hear the whole show today, but I heard the power company spokes man say "the customers will pay" referring the removal of the dams ... If that is the case, shouldn't the customers have a say in what type of generating systems are built and other management decisions such as CEO pay? After all, if there is a chance customers will pay for management mistakes or poor judgment shouldn't the customer build up emergency money to handle it? If not, is it a form of taxation without representation? I hope the show touched on this today. Why should the CEO be paid millions when the generating system is so environmentally destructive and so costly to remove at the expense of the general public?
This country was pushed to declare independence because of being pushed around by an English corporation called the east india tea company incorporated many safeguards to insure that it would happen like this again.
As another post in this thread said; the power company is capitalizing positive cash flow and socializing negative cash flow. How is it possible
in this capitalistic government the utility company has no risk? Even when they were told not to build the dams in the first place, yet we pay.
Isn't there any government office that regulates this sort of thing? If there isn't, it is only because the deregulators striped out the relevant laws, which someone should investigate and put on this show so we can understand what is going on with this. Is the government working hand in hand with a predatory utility company.
Isn't it time the little guy stop paying for the mistakes of the big guys? I heard that when the dams went in the people didn't want them. So they were promised free electricity. I guess they forgot about that, so the customers paid the the rates for all these years and now they will be paying extra to remove the dams, great, give me a break! I wonder how much the CEOs have gotten through out the years, I bet if we took all of their assets and pooled them all together with other senior management compensation we might take a big bite out the $200,000,000. Isn't that what being responsible means?
Isn't that where we should be looking first? Isn't there a utility commission, Secretary of state or over-site committee that has a duty to act? I thought crime wasn't supposed to pay.
Shody Portland OR
Comments are now closed.