Hyrdro Dam proposed on S. Fork Skykomish

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by scottr, Feb 5, 2013.

  1. Did you read the report? The dam will likely take 100 years to pay off at break even, generates power at 5 times the cost of what it would take to buy it on the open market ($166MWH vs an Open Market Cost of $33MWH), will only generate power for 10,500 homes (1% of SnoPUDs needed volume).

    We have 16 hydro dams in this state on the Columbia/Snake system alone, 8 wind factories, and one nuclear plant (that generates 10% of our power supply alone). Pretty sure SnoPUD could buy this electricity on the open market at a lower cost and save their rate payers a ton of money while not F-ing up a wild and scenic river. By example Douglas County negotiated a 20 year power purchase agreement and has the some of the lowest KWH power costs in the entire country.

    Stop polishing a turd.
    rfly05, Jim Wallace and Kent Lufkin like this.
  2. We just tore down the Elwha dam for a good reason, and now people want to build another somewhere else? WTF, no dams dammit!
  3. Sir: that's not even where it goes! Look at the figures again. The dam would go upstream of Canyon Falls. You continue to spout your opinion about how you don't see how blank will affect blank, but you are obviously not well-informed about the project. Please go to the SnoPUD site, download the PAD, read it, COMPREHEND it, and then you would be prepared to add something substantive to this discussion. We are all very aware of your uninformed opinion by now. At the very least you could learn where the proposed dam site is.
  4. They actually propose to blast the tunnel.
  5. You're right. I didn't actually read the proposal until you antagonized me into doing so.

    Now I can see that the weir is going to be adjustable and be a substantial distance upstream of the Dam.

    An adjustable weir and intake structure built into a rock hillside adjacent some houses?

    I am now so pro sunset falls generation facility that I am actually going to any community meetings they have and I am going to speak in favor of the Dam for free. Im going to do it for free!

    It can't have any less impact than what they have proposed. Hopefull they create a public access area and divert a substantial amount of water around the falls. This will make the existing splash pools easier to fish and prevent me from taking bullets from existing property owners.

  6. I wouldn't sweat the cost too much. The Dams on the Columbia are run by the Feds. If the Feds drop their funding for the dams you'll actually have to start paying to run the dams as well as for the cost it takes to transmit the electricity.

    If you don't know the Feds are going broke then you aint been payin attention. We can't ride 9.5 cents per Kilowatt Hour gravy train we have been on forever.

    The electricity is needed, the impact is minimal, greater access to the public (hopefully) will be created, a series of falls will be dewatered making them easier to fish and finally the Sunset falls fish trap will have eternal funding so long as the powerhouse exists.

    FYI, you aren't going to stop this project. You may as well confine your thoughts and comments to how you want the facility to be setup to benefit you instead of feebily fighting it's construction.

  7. I was going to reply and address the points you made here but they are so utterly idiotic and misinformed that I can only assume you are trolling.

    Here's a picture of some carp. They're happy to feed off your BS

  8. Even better.
  9. Mission accomplished.
  10. It must have corn in it.
  11. Without the fish trap revamp included in the proposal where is the state going to dig up the money to fix it? Without upgrading that relic I'm afraid the future of the anadromous trucking program is in jeopardy. That's a big loss for spawning habitat to all those coho and pinks they truck. Without the salmon the native species suffer above the falls and downriver angling opportunity is lost.

    Almost 50,000 pinks trucked up there now, figure another 20k plus coho on the way. That's a lot of river nutrients and miles of quality spawning habitat lost. I don't understand all the details of the construction but if competent fisheries biologists aren't opposed I'll take their word for it.

    Dam is an evil word but without the hype there are arguments in both directions. We will see what happens I suppose.
    Salmo_g and Andrew Lawrence like this.

  12. I am not anti-dam but I am anti stupid & wasteful government spending. Yes we need power and there is no such thing as "green energy" unless you're a plant who can photosynthesize. All energy production has trade offs; dams are bad for anadromous fish; wind factories use up massive amounts of land affecting animals like elk and bats; coal burning produces sulfurdioxide; and nuclear based production produces radioactive waste. I accept that we need power sources and agree we will need to increase capacity over time but we need to be smart about it and I don't see this as a smart project.

    The problem I have with this particular project is the economics are completely upside down (see below) and because of this I don't see how we can justify building it (and messing up what is currently a wild and scenic river in the process). By the accounts from SnoPUD they are spending 175 million dollars to benefit a base of about 11,000 households. This new dam would increase SnoPUDs power capacity by about 1%. An independent study (albeit it could be somewhat biased because the opposition commissioned it) estimates the power generated will come at a cost 5 times higher than what could be bought on the open market. It also estimate that the break even point for paying off the cost of construction with added capacity is 100 years. A 1% gain in capacity could be made up by improving existing power generation (like Snoqualmie Falls) and distribution sources (improve the grid) & conservation alone (switching to LED lighting).

    The reason the Elwha dams were torn down is because they a)generated minimal hydro power and b) blocked a river that had supported anadromus fish runs for tens of thousands of years before impoundment. Tearing the Elwha dams down opened up some 30+miles of spawning habitat that was previously blocked.

    Arguing that the dams will make the river fish better or is the only way to fund the fish ladder are utter BS. Why not just argue for more fish hatcheries on the lower riverif the objective is to catch more fish? That fish ladder is an unnatural passage that shouldn't be there. All it did was trade one fishery (native bull trout, cutthroat, and rainbows) for an artificial fishery (even if they are wild fish). There is a reason Trout Unlimited, Save our Salmon, Native Fish Society, almost every tribe in the state, NOAA Fisheries, and dozens of other pro-fishery stake holders are opposed to this project.



  13. By the way I see you are form Portland. How about we dam the Sandy? oh wait they did and then it was removed. I don't know why, it wasn't hurting fish :p


  14. If god wanted anadromous fish in the upper Sky he shouldn't have put in the waterfalls.;)

    I'll admit I've enjoyed catching summer run steelhead on southfork but it is an unatural fishery based on 1950's fisheries management practices. The 50,000 pinks belong in the lower river. We have no idea how trucking these fish beyond their natural spawning grounds has impacted the lower river species or resident upper river native fish (cutts, rainbows, bulls, whitefish etc). Maybe we just need to let the fish ladder die and stop the trucking program.
    Bert likes this.
  15. While we are spending money I say lets build the worlds largest fish ladder on the Snoqualmie. Then we could have 1 Billion pinks return to the Puget sound. God knows we don't have enough of those.

  16. No one here is anti hydro-power, we all have to live in the 21st century, but we can question and oppose ill-conceived projects .

    Since you can't formulate an intelligent argument to support the dam you've just resorted to name calling, nice. Looking at your post count and the negative nature of the 7 posts you've made I can't see you lasting too long here. Don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya.

  17. Name calling and racism. Tribal netting is the Goodwin's law of fishing forums.
  18. You want fish passage, then enable fish passage. Fix the trap-n-haul. But it doesn't have to come with a new hydro plant.
    Andrew Lawrence likes this.
  19. More uniformed nonsense. Indian nets did not put almost every Columbia River salmon and steelhead run on the endangered species list, dams did.

    The Bonneville Power Administration and other hydro agencies are not spending billions, BILLIONS of dollars on fish passage, barging smolt downstream, hatcheries, etc because of Indian nets. Stop spewing this crap.

    Right now the tribes are mostly on our side. Many tribes like the Stilliguamish, Tulalip, Snoqualmie. Yakamas, and Colvilles are actually putting millions of dollars into fisheries because they have a long term stake in the runs returning.

  20. Indian tribes take exactly what federal law says they can, get over it. Maybe you should spend your money with guides and shops that understand this.

Share This Page