First in favor of fish farms (ignoring/denying their environmental impacts) now in favor of a hydropower project in a watershed that has a legacy of hydropower to thank for the utter destruction of its native salmon. Siphoning off more water for farmers will simply act to increase the disconnect between how farmers are using the land and the natural environmental conditions. The externalities will be a burden to the rest of us.

Yes, I know about this project. Yes, I am against it as it is currently configured.

-T

 

This isn’t a dam on the Yakima. It’s a water storage reservoir in a canyon (Black Rock) well south of the river. Its intent is to take water from the Columbia River and fill the reservoir. Then during times of low water in the Yakima the water would be released into the Yakima.

Whether you’re for it or against it you first need to have the facts straight.

GBeeman

 

This isn't a dam on the Yakima. It's a water storage reservoir in a canyon (Black Rock) well south of the river. Its intent is to take water from the Columbia River and fill the reservoir. Then during times of low water in the Yakima the water would be released into the Yakima.

Whether you're for it or against it you first need to have the facts straight.

GBeeman

I gotta find it, but there was a past post on the implications of the dam. In particular, I think that a major Pygmy Rabbit habitat will be destroyed, and considering they are *extremely* endangered, this would be a bad thing.

I should read up more on this though....

PS

So I did some more reading. Here is a single document that I found that was a part of the impact study done for the dam....

ftp://ftp.owt.com/pub/bc/final t and e report.doc

Please note, this study refuted my Pygmy Rabbit assertion, but other data refuting or supporting my claim would be welcome.

 

This isn't a dam on the Yakima. It's a water storage reservoir in a canyon (Black Rock) well south of the river. Its intent is to take water from the Columbia River and fill the reservoir. Then during times of low water in the Yakima the water would be released into the Yakima.

Whether you're for it or against it you first need to have the facts straight.

GBeeman

Its funny how people respond to controversial issues on this site. I knew the dam was not on the Yakima River, which is why I put Yakima watershed in the body of my post. However, the water behind the dam will flow into the Yakima River.

Black Rock Canyon is not well South of the river. It is actually directly North of Sunnyside. I don't know the facts, which is why I brought this subject up.

I never said I was in favor of the dam. I just made the comment that it seemed to be well conceived. But the only info I had was from one of the big supporters, and I know there are always more than one side to a story, so I wanted to see what folks on the board knew.

From what I read today from the Dept of Interior Sept 2005, it seems like it would have some positive impacts for the fishery:

Withdrawl of water from the Columbia: No adverse effects (positive right)

Effects on the Fishery: Positive due to resoration of more normative flow, while avoiding adverse impacts to the Columbia. It would improve habitat conditions on the Yakima for anadromous fish. (sounds positive right?)

http://www.usbr.gov/pn/programs/storage_study/pdf/faq_091605.pdf

http://www.usbr.gov/pn/programs/storage_study/reports.html

Also, from what I could tell, the project includes putting in fish ladders on the other dams on the upper Yak watershed to provide access to historic spawning grounds. (I think that's good)

Now I wonder if they could put fish farms behind the new dam, hmmmm?

I couldn't find anything on Pygmy Wabbits!

Andrew

 

Gbeeman- i agree that it is important to have your facts straight- nowhere in my post did i say this proposed dam was ON the yakima river. It will impound more columbia river water, which i don't agree with. It is basically another lousy water subsidy that will pass off the cost and associated environmental problems to the public.


Those fish ladders on the upper river have NOTHING to do with this proposal. They are the bait put out there by the dam supporters. We could and should have already built ladders up there. Not building a dam certainly wont prevent us from fixing this problem.

 

Split Bamboo and TomB both make good points. Sorry about the north south mix up. At times I get a bit lisdexic.

GBeeman

 

Gbeeman- i agree that it is important to have your facts straight- nowhere in my post did i say this proposed dam was ON the yakima river.

It will impound more columbia river water, which i don't agree with. It is basically another lousy water subsidy that will pass off the cost and associated environmental problems to the public.

When is an impoundment not an inpoundment? When it's a diversion. Okay- so we're mixing semantics here, right? The water diverted from the Columbia still makes it way to the Columbia.

Black Rock is also a bottom-feeding dam. It won't be the panacea that the stretch below Roza needs- but anything that improves downstream habitat below Roza should be seriously investigated.

You ever fish a tailrace fishery?

- Crooked River?

- Deschutes?

- Rogue River

- Klamath?

- Lee's Ferry on the Green?

Black Rock isn't perfect, but it is as close to a win-win for everyone involved as a diversion project is ever going to get.

Those fish ladders on the upper river have NOTHING to do with this proposal. They are the bait put out there by the dam supporters. We could and should have already built ladders up there. Not building a dam certainly wont prevent us from fixing this problem.

Actually, the fish ladders are a FERC-relicensing provision. Like most dams built in the 30's-present- the dams builders on the Yakima had to allow for fish passage above the dam. This wasn't a guideline- it was a requirement. However, there was a loophole that almost everybody made use of: you could build a dam without fish passage as long as you built a fish hatchery to replace the fish lost by the dam. Anyone can see what that has gotten us after 70+ years. Fish ladders are going in whether Black Rock is built or not. The simple fact is is that the water in the Columbia Basin is overallotted. This means more capacity which means more Dams. On paper, you can divert more water from the Yakima and make some headway against this shortfall but it means more downstream habitat degradation in a stretch of river that is already infested with smallmouth bass, pikeminnow and other spiny rays. Black Rock lowers the temperature, stabilizes the flows and replaces water diverted above Roza.

Look at it this way: if we do nothing- keep the same amount of water flowing out of the Yakima, keep the same water in the Columbia and then install the best fish ladders the world has ever seen- the habitat below Roza is still going to suck for anadromous fish.

Now if anyone wants to debate the ROI- the benefits Black Rock will provide vs. the estimated price tag of $1.2 Billion dollars, that's something worth discussing!

 

Capt awesome- all good points. I just feel that fixing the problems that already exist on the yakima would ideally come from better management of the hydro projects already on the river, rather than the addition of others. It is true that the yakima would probably benefit from black rock. It would however allow the yakima water managers to avoid confronting the over allocation problems they created by stealing water from the columbia. I don't like this idea in principle.

Reworking water rights on the yakima is a very hard thing to do though and if it turns out that the negative impacts on the columbia are minimal, perhaps this is a good option.

Truthfully, I don't know enough about the specifics of the project to make the kinds of critiques i would like to. I just wanted to throw another position out there.

Simply stated, why fix a problem we have created with dams by building another one? Why not fix the original problems? Just food for thought.

-T

 

There is also a proposed dam on crab creek that would swallow up Nunally,Merry, Lenice!. There are 4 sites under proposals right now on water storage reservoirs , not including the previous mentioned one. Be aware the ones they build (if they do) will be big 1,000,000 acres or more. I got this info from my bud who lives at Nunally. You can look it up on line . Just google crab creek reservoir proposed and you can find some info

 

One of the major unanswered considerations of this new Black Rock lake would be the impact on salmon. Consider that the water feeding this lake is going to be drawn out of the Columbia River and go into this new impoundment. Then this water will eventually find its way down the Yakima to meet the Columbia River again in the Tri-Cities. Nobody knows the answer as to which river, Columbia or Yakima, a salmon which was hatched in the Columbia and then returns to where they merge, will choose. The same could apply to steelhead. It could throw a whole bunch of things out of whack, with no solution to fix it. For this reason alone, I would be against this dam. Granted, it would solve some water issues in lean water years, but at what price to the enviornment?

 

Could anyone tell me whwt this would do to the flows above the Rosa Dam??

 

Could anyone tell me whwt this would do to the flows above the Rosa Dam??

I don't know that anyone knows the answer to that question. The purpose of this proposed impoundment is to provide a third source of water for the lower Yakima valley to draw on. How the water managers would decide how much water is to come from which system would depend on a lot of factors, including how much snow pack there was, projections for the upcoming winter, fish runs, etc., etc. Another purpose of the impoundment is for water to be pumped into it during those nightime periods when excess electricity is available (it has to be pumped up and over a ridge from the Columbia) and then some of it sent back over the ridge through generators to provide extra electricity during peak demand times. It is a very complicated project with lots of unanswered questions, which is why I am against it. On the plus side, it would provide a 10,000 acre + lake for recreation. I would Google it to see all the arguments for and against. After reading and researching, I personally have decided there are too many things which do not have answers to draw my support for a project of this magnitude.