Leave dams in a better renewable energy option
Herald and News Letter to the Editor May 30, 2009 by Murl Metz,
It didnít take long, subsequent to the dam removal agreement, for
options relative to renewable energy and salmon habitat to
surface. Pacific Power tells me that, if I use 1,000 kilowatt
hours and choose the blue sky usage renewable energy option, my
cost will only increase $8.90 a month.
It would seem to me that leaving the dams in place would provide a
much more favorable impact on renewable energy than my $8..90. It
is for this reason that I will decline their offer to
participate.. I heard precious little opposition from the county
officials relative to the dam removal issue so I assume they will.
Option 2: Salmon habitat, $11.40 a month. It was my understanding
that if we remove the dams, the salmon will be able to swim all
the way to Upper Klamath Lake. By the same token, a suckerfish,
with all this water rushing down the river, may well end up in the
ocean. I could imagine the surprise of a salmon fisherman reeling
in one of those suckers. I canít, however, imagine what he would
do with it because I doubt there is much of a market for a sucker
I was flabbergasted when our esteemed leaders in Washington, D.C.,
and our own governor approved this harebrained proposal in the
first place. To me, itís akin to a big tall bird with a long neck
burying its head in the sand and saying to everyone Iím hiding.
Pacific Power, I will also pass on blue sky habitat option 2.
Considering the cost of removing the dams and the cost of
replacing the block of power currently generated, Iím going to
need that $11.40 a month down the road.
The salmon will just have to commingle with the suckers.
Murl Metz, Klamath Falls