It is not easy to realize that this spring/summer our rivers are going to experience a minimal amount of snowmelt because there is not any snow to melt.

If you look at the data it is very obvious to see that high snowmelt years result in a favorable ratio of smolt to adult returns for the smolts that out-migrated on that high snow melt year.

We have already seen minor spats between the BPA and NMFS and various Indian tribes regarding water releases and power supplies this winter.

The BPA has announced that if they are required to follow all regulations required under the ESA regarding water releases and power reduction on the Columbia River, blackouts will be an occurence this summer as well as even higher power rates.

As serious fisherman who love our salmon and steelhead so very much but also as consumers of electricty, do you feel that BPA shall follow all those regulations and threaten us with blackouts or should we now give up on this winter and sacrifice a year class of salmon and steelhead in the name of power?

------------------
Ryan S. Petzold
aka
Sparkey and/or Special

[This message has been edited by RPetzold (edited 02-14-2001).]

Scary thoughts. If we don't dig in and win this one, we can plan on fish always coming in last. My neighbor heeps his house at 73 degrees and my little town (Ridgefield) is sucking in almost 1000 new units of houses. I pray for a 70" year of rain which could send the newcomers back to Las Vegas and california!

I say bring on the blackouts!! You will notice that dispite water shortages, power shortages, that they just keep on building and building and building! We (sportsman)may have to go to court over this one. Just means the kids can't watch as much TV!

------------------
Sockeye

Bring on the blackouts...how about if state employees are required to turn their lights out when they leave....always bugs me to go by the state buildings at night...nobody in the parking lot and the entire building is lit up.......

my .02, I have .02 more but I need to get to the river for some clients that like to sleep in!


Jim

Ryan,

The region has allocated a water budget for fish in the Columbia basin, and I believe the fish should get that share. Not that they couldn't use more, but that's a separate issue. We have had energy conservation and national energy policy preached at us for nearly 30 years, and no significant progress is made. I don't really wish rolling blackouts on anyone, but I don't believe our society will take the energy issue seriously unless and until they begin to have some personal adverse effects. It's just too easy to flip a switch or pull into the self-serve gas station. Part of the reason it's so easy to do these things is because, as a society, we take too great a share of the water that fish need to survive because we don't see any direct connection between our individual actions and the collective outcome.

Northwesterners say they want to save the salmon. This is an excellent opportunity to walk the talk. And if we don't, the returns in 2, 3, and 4 years will be even lower than they're gonna' be. And this coming year is going to be really tough on the best of river systems. And just when it was beginning to turn around for some of our fish stocks.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

I reject BPA's entire argument. The choices presented by BPA are false. We do not have to choose between protecting salmon and rolling blackouts.

This summer there will be plenty of power. But there may not be enough BPA generated power. If so, BPA would then have to buy power on the spot market (which is unbelievably high right now) to fulfill their power sales contracts. These costs would then be passed onto the ratepayers. The resulting "rate shock" is the real reason for BPA's position. In other words, they're saying "We would rather sacrafice Columbia River salmon than pay for power on the spot market which might upset our customers".

Does this sound like a responsible position from an agency trying to protect salmon? I'll let you be the judge. I think it's patently ridiculous. That water is for the fish. Period. If you need more power, fine. Buy it on the spot market, pass the high costs onto the ratepayers, and deal with the fallout. The first thing ratepayers will do is reduce the amount of energy they use. Not a bad idea.

By using water that was reserved for salmon, BPA is (once again) subsidizing low power rates on the backs of the salmon. And ratepayers will have no incentive to conserve energy. We can all complain about the tribes netting lots of fish but where is the outcry when a public agency makes decisions like this? This decision may result in more salmon mortality in the Columbia River than all the tribal netting over the past 10 years combined. And don't think for a minute the tribes don't know that.....

Sorry for the ranting and raving but this issue hits close to home.


------------------
MSB

Rhe only good news is with us being this far north in Latitude, its light until 9:30-10:00 and light at 6:00 AM. How many hours do we need light for?

Also, heaters aren't usually needed from May until around Oct. so those with electric heat can really help.

Low water in Winter is the tough one. Nothing better than having a cold one on the deck at sunset during summer, who needs power (except to keep that cold one cold).

Steve, It's the air conditioners in California that are going to be sucking the Columbia River dry in August.

I agree that this summer will be a test of the Northwests dedication to salmon... and that of the the new administration. I predict a C- and F, respectively.

Cohoangler, good call on BPA's ploy. Very on the mark. The key to cheap power in the NW is the subsidy provided by fish losses. Give the fish their share of the water and watch power prices rise. Now there's a conservation incentive!

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

This is as complex of issue as any that face salmon recovery in the northwest. I have been in the power generation industry for over 20 years and the present situation is without parallel.

Cohoangler. You talk of passing the cost of spot market power on to consumer. I agree. Spot market power right now is between $200 and $500 per megawatt or $2-$5 a kilowatt and in most of Western Washington you are currently paying $.04-.08 per kw. so just move the decimal point on your bill to the right one place. If your current bill is $40 a month then it would be 400. OUCH

Do get me wrong on this. I would love to see all the dams breached. It would be great for the salmon. On the other hand if your residential power bill went up that much just imagine what your local Albertsons light bill would look like. So how much are we willing to pay for a gallon of milk or loaf of bread. How many businesses would survive such an increase. To me it is scary.

The summer forcast for power is bleak. Yes it is true that a large portion of the summer peak load is airconditioning but that is true of everywhere not just California.

The BPA is being required to sell power to Calif by the Federal Gov. Clinton started it and Bush has continued it.

Calif probably will never pay for the power it is getting or at least not what they agreed to pay for it.

It is true that Calif got itself into this jam all by themselves. Lack of planning,lots of growth, refusal to allow more power plants to be built in their state (build them somewhere else, not in our back yard)

It is very complicated but the long and short of it is this.

Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead are going to be converted into electricity and shipped to California or the economy will meltdown.

That is how the powers that be will see this situation.

Quess who wins.

About the only solution that I can see is rain and lots of it. Pray for rain

Thought you should all know.


Desertdog


[This message has been edited by Desertdog (edited 02-16-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Desertdog (edited 02-16-2001).]

From www.tidepool.org
[SALMON]
SALMON VS 'THE BEAR'

Facing yet another round of increasing power demands and swelling wholesale power prices, the Bonneville Power Administration once again made the no-win decision to possibly jeopardize spring salmon runs by boosting water flows in its Columbia River dam system. With energy prices hovering around $500 per megawatt-hour (compared to $30 one year ago), BPA chose the tough tradeoff of increasing flows to keep the Northwest's lights on, which prompted outcries from environmentalists, with some saying the move will prompt a salmon "massacre."

But power officials counter that the agency shouldn't be blamed for what Mother Nature is already doing. BPA contends the drawdowns thus far amount to less than a 1 percent reduction of spring flows, while the real culprits for threatening spring salmon survival are the winter's record-low snowpack levels and a long, hot, and dry summer predicted by experts.

Unfortunately, as the planets align to seemingly spell doom for salmon, the endangered fish isn't afforded much protection. BPA can run its system harder and drain reservoirs intended for salmon through a special 'emergency' provision in the Endangered Species Act. And officials are already devising scenarios for cutting springtime water spills -- which aid fish passage -- to save billions in dollars in case the agency is strapped for cash.

Amidst the hand-wringing over sacrificing salmon for energy, officials are grasping for solutions. So far, most simply repeat the mantra: "Pray for rain." Water conservation has been strangely silent from the dialogue. Surprisingly, many water users in Oregon hold rights to withdraw water from the state's rivers, but they often have no idea how much they are taking. The state has the authority to require users to measure how much they remove, but lacks the staff or will to do the job.

The only substantial solution offered thus far to address the salmon vs. energy crisis came from Oregon Gov. Kitzhaber, who called for the feds to delay BPA's debt payment for one year. But, as the Seattle Times put it, "politically, Kitzhaber is the sound of one hand clapping." His plan for skipping the BPA's $732 million payment this year was received with a deafening silence from others in the Northwest, who -- rightfully so -- fear the plan would invite Congress to assault BPA and the Northwest's cheap power rates, already coveted by the rest of the nation.

"Why poke the bear by not making a payment on what others already see as a scandalous bargain and rare sweetheart deal?" concluded the Times editorial.

So in the end, the bear may not get poked. But by summer's end, it might just have a heckuva lot of dead salmon to eat.


[This message has been edited by Keta (edited 02-17-2001).]

Speaking of power locally, the Skagit was apparently reduced to a trickle during our first cold weather spells in December. Exposing salmon redds to freezing air, which has been estimated to have eliminated up tp 75%of eggs laid by chum runs of last year. I believe that Seattle City Power was respomsible for that, So it certainly is not just California or the Columbia for that matter. It is time to fight to uphold minimum stream flow requirements for all rivers.

Desertdog - Good points. However, I was not suggesting that BPA rely on the spot market for 100% of their power needs. That would result in rate increases in the order of $400/month as you suggest. Indeed, that is exactly the problem in California. They are relying on the spot market for 100% of their power. No wonder they have such problems. I was suggesting that BPA rely on the spot market to cover their peak power demands and avoid rolling black-outs. They should not take water reserved for the salmon just to avoid the occasional foray into the spot market. Even so, I would expect rates to go up, perhaps considerably.

Although the prices are steep, Pacific salmon in the Columbia River basin have, in effect, been paying these high prices for decades. If the fish can't pay these prices (i.e., turbine mortality, high river temps, increased predation), they're dead. After several decades of this, it's easy to see why they're listed under the ESA.

Continuation of the same policies that have guided us in the past will not result in recovery in the foreseeable future. We need to rethink our reliance on electricity in general and hydropower in particular. Conservation and development of new forms of renewable energy are good places to start.

If couldn't already tell, I've been in the fish/power business for quite a few years too; but certainly not the 20 years that you have. Thanks for the feedback.

Not sure who started this thread, but it's a good question and very timely.



------------------
MSB

The issue of precedent is important here and we need to make the fish a top priority. Also, although I am not as "up" on the topic as I ought to be, I am wary of the information provided by the power industry. There is a growing movement of power consumers who are becoming skeptical over whether this is all just a publicity stunt, at least in part. After all, there hasn't been much coverage in the news of removing the Snake River dams, has there? Don't want to start any conspiracy theories but just a thought.