Given that the result of all of the other E. Wa. impoundments has been top raise the water table sufficiently to create seep lakes, and that the Hanford Nuclear site already has problems with contaminated aquifer, I would be surprised if this gets past the impact review process, unless they also decide to clean up (or somehow lock-up) the contaminated Hanford aquifer first. Maybe they are really lucky and their is a huge impervious granite batholith in between the two watersheds, but I would bet not (if anyone has driven through that 241/24 region and can comment on the local geology I would love to hear it...)
Tight lines, Andy -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 5:28 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Problems with the Black Rock Dam.. I saw the Black Rock Dam proposal this fall at the Central Washington State Fair, here in Yakima. They had a petition going to get this thing up and running. The whole thing was kind of a throwback into the past. The guy running the booth was going on and on about the recreation wonder this would create for the splash and giggle crowd. I am sure that this same pitch came with every dam proposal. I pictured the image of another swirling backwater impoundment and started laughing, but kept on listening. Ultimately, I did not sign the petition because it failed to address one major issue. I'll explain: The only free-flowing stretch of the Columbia is a 50-something mile stretch between Priest Rapids Dam and Mc Nary Dam. This is the Hanford Nuclear Site. And in spite of all the images your head creates of mutant beings, etc, in reality, this is a government enforced nature preserve, which, for the most part, remains in its pristine condition. To create this new dam, the water must be pumped either from Priest Rapids or out of the mainstem of the river. I can't imagine that a lesser flow would be beneficial to this stretch. However, if they choose to release more water from all the upper Columbia system dams to make up for this "stolen" water, it shouldn't be a problem (exept there would be less largemouth bass cover). But then again, would the loss of water ever create a situation where the upper dams backwater lakes would become too warm for fish passage to the upper tribs? Anyway, they didn't really explain how this would all work out, and that made me a little nervous. Just my .02. Tyler "Brehm Family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >"Instead of blocking a river, the so-called Black Rock Dam would > create a lake in the middle of nowhere, which politically savvy > supporters insist could stave off a Yakima Basin water crisis. > > The lake would funnel water to farmers whose irrigation canals > now drain two-thirds of the Yakima River at times of the year when > struggling fish need water most." > >http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001829527_dams04m.html > > >> -----Original Message----- >> >> If you are interested in the future of the Yakima River, be sure to read >> about the concept and preliminary studies for the Black Rock Dam >> in Sunday's (1/04) �Seattle Times/PI newspaper. � �Bob > > __________________________________________________________________ New! Unlimited Access from the Netscape Internet Service. Beta test the new Netscape Internet Service for only $1.00 per month until 3/1/04. Sign up today at http://isp.netscape.com/register Act now to get a personalized email address! Netscape. Just the Net You Need.
