Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Capital press. (Salem, OR) 19??-current | View Entire Issue (July 27, 2018)
6 CapitalPress.com Editorials are written by or approved by members of the Capital Press Editorial Board. July 27, 2018 All other commentary pieces are the opinions of the authors but not necessarily this newspaper. Opinion Editorial Board Editor & Publisher Managing Editor Joe Beach Carl Sampson opinions@capitalpress.com Online: www.capitalpress.com/opinion O ur V iew Avoiding Portland traffic at all costs t doesn’t take a traffic engineer to determine that Portland is highway-impaired. Traffic in Oregon’s largest city is slow. How slow is it? you ask. A few years ago, the state Department of Transportation estimated that 34,600 hours a day were wasted in Portland traffic jams. That’s nearly 4 years of people’s time that was wasted each day. We’d bet the number is much larger now. And just think of what all that stalled traffic does to the climate. A car or truck stuck in Portland traffic is producing carbon dioxide but getting zero miles per gallon. By that standard alone, Portland must be a major contributor to climate change. Portland traffic is so bad people headed for the airport often have to factor in an extra I Associated Press Traffic in Portland, Ore., is a challenge for agricultural exporters that have to get containers to ports in Washington state. hour of drive time just to avoid missing their flights. And here’s the kicker: Portland traffic is so bad the state Legislature set aside $25 million to help agricultural shippers in the nearby Willamette Valley avoid it. That’s how bad Portland traffic is. The plan is to build an “intermodal facility” somewhere in the Willamette Valley south of Portland. Trucks will haul containers full of hay and other agricultural commodities from farms and processors to a loading terminal where the containers can be loaded onto railroad cars. From there, trains would go to ports in Tacoma or Seattle for export overseas, thus avoiding Portland traffic snarls. The Port of Portland handles only a tiny number of container ships, making the trip to Tacoma and Seattle necessary. It should be noted that there are already three such intermodal facilities in the region — including one at the port — but all are in Portland. Trucks hauling containers to those facilities are just as likely to get caught in traffic. The big problem is Portland traffic. If Interstates 5, 205 and 405 had adequate capacity, and if traffic not bound for Portland could avoid its multi-lane parking lots, many problems could be solved. But, for whatever reason, that is not to be. Having a $25 million intermodal facility in the valley represents the next best thing for valley growers and processors who still have to get their crops and goods to ports for shipment to overseas customers. In the running are two proposals. One would be built in Brooks, a few miles north of Salem. The other would be a repurposed papermill in Millersburg, a few miles south of Salem. We can’t comment on the attributes of the proposals. Suffice it to say: Any option that allows shippers to avoid Portland traffic jams is well worth considering. Why I oppose removing the dams on Klamath River O ur V iew By E. WERNER RESCHKE For the Capital Press stand in firm opposition to dam removal along the Klamath River. For multiple generations these dams have provided exemplary flood control, and abundance of clean, renewable, reliable and affordable power for the region, in addition to rec- reational enjoyment. I understand the Ore- gon Department of Envi- ronmental Quality is only asking for comment on the J.C. Boyle Dam, which sits within Oregon’s bor- ders; however, the pro- posal is to remove four dams along the Klamath River. Discussing removal of one dam outside the scope of the entire project leads to false assumptions and incorrect conclusions about the overall impact to the environment and Oregonians. You will no doubt hear and read a wide array of reasons opposing dam re- moval along the Klamath River. My comments will fo- cus on three areas: dam sediment, surface flushing and public opinion. First, starting with the public hearings of SB 76 in 2009 it was clear then, and remains clear now, that no one has seriously addressed the “colloidal goo” build-up behind all four dams. At that time the estimate was 9,000 acre-feet of sediment. It is reasonable to assume, nine years later, there is now even more sediment. To put this into perspec- tive, 9,000 acre-feet is equivalent to 14 square miles of mud. To remove such a volume of material from the riverbed would take 1,500,000 ten-yard dump trucks. In 2009 the cost estimate for such an undertaking was between $1.5 billion and $4.5 bil- lion. It will be even more today. These real costs have yet to be addressed. Who will pay? Rate payers? Tax Payers? Pacific Corp? Klamath River Renewal Corporation? Moreover the emissions created by such a project would not be consistent with Ore- gon’s pursuit of cleaner air and lower carbon stan- dards. The alternative is to allow this toxic sediment to travel down river. The vast ecological damage that would occur is un- conscionable. To claim to be for clean water and sustainable fish habitat and at the same time allow I Washington Department of Natural Resources The Washington Department of Natural Resources helicopter crew that rescued a researcher treed by wolves in the Okano- gan-Wenatchee National Forest. From left, helicopter manager Daryl Schie, crew members Matthew Harris and Jared Hess, and pilot Devin Gooch. WDFW flubs rescue of researcher WDFW agreed to launching the air protected species in that part of f you knew someone’s life was rescue. Washington. It wanted to send an in danger in the rugged forest of The wolves scattered when the overland party — a three-hour trek. northern Washington, would you chopper arrived at the site about The Department of Natural send a chopper to rescue them within 30 minutes later. The woman was Resources pushed back and prepared minutes or let them wait three hours to dispatch an air crew that eventually rescued and all ended well. while a crew hiked to the site? But it could have gone badly executed a swift rescue. The quick rescue seems like had WDFW been an easy choice. Not to put the for the Washington How could they possibly spin leaving this allowed well-being of the Department of Fish and Wildlife woman clutching a tree for dear life for wolves ahead of the student clinging to Two weeks ago a three hours while wolves circled below? the tree. seasonal Forest Service We can’t imagine researcher — a student that these experts from Utah — was really thought through the possible Notes from a call between DNR conducting a stream survey in the consequences for the young woman Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest dispatcher Jill Jones and a wildlife had it gone wrong, or considered the officer summarized WDFW’s when she was confronted by two potential public relations disaster this wolves from the Loup Loup pack that position, and her position, shortly episode presented. before the helicopter launched. seemed intent on making her lunch. How could they possibly spin “No helicopter. Federally listed The woman yelled, waved her arms leaving this woman clutching a tree and used bear spray before climbing a species. 3 WDFW personnel saying for dear life for three hours while so,” according to DNR’s call log. tree and radioing for help. wolves circled below? And what “We are more concerned for her She was rescued by a Department of Natural Resources helicopter crew life than the listed animal,” Jones told did they think the optics would be the wildlife officer. “He indicated that if she lost her grip or otherwise within about 45 minutes. she is safe up in the tree. ... I told him made contact before rescuers Reporting by our Don Jenkins arrived? shows that it almost didn’t go that way. that we do not know how safe she is. We hope that if a similar situation I don’t know how stout the tree is, Despite what the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife said and if the limbs will continue to hold presents itself that WDFW won’t hesitate to do the right thing. When her or how long she can hold on.” after the event, it was reluctant to wolves endanger humans, pick what’s Finally, at the DNR’s urging, the send in the chopper because of the best for the humans every time. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and presence of the wolves, a federally I Readers’ views Time to get rid of wolves Regarding Francine Madden’s po- sition as “wolf mediator” (“Money Runs Out for Contract,” Capital Press, July 13), is this bureaucratic insan- ity on steroids? Flushing more than $1.7 million away on a facilitator to have people counseled about their wolf problems is no way to deal with wolves. Moreover, how effective is this $1.7 million worth of counseling when a major stakeholder, Cattle Pro- ducers of Washington, walked out of the advisory group in 2015? The only solution to the wolf problem is to ship the wolves back to their natural habi- tat — Alaska and Canada. Problem wolves are often target- ed as uniquely destructive to cattle and other livestock. But all wolves are problem wolves. All wolves are large carnivores and must eat in order to survive and all wolves will seek out the weakest prey — livestock — which are often fenced, innately slow and no match for these predators. And humans hiking in the mountains with- out weapons are no match for these predators either. No amount of counseling, collab- orating and advising will solve this problem. It’s time to quit playing “Kum- baya” with the wolf problem. It’s time to remove wolves from the Pacific Northwest. Patricia Michl Waterville, Wash. Guest comment E. Werner Reschke more than 9,000 acre-feet of sludge to flow down the Klamath River is incoher- ent reasoning at best, and potentially the most dev- astating man-made disas- ter even witnessed in the U.S. at worst. Second, without dams along the Klamath serious questions arise concern- ing surface flushing. Cur- rently the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is required to store and flush several thousand cubic feet of wa- ter at a time to address the C. shasta parasite. Today the Klamath River dams control the flow of this massive rush of water in stages. Without any control from the ini- tial release upriver, what will be the loss of life to unsuspecting wildlife? Furthermore, without the dams controlling this mas- sive flush of water in stag- es how much more erosion will occur, adding more sediment to river? Finally, in 2014 Siski- you County (California) residents voted nearly 80 percent in opposition to dam removal. In 2016 cit- izens in Klamath County (Oregon) voted 72 per- cent against dam removal. During this same time a private survey also found 75 percent of people af- fected by this massive change on the Klamath River opposed dam re- moval. It is clear the over- whelming majority of people directly affected by this potential action on the Klamath River are opposed to dam removal. Our government is to be by, for and of the people, not the other way around. This dictate of dam re- moval comes from outside the area and is being foist- ed onto those who have depended on these dams for generations. The people’s will is to keep, enhance and move forward with these dams in place to provide afford- able power, recreational opportunities and flood control for the next sever- al generations to come. For these reasons I stand with the people of the Klamath River ba- sin and the environment in firm opposition to re- moval of dams along the Klamath River. E. Werner Reschke rep- resents southern Klamath and Lake counties in the Oregon House of Representatives.
