Our View: We can't afford to study dams, so how can we build one? | Editorial | Idaho Statesman
It only seems like Congress provides an ever-flowing river of dollars for federal projects - even those of dubious merit.
Yet Congress hasn't found the money to finish studying an outlandish and far-fetched notion: building another dam in the Boise River basin.
If money is scarce for a study projected to cost $1.8 million, what does that say about the prospects for building a new dam or expanding Lucky Peak dam, at a much greater taxpayer cost?
Cold budget realities notwithstanding, an overheated fervor surrounds this process, known officially as the "Lower Boise River Interim Feasibility Study." The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is looking at several options: dam sites on Mores Creek and the North and Middle forks of the Boise River; a higher dam downstream from Arrowrock Dam, and a higher dam at Lucky Peak.
The debate has intensified over the past two weeks. The Corps of Engineers has held four meetings up and down the basin to explain its study. Idaho Rivers United has attempted to drum up opposition, with rallies at three hearing sites.
Let's step back and look at two big questions:
1. Why build or expand a dam? Gov. Butch Otter and state lawmakers want to see whether Idaho can store more of its coveted water within its borders. A new dam, such as the Twin Springs project on the Middle Fork, "would be beneficial for Idaho residents for irrigation, domestic, municipal, commercial, industrial, recreational, flood control, resident fisheries, wildlife and other purposes," according to a memorial passed by the 2008 Legislature.
The Corps of Engineers' focus is narrower: flood control. Existing dams do not adequately protect homes that hug the Boise River floodplain.
So the state and the feds have their own reasons for a dam - but ag-driven water storage and safety-based flood control aren't necessarily compatible uses.
2. Are we serious about paying for a project like this? It doesn't seem that way.
In their marriage of convenience, the state and the feds agreed to split the $1.8 million cost. The feds have spent about $211,000. So far (and this is one glimmer of good news for Idaho taxpayers), the state hasn't spent a dime. The feds granted the state a $500,000 credit, reflecting the value of earlier studies of the river and more than covering the state's $211,000 share to date.
The Obama administration has not funded the rest of the feds' share, a fact that has not gone unnoticed by Otter. "(The Idaho Department of Water Resources) has made the congressional delegation staffs aware of the funding issue," spokesman Jon Hanian said.
But Idaho's lone Appropriations Committee member, GOP Rep. Mike Simpson, isn't exactly enthusiastic. He told the Statesman's editorial board that he has no trouble with continuing the feasibility study. But he also says the Corps of Engineers won't have much money for building dams, once the bills come due for massive cleanup efforts in the Gulf of Mexico.
Liz Paul of Idaho Rivers United is more blunt - and does little to hide her glee. "The era of big dams is behind us."
Maybe so. But the era of studying big dams appears alive and well. Even if it is little more than an academic exercise: talking about expensive projects that we cannot afford.
"Our View" is the editorial position of the Idaho Statesman. It is an unsigned opinion expressing the consensus of the Statesman's editorial board.
Comments
Post a Comment