The Herald of Everett, Washington
HeraldNet on Facebook HeraldNet on Twitter HeraldNet RSS feeds HeraldNet Pinterest HeraldNet Google Plus HeraldNet Youtube
HeraldNet Newsletters  Newsletters: Sign up | Manage  Green editions icon Green editions

Calendar


HeraldNet Headlines
HeraldNet Newsletter Delivered to your inbox each week.
Published: Sunday, February 16, 2014, 1:00 a.m.
Sunset Falls


Law doesn't allow for PUD dam

In his story abut the tug-of-war over Sunset Falls (Power Struggle," Feb. 9), staff writer Bill Sheets writes that, under the State Scenic River Act, "development is discouraged but not prohibited." Clear as mud, Bill. It would be better to quote the act directly, especially the part that says the SRA is the official policy of the state and all agencies within it (which includes SNOPUD), and the part that says its policy is to maintain the natural flow of the river "as far as practical."
Sheets could research the origin and meaning of the odd, key phrase and do us all a favor. Back in the 1980s I heard that it had to do with allowing property owners along State Scenic Rivers (as opposed to federal "Wild" and Scenic, where the rules are stricter) to continue to maintain their (already existing) rip-rap bank armoring. Rip-rap extends into the river channel, and thus does not "maintain natural flow conditions'' but its effects on flow are typically minor and localized. A legal loophole was needed to protect the existing rip-rap exceptions to natural river flow or the SRA would lack the political support to pass as a bill and become state law. The "loophole," in other words, is meant to be a protection for the "little guy" who can't afford to relocate his cabin or access road if the floods take out his rip-rap. It is not meant as a legal shoehorn to be used to allow ambitious engineers to build dams whenever and wherever they see an opportunity to make money. This loophole also protects the Department of Fish and Wildlife's right to take water out of the river for their fish trap.
A dam, though, no matter how much lipstick you put on it, is still a dam, and by drying up the two most beautiful waterfalls on the whole scenic river, SNOPUD's proposed dam clearly runs counter to the letter and intent of the SRA, which is primarily to preserve the beauty, not minimize the ugliness of things which destroy the beauty.
And, let's stop using ordinary salmon as sacred red herrings here. They are as irrelevant to the core issue as SNOPUD'S design details and cost projections. By state law this river is already spoken for, and unavailable as a source of commercial hydro-power.
Bob Hubbard
Index
digital subscription promo

Subscribe now

Unlimited digital access starting at 99 cents, or included with any print subscription.

loading...

Herald Editorial Board

Jon Bauer, Opinion Editor: jbauer@heraldnet.com

Carol MacPherson, Editorial Writer: cmacpherson@heraldnet.com

Neal Pattison, Executive Editor: npattison@heraldnet.com

Josh O'Connor, Publisher: joconnor@heraldnet.com

Have your say

Feel strongly about something? Share it with the community by writing a letter to the editor. Send letters by e-mail to letters@heraldnet.com, by fax to 425-339-3458 or mail to The Herald - Letters, P.O. Box 930, Everett, WA 98206. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. (We'll only publish your name and hometown.) We reserve the right to edit letters, but if you keep yours to 250 words or less, we won’t ask you to shorten it. If your letter is published, please wait 30 days before submitting another. Have a question about letters? Contact Carol MacPherson at cmacpherson@heraldnet.com or 425-339-3472.