Klamath Claptrap

Tom McClintock

[On the floor of the House our Congressman delivered an indictment of the current environmental radicalism that is part and parcel of the forces destroying California.  This article summarizes his speech. It is printed with permission.  gjr]
 
This generation is facing spiraling electricity prices and increasingly scarce supplies.  Californians have had to cut back to the point that their per capita electricity consumption is now lower than that of Guam, Luxembourg and Aruba.
 
What is the administration’s solution?

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced yesterday that the administration is moving forward with a plan to destroy four perfectly good hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River capable of producing 155,000 megawatts of the cleanest and cheapest electricity on the planet – enough for 155,000 homes.

Why would the administration pursue such a ludicrous policy?

They say it’s is necessary to help increase the salmon population.  We did that a long time ago by building the Iron Gate Fish Hatchery.  The Iron Gate Fish Hatchery produces five million salmon smolts each year – 17,000 of which return annually as fully grown adults to spawn.  The problem is, they don’t include them in the population count!

And to add insult to insanity, when they tear down the Iron Gate Dam, we will lose the Iron Gate Fish Hatchery and the five million salmon smolts it produces every year.

Declining salmon runs are not unique to the Klamath.  We have seen them up and down the Northwest Pacific Coast over the last ten years as the result of the naturally occurring Pacific Decadal Oscillation – cold water currents that fluctuate over a ten year cycle between the Pacific Northwest and Alaska.  During the same decade that salmon runs have declined in the Pacific Northwest, they have exploded in Alaska.  We’re at the end of that cycle.

The cost of this madness is currently pegged at a staggering $290 million – all at the expense of ratepayers and taxpayers.  But that’s just the cost of removing the dams.  Consumers will face permanently higher prices for replacement power, which, we’re told, will be wind and solar.

Not only are wind and solar some three times more expensive, but wind and solar require equal amounts of reliable stand-by power – which is precisely what the dams provide.

We’re told that yes, this is expensive, but it will cost less than retro-fitting the dams to meet cost-prohibitive environmental requirements.  If that is the case, then maybe we should re-think those requirements, not squander more than a quarter billion dollars to destroy existing hydro-electric dams.  Or here’s a modest suggestion to address the salmon population: count the hatchery fish!

We’re told this is the result of a local agreement between farmers and other stakeholders.  Mr. Speaker, everybody knows that the Klamath Agreement was the result of local farmers succumbing to extortion by environmental groups that threatened lawsuits to shut off their water.  And obviously the so-called stakeholders don’t include the ratepayers and taxpayers who would pay dearly for the loss of these dams.  Indeed, local voters have repeatedly and overwhelmingly repudiated the agreement and the politicians responsible it.  The locally-elected Siskiyou Board of Supervisors vigorously opposes it.

Comments

[Douglas Keachie]

What is the estimated value of the supposed additional salmon, to be generated if the dam is gone?

Frankly this is a case of cutting off the nose to spite the face, so as to "prove" the Green Faith. It's the bad side, the macho side, of the environmental movement. Tom has it right.

I may have mixed feelings about Hetch Hetchy, but in all such cases, there is absolutely no reason way this has to be done "TODAY!" Build the replacement wind and solar FIRST, then, and only then, consider dismantling the current very usable infra structure.

Should solar power become remarkably cheap, the fish can be transported upstream by electric limos, or a fish pleasing equivalent.

Sorry to disappoint those of you who think all liberals think alike. When they replaced the shower nozzles at the Donner Summit Sieera Club's Claire Tappaan Lodge with foggy misters, I quit in protest. Sanity has since prevailed, and the real showers have returned, and so have I.

[Todd Juvinall]

There is a end game for the eco's and it does not contain humans.

[George Rebane]

Good report DougK. Apropos to the wisdom of destroy first, build later is an Estonian proverb - 'Don't crap in the old well until the new one's dug.' On farms everywhere when an open well started running dry, it was a practical custom to move the outhouse and install it over the depleting well. The proverb reminds farmers and others of the prudent sequence in such matters.

[walt]

This is insanity. Sorry Keach, the wind doesn't always blow, and the sun doesn't shine 24/7 in the same spot. Taking down proven, reliable, "green", power generators is nuts. Not to mention needed water storage. You can't eat and drink "pretty".

[Todd Juvinall]

I would guess the true econuts have to be schizophrenic people. One side of their brains says we want green energy of which hydro is the best bet while the other side of their brain says we want to sit on the riverbank and watch the salmon mate without a dam in the way. It has to hurt.

[D. King]

Why would the administration pursue such a ludicrous policy?

They say it’s is necessary to help increase the salmon population.

Wow, this is the most profoundly stupid thing I've ever read.

Go get'em Tom!

[Mikey McD]

Tom is as good a politician as a man can ask for.

[Russ Steele]

I think it is really dumb to be tearing down dams. We have been living in a relative stable period in the state according to scientists. According to recent Sierra climate studies:

During the last 500 years, a wet climate, punctuated by intermittent but substantial droughts, began to dominate the region, and lake levels again rose and cirques glaciers reformed in the Sierra. A series of substantial droughts are documented during this period, however. Dozens of submerged tree stumps are located up to 300 feet below the present day level of Donner Lake a tributary of the Truckee River; carbon –14 samples from one stump date from AD 1433 (Lindstrom and Bloomer 1994). Another warm period, documented by tree-ring studies and Truckee River run-off, dated between AD 1579-1585, and again around AD 1630 (Hardman and Reil 1936). It is possible that Lake Tahoe contributed relatively little water to the Truckee River during the last 200 years. During the century between the mid 1700s to mid 1800s, the level of Lake Tahoe may have been below its rim, with no water flow into the Truckee River. This is documented by a submerged stump in the Upper Truckee River Delta dating from AD 1720 (Lindstrom 1996a), one from Donner Lake dating from AD 1800 (Lindstrom and Bloomer 1994) and one in Emerald Bay dating to AD 1840 (Lindstrom 1992). The 40 years between AD 1875-1915 were the longest period during which the flow of the Truckee River was above the average. During the AD 1930s drought, Lake Tahoe ceased to flow from its outlet for six consecutive years. Drought within the last decade (late 1980s to 1990s) either stopped Tahoe’s flow into the Truckee or reduced it to almost nothing.

We are looking at a period of less solar sunspot activity under solar cycles 24 and 25. When that happened in the past it got much cooler in CA according to the Mission Records. These cool periods were often accompanied by long term drought, as long as 13 years in the early 1800s. During the period from 1100 to 1200 there was a 50 year drought across the whole South Western Region. In California it lasted about 27 years. We need to stop looking at how the climate is now and start planning for how the climate could be tomorrow.

The current solar cycle 24 is looking a lot like solar cycle 5, during the early 1800, when we had a 13 year drought, with three years of El Niño moisture and six more year of drought.

We need to be storing as much water as possible when it is available during El Niño years. Tearing down dams is not a good strategy. If fact, we should be building more dams.

[Douglas Keachie]

700 hundred year old stumps visible deep inside of Lake Tenaya, evidence the same problem. BTW Walt, apparently all you did was read the name, and then write the response. Cheap enough solar will allow for repumping higher reservoirs full again. You can not deny that energy pours in on an unendiung daily basis. All we need to do is to work the kinks out the last mile of the 93 million mile free energy, whether you want it or not, pipeline.

[Douglas Keachie]

See here for Tenaya, etc.

http://books.google.com/books?id=1NIuA2yGKWQC&pg=PA131&lpg=PA131&dq=Lake+tenaya+stumps+underwater+dating&source=bl&ots=6xg1zTgUL-&sig=7VWCp05ICU5tuMfgOYhrHgjbL-k&hl=en&ei=LeZ8Tt7hIOjZiAKA9ZmNDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

[Douglas Keachie]

More information on Stine's research, different source:

After the dishes of the symposium’s dinner banquet had been cleared, Stine took the podium to talk about the weather – the previous 2,000 years of weather. For more than three decades, he has been collecting climate clues across the Sierra.

Submerged trees standing deep within Tuolumne’s Tenaya Lake, indigenous artifacts on the dusty bed of the now-depleted Owens Lake, stumps in the Walker River – these and other hints have led Stine to the conclusion that the weather of the last two millennia has been strikingly varied, and that not many years of those millennia have been nearly as moist as what we call “average.”

“What we consider to be normal wetness today is a chimera. We are kidding ourselves,” Stine intoned into the low light of the banquet room. “We have built the most phenomenal urban and agricultural system in the world, all of it based on storage and transport of water, all the while thinking we’re living in what is normal precipitation and we’re living in an abnormally wet time.”

According to Stine, only three periods in the last 2,000 years have rivaled the 20th century’s abundant moisture.

“The 20th century was probably the fourth-wettest, century-scale period in the last 4,000 years,” Stine said. “Our problem is that we tend to think of today’s climate as being normal, that’s a big mistake as it turns out.”

Over the last 2,000 years, exceptional precipitation has been offset by extraordinary drought.

According to Stine, the bulk of the last two millennia has been “moderately dry by today’s standards.” But sometimes, “moderate” has veered into “severe.” Before an exceptionally wet half-decade of the 12th century, precipitation in the Sierra had been hovering at roughly two-thirds of what we call normal today, and had been doing so for at least 140 years. When a second wet period arrived in the 14th century, it came on the heels of a slightly milder drought that had lasted at least 100 years.

“These are the things we, for very good reason, dread,” Stine said. “This is hopefully not where we’re headed, but it has happened before under natural conditions – century-plus long droughts.”

Stine’s findings aren’t exactly new news. He published them in the journal, Nature, in 1994, and the mainstream press caught wind of it soon after. The Los Angeles Times picked up the story in June of that year, and a few weeks later the New York Times cried, “Severe Ancient Droughts: A Warning to California.”

[D. King]

Yes, it would be a mistake to blow up the dam.

Just who came up with this idea? (name)

[D. King]

Here is the link to the video of Tom's speech.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhYoLaj4uj4

[Bonnie M]

True environmental conservationists built the dams. Saving water for periods of drought and producing clean electricity in the process is sensible. I remember when the eco-fascists deprived the Klamath area farmers of water in favor of salmon some years ago. More recently the delta smelt were more important than farmers to California's politico enviros. We've been through this over and over. The dams were built and paid for by people for people. Consequently, all the other critters also benefitted because of them. The water sustains every living thing through periods of drought.
It's amazing that throughout history the most looked down upon, and yet most important people have always been farmers. Without the food they produce for us, all our greatness and advancement dies from starvation. Common sense.
There's nothing wrong with inventing new sources of energy, but don't destroy what we know works well... for something unknown, or not working very well. For instance, those big, expensive windmills have many functional problems with transmission failures, and catching on fire. Evidently, no gear oil has been invented to withstand the pressures produced in their transmissions. Supposedly, the government gave Dow-Corning a big grant to do work on it. Evidently, many others have already tried and failed. But maybe that's the name of the green money game.

[Steve Enos]

So how much Federal taxpayers money is now lost to the Citizen's Bank closure? What did they cost us taxpayers?

Just wait until all the loan and stock information comes out.

[Todd Juvinall]

George, don't let the lib change the subject.

[stevenfrisch]

Here is a prime example of how a little data can be a dangerous thing. Congressman McClintock says, "Californians have had to cut back to the point that their per capita electricity consumption is now lower than that of Guam, Luxembourg and Aruba."

The data does not support this contention. Starting about 15 years ago California implemented policies to reduce per capita energy consumption, utilizing the 'loading order' goals to 1) encourage energy efficiency, 2) reduce demand at peak hours, 3) increase renewables, and 4) install distributed power; based on the theory that energy conservation would be cheaper in the long run for consumers by reducing their total cost per capita, and for power generators by reducing their need to bring new generation on-line.

http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publications/CEC-400-2005-043/CEC-400-2005-043.PDF

This theory has proven quite effective, with Californians using less than half the electricity per capita that the average American uses. (US 4253 Kwh CA 2225 Kwh) This phenomenon is often described as the "Rosenfeld Curve", named for the CEC thought leader on this issue.

Critics have claimed that California's lower per capita electricity use is a result of weather, demographics, economic activity or housing stock. But every independent analysis has shown that the majority of the savings have come precisely because of the the California policy decisions. A recent paper from Stanford University shows that 16.5% of the savings have come due to weather differences, and 23% of the savings have come from policy decisions.

http://piee.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/docs/publications/sweeney/Deconstructing%20the%20Rosenfeld%20Curve.pdf

In short, energy efficiency in California works, it saves consumers money.

The data shows that Californians are not cutting back because they are a third world country, they are actually better off financially than the nation on average; they are cutting back because policy encourages it and it means more money to go into other things Californians want to spend their money on.

[George Rebane]

SteveF, are you not corroborating the congressman's point by bringing in the "policy decisions" which have made electricity in California among the most expensive in the land, and that has led to diminished use? And all this has happened in land blessed with a mild climate.

http://energybible.com/solar_energy/electric_rates-by-state.html

[Todd Juvinall]

My understanding is we have the highest rates in the country.

http://205.254.135.24/state/seds/hf.jsp?incfile=sep_sum/html/rank_pr_cl_es.html

http://205.254.135.24/state/seds/hf.jsp?incfile=sep_sum/html/rank_use.html

Though the per capita usage is lower in California, my understanding is our rates per KWH are among the highest. When people are charged more for something they usually try to use less. McClintock is spot on.

[Todd Juvinall]

Oh, and the Kamchatka Peninsula which contains hundreds of rivers has seen a hugs increase in salmon I have read.

http://www.kamchatkapeninsula.com/salmon.html

[stevenfrisch]

George, I think the thing that is bothering me about how the Congressman framed the statement is the implication that having a consumption rate equal to or below Luxembourg, Guam and Aruba is somehow a negative. It is not. And his implication that somehow our policy re: dams is effecting our consumption rate. It is not. There is way more power coming on line very day on average from a variety of sources than is coming off line due to dam removal. (by the way I am not making the case here for dam removal--I think that needs to be considered on a case by case basis)

By linking dam decommissioning and electricity use he is linking issues which are way to complicated to be directly linked.

Regardless of political persuasion, energy conservation leading to using less energy should be a good thing, because it saves people and businesses money.

Californians do not have a lower quality of life and are not denied any of the lifestyle choices that our fellow Americans are. I would hazard a guess that there are just as many flat screens, computers, and other electrical appliances in the average California home as there are in the average American home.

The data proves that although California has higher rates than average (although less than New England according to your posted data and 9th highest state in the nation according to Todd's) for a variety of reasons, only one of which is policy, the average Californian uses only 45% of the average American, thus there overall electricity bills are actually lower than most Americans. Behavioral science would indicate that since Californians pay lower bills on average, the primary reason for lower consumption may be price, but no more so than when compared to other Americans.

I wonder how many people look at their bill and say, "hey that price per Kwh is ludicrous", as opposed to those that say, "hey that amount is ludicrous". I would be willing to bet that less than 10% of Californians could tell you with any degree of accuracy what price per Kwh they are paying for electricity--as a matter of fact there is survey data that says its even lower than 10%.

By the way, I notice that according to Todd's second data source Texas has a per capita residential energy consumption rate 50% higher than California, but since the data he posted is "energy" use not electricity use, it is impossible to compare. Since the data is not normalized for residential natural gas consumption, it is worthless to address the point we are discussing. Yet another example of how just looking something up on the internet, rather than reading and comprehending it, is a dangerous thing.

Both of you guys posted way quicker than you could have if you actually went and looked at the data I provided.
Which really just goes to show you that the interest here is not truly understanding an issue, much like the Congressman's inaccurate rationale for lower per capita electricity use in California, it is making a political point.

[stevenfrisch]

Re; Todd's very pretty Kamchatka salmon picture--it is just a picture. If you have heard that salmon runs in Kamchatka are dramatically increasing you might want to link to that data rather than a picture of nice salmon. I have heard that the reason salmon runs are increasing in Kamchatka is that their rivers are not dammed. I for one would prefer to keep a few salmon on the American side of the north Pacific. Call it nostalgia.

[walt]

Keach claims solar is "cheap". Well,,, I beg to differ. Is this your definition of "Cheap"?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/solar-decathlons-rainy-start_594112.html

Take note of the size of the structure.(650 to 750 sq. ft.) Take note of the COST.( up to a half mil.)
Take note that the GOV. kicked in a hundred grand PER entry.

This is NOT cheap.
( but I see you do your best to get around smog regulations and fees.) A little two faced on that. Don't you think?

[stevenfrisch]

Note: that is the cost of the entire house, not just the solar portion. Note: the article says the non-beta test cost would be more like $300K. Note: that is based on meeting NYC building code, stricter than most.

Once again....details....details.....details.

[George Rebane]

SteveF - I wonder if there is any way your reasons and reasoning can weigh on California's businesses to reverse their decisions to stay here, on US and foreign businesses to locate here, on more of our technology graduates to remain here, and on private capital to invest in "clean energy" here?

I find it astounding that one can still argue in 2011 that California is a fortuitous place to come and create wealth. Our state is now the international poster child of governance gone wrong and then doubling down on its past mistakes.

Almost all enterprises not grandfathered here from happier times, nor directly serving the state's population are looking beyond the horizon. And the demographic dynamics of the state's taxpayers and wealth creators are a telling tale in itself.

[Todd Juvinall]

George, SF can go watch the fish mate in thousands of rivers and streams if that is his issue. He can't corroborate the endangerment of the species because there are a gazillion salmon here and on the Kamchatka. He just doesn't have a clue. The reason the econuts want the dams down just as they do with Englebright here is the salmon runs and they call them endangered. They are not but that is all the lefties have. Tom is right, SF and his ilk are wrong. But they sure can write a million words of nothing.

[Steve Frisch]

Gosh Todd, I thought I made it clear I was not arguing the salmon issue. Diversion tactics on your part.

Data, baby, data! But then it is clear from what you post here that your critical thinking and comprehension skills do not equip you well to have a factual conversation.

The issue is energy, and whether Mr. McClintock was accurate. My contention is above; He was not. So prove to us he was.

[Todd Juvinall]

It is all about the salmon. Are you dense? Data man data, give us some.

[walt]

"Finally, Villegas conceded the price tag came to about $450,000, "which is just parts" since CCNY students did all the labor. Another student from the same team, Yinery Baez, also a fifth year architecture student, said that $500,000 is a more accurate figure, but that they believe the price could be dropped to about $300,000 if it were ever to be mass produced.

Depending on who you asked, the square the footage of the home is either 650 (Villegas) or 750 (Baez).

I don't care how you spin it. This isn't cheap. This qualifies as a "granny unit" around here. Just wait till you add in the real labor costs.

" One element of the competition is to be able to build affordable green energy housing. " Key word..... " affordable"... Even at $250,000.. That's NOT affordable. Will you shell out that much for 760 SQF.?

[Steve Frisch]

It's a friggin design competition walt. The purpose of a design competition is to advance innovation. But that's OK, you can throw stones. It seems to be the only activity here.

[Todd Juvinall]

Walt, the rock is unmovable and arrogant.

[Greg Goodknight]

Frisch is right... All he does here is throw stones.

[Dixon Cruickshank]

Frisch yes it is a design competition, of the most innovative minds our universities can produce on green living = 450K maybe, 500K maybe, 650 sqft maybe, 750sqft maybe - jesus they can't even figure out sq footage after 5 fricken years, me and todd can get a tape measure and figured it out in 20 minutes. Nor can they figure out how much was spent? Frisch you really are beyond worthless as any sort of debater or conversationalist - honest dude that is so sad

[stevenfrisch]

You guys are so amazingly lame. Look at the posts above and the times of the posts.

George, and Todd, did not even read the content of the links I attached; I responded directly to the data they provided. The ultimate in throwing stones is disregarding the information shared here and spouting without reading.

Is that the point of this blog? That people get to spout crap without reading, independently researching, gleaning information from a variety of sources? and using their own critical thinking skills to draw some conclusions?

My original premise here was that Mr. McClintock's point was not supported by the data, that he spun the info to gain rhetorical advantage, and that readers here allowed him to do that without objecting. I cited specific information to back up that point, and provided the source material to allow people to read it for themselves.

Look at the source material Todd provided. It is not even relative to the issue, it is measure of energy not electricity, and he is too lame to understand or even acknowledge the difference when corrected.

For all your vaunted pride in your own abilities, I don;t think I have ever seen a bigger group of complete idiots groping in the dark collected in one place.

[Todd Juvinall]

If all of us said he sky is blue, SF would dispute it and call us names. Steve, you are just the smartest bear around and by golly you certainly tell us that all the time. Just look at the length of you posts. They are longer than the original post! No Steve, you attacked the Congressman's points and you are simply wrong. He has traveled to the area and met with all the participants many times. You have not risen from your chaise and gone there. I too have been following this very closely and know what I am talking about. You simply google and call it good. No SteveF, you just have a different view of yourself than we all do and what you are full of is unspoken here by we gentlemen.

[stevenfrisch]

You are full of beans.

The Congressman's point is that there is a relationship between federal dam de-commisioning policy and electricity use by California consumers. That is simply false. I have cited two specific studies, one that shows that 23% of Californians reduced use is due to conservation and 16.5% due to climatic differences, and one that enumerates the alternative sources of energy being developed, and you simply can't dispute them. Instead you are bent on changing the subject, insulting, attacking and engaging in anti-intellectual rhetoric. And your like minded shallow buddies George, Dixon, Greg et all join in a group of automatons.

In addition, without ever asking a single question you assume that I have never followed the Klamath issues, or traveled to the region, just like you did in a previous post this week about Angels Camp.

Here is the deal Todd, the reason you are intimidated by long or data driven posts is that you are simply too stupid to read them and comprehend the content.

The Shinola oozes from you like a 10 pounds of Todd in a 5 pound sack.

[Todd Juvinall]

SteveF, you are simply full of yourself and you are the laughingstock of this exemplary blog. You are just out of your league and George and the rest of us are making you look foolish time after time. Your post are full of idiotic claims and you know you have never followed the Klamath issues or gone there to interview and discuss the issues with the affected parties. You are just a bloviator SteveF . Just fess up SteveF, stop fibbing and trying to make people think you have any idea of the real world. It is not working. You are the poster boy of what is wrong with America, a simple leech on the body tax.

[George Rebane]

This saga and the answer to SteveF takes second wind in 'Klamath Claptrap Continued' here
http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2011/09/klamath-claptrap-continued.html

[Bonnie M]

It wasn't many years ago when the enviros were accusing the loggers of being the reason for declining salmon. During one of our trips to Canada and Alaska we read about the reason in one of their newspapers. It seems that when they prohibited the killing of seals the population increased so much that it was affecting the salmon population. So they tried some kind of birth control on the seals. It probably cost a fortune, and I doubt that it was successful.