Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Interior Ignored Science When Limiting Water to Grand Canyon

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-28-09 06:18 AM
Original message
Interior Ignored Science When Limiting Water to Grand Canyon
Source: Washington Post

Interior Ignored Science When Limiting Water to Grand Canyon
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 28, 2009; Page A06

Interior Department officials ignored key scientific findings when they limited water flows in the Grand Canyon to optimize generation of electric power there, risking damage to the ecology of the spectacular national landmark, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post.

A Jan. 15 memo written by Grand Canyon National Park Superintendent Steve Martin suggests that the department produced a flawed environmental assessment to defend its actions against environmentalists in court. The Grand Canyon Trust, an advocacy group, has sued Interior for reducing the flow of water from Glen Canyon Dam at night, when consumer demand for electricity is low, on the grounds that the policy hurts imperiled fish species such as the endangered humpback chub and erodes the canyon's beaches.

"The government's brief as presented continues to misinterpret key scientific findings related to the humpback chub, status of downstream resources in Grand Canyon, and the need for the Secretary to acknowledge authorities and responsibilities to protect resources under administration," Martin wrote in a memo that The Post obtained from the group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. Martin added that his agency continues to fear that the current policy "will significantly impair Grand Canyon resources."

~snip~
"Science should not be shoved under the table in order to deal with special interests that are knocking at the door," said Salazar, adding that he will be looking at several last-minute decisions made by Bush before he left office. "My point of view is, nothing is sacrosanct in terms of being reexamined."


Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/27/AR2009012703283.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Optical.Catalyst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-28-09 06:38 AM
Response to Original message
1. Capitalism needs electricity to operate. It will get that electricity at the expense of all else
Republicans are the party of big business. There is no doubt why the Bush Administration imposed those last minute environmental regulations before leaving office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Redwraithvienna Donating Member (53 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-28-09 08:29 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Oh cut that Capitalism BS ...
Lenin said : "Communism is Soviet government plus the electrification of the whole country." and i bet that he would have filled up the grand canyon if that would have helped to acchive the goal

So not only Capitalism depends on energy. Everboy does. Even you who wrote this statement on a computer.

Its not Capitalism which destroyes everything in its path. Its greed.

In this case its a lot cheaper to produce energy on dams up the river which were built years ago , then to built new power plants (renewable or not) to acchive both goals - Energy and Eviromental protection.

But i wont even blame the power producing companies for that. They just supply the market.

The real problem is our mindset, which prohibits us from paying 10 cents/kWh more for renewable energy and instead buy power from sources like those power plants, which we know is damaging to the enviroment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-28-09 09:41 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. So, once again, we have met the enemy and them is us?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Redwraithvienna Donating Member (53 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-28-09 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Yups ...
its us.

It doesnt matter if the system is communist, capitalist, socialist,social-capitalist marxist, maoist or whatever. Doesnt matter.

We have to change.

And stop to belive that once (choose from the abvove) becomes reality in our countries everything is going to be perfect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Winterblues Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-28-09 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. We actually are changing, it is just very damn slow.
Spain now get's forty percent of all it's electricity from Solar, I heard that Holland get's a substantial portion of it's energy from tidal action. The more other countries pick up the ball the sooner the USA will follow suit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-28-09 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Spain gets nowhere near 40% of it's electricity from solar.
Most of the electricity in Spain is produced using coal, natural gas, and nuclear power. Spain has some notoriously dirty coal plants.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Iberian_Peninsula/Electricity.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Winterblues Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-28-09 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. Spain is the fourth largest manufacturer in the world of solar power technology and exports 80 perce
You are correct in the forty percent number. That is their prediction for 2020. Right now they predict by end of this year they will be using 12% energy with Solar

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Spain
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anonymous171 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-28-09 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. Free Market Capitalism rewards greed (or as the Free Market religionists call it, "self-interest")
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-28-09 11:33 AM
Response to Original message
8. If it was up to me I'd take Glen Canyon Dam down.
Infrastructure improvements, mostly on the demand side, would make up the difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 11:26 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC