Dam Plan Not Needed For Boise River

Another case of why GROTHOPHOBES have a good argument.

Last week, the Army Corps of Engineers and Idaho Water Resource Board presented preliminary findings from the “Lower Boise River Interim Feasibility Study” of potential dam sites on the Boise River system

They claim a new dam is needed for water supply and flood risk management, not hydropower.  Targeted rivers include the North and Middle Fork Boise Rivers which were protected from new dams by the state in 1992.

Here’s what the greenies at Idaho Rivers United have to say about the proposals along with some common sense observations about the future:

A dam on the North Fork or Middle Fork would have devastating environmental and social effects.  A dam at Twin Springs on the Middle Fork would destroy campgrounds, Class IV whitewater, and endangered Bull Trout habitat, as well as wildlife habitat along Middle Fork and North Fork Boise River. 

A new dam is unnecessary and extremely expensive. The consequences of a dam could not be mitigated, and the costs to our state and the nation far outweigh the potential benefits.  Less drastic alternatives can be used to meet our water needs and reduce flood risk even as we experience growth. 

Public funding should go toward the study of these more feasible and less costly options, which include:
 – -efficiency and conservation
–water rental pools and water marketing to provide water to new users
–a floodplain levy to limit building in the floodplain

The Boise River is a vital consideration in economic, environmental, and quality of life issues in Idaho.  It provides water for household use and irrigation and nearby recreational opportunities.  Its beauty is also a great draw for new businesses and potential residents. 

If we destroy our natural resources by building a new dam, we jeopardize the future growth, health, and livability of our community.
The Corps is accepting written public comment through July 31st.  Please visit www.idahorivers.org for more information or call 343-7481.

Comments & Discussion

Comments are closed for this post.

  1. Interesting why they would want to put a damn in near Twin Springs. Would have to see the otherside on this one before deciding change is bad. Working in that area there would be a loss of campsites, etc but what is the tradeoff?

  2. The Army Corps of Engineers needs to fade away like all old soldiers. They spent most of the last century building dams and various water projects. Most of them beneficial to all of us in one form or another but bad for the enviroment.

    Stewardship of what we have left is worth something.

  3. Although I am usually on the other side of the planet from Idaho Rivers United, there may be an alliance from hell here. If we are talking about increasing water supplies, why do I think there is a 6-7000 house development in the mix somewhere in the valley?

  4. Rod in SE Boise
    Jul 11, 2010, 1:30 pm

    As the population of the world (and Idaho, and Boise, and your neighborhood) continues to increase, water will be the limiting factor. We will run out of water long before we will run out of land or air. Chart the growth of your water bill.

    And BP has just polluted the entire Gulf of Mexico, making it unusable for any purpose for how many hundreds of years?? My dog just gave me that look that says: “Way to go, stupid humans.”

  5. Good thing boise has stopped growing.

  6. Craig Bachman
    Jul 12, 2010, 5:55 am

    “They claim a new dam is needed for water supply and flood risk management…”

    Tell us precisely who the water supply is for and what flood risk is being managed. 10:1 it is down valley development built in flood plains. This was known 40 years ago when over development of the valley’s best agricultural land began. Why penalize those who knew better?

  7. Response from the likes of Idaho Rivers United to any potential development is amusing and totally predictable. I’ve been reading the same, worn-out arguments from enviro-nuts since the early 70’s on any realistic proposal that might produce energy, minerals, food, or virtually anything else. “Conservation” is always the answer, lest we jeapordize the quality of life for ourselves and future generations.
    Feasibility studies, such as this–as preliminary as they are– simply allow these kooky groups to swing into action in an attempt to build a dwindling membership and financial base. They’ve been trying to dupe us for 40 years–it’s getting tiresome.

  8. Way to elevate the discussion Fred – when you have no valid argument, just throw insults.

    What you call “kooky” is recognized by mainstream America – conserved water and power is, by far, the least expensive option.

    Who do you propose to fund the estimated 1+ BILLION DOLLAR price tag of a new dam on the Boise River?

  9. I know people shouldn’t build in the flood plains,should conserve water, shouldn’t build more doesn’t. Boise was a desert before the dams and canals- most people think it has always been this perfect- always green never floods. BUT just because it hasn’t flooded, doesn’t mean it won’t. Dams chew up less now than they ever have before- and make safe clean power. Water that leaves Idaho and goes to Oregon becomes Oregon property- will we lose rights to it before it leaves? Maybe we need to store more for emergencies and to protect people who do what they shouldn’t and endanger us all.

Get the Guardian by email

Enter your email address: