Comments on: Dam Plan Not Needed For Boise River

By: Judith

Judith — Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:23:57 +0000

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.

By: DaveL

DaveL — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 20:39:25 +0000

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?

By: Fred

Fred — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 17:08:07 +0000

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.

By: Craig Bachman

Craig Bachman — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 11:55:13 +0000

“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?

By: Zippo

Zippo — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 05:15:05 +0000

Good thing boise has stopped growing.

By: Rod in SE Boise

Rod in SE Boise — Sun, 11 Jul 2010 19:30:28 +0000

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.”

By: cyclops

cyclops — Sun, 11 Jul 2010 01:30:13 +0000

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?

By: Paul

Paul — Sun, 11 Jul 2010 00:21:09 +0000

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.

By: kip wills

kip wills — Sat, 10 Jul 2010 22:58:34 +0000

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?