April 22nd, 2010
Case Study 3
In the Northwest region of the United States there is a large snaking river that covers a lot of groundin four different states. The river is named characteristically “Snake River”. In the middle of the 1990’s we saw a lot of controversial talk over the four large dams placed in different parts of the River. We continue to hear talks more than a decade later about the possible removal of these dams. The dams bring a lot of money to the Northwest region and support a lot of jobs among, farmers, barge operators, and people who work at the dam themselves. This is not to mention that it supports ...view middle of the document...
I think the Native Americans should have the most influence on the outcome. I believe this because they were here first. “The early bird catches the worm” or at least this is true in most other aspects of our lifestyle today except in this case. I believe the Native Americans should have the most influence but realistically if the government doesn’t listen to scientists than they are most likely not going to listen to the Native peoples.
Farmers should absolutely have a strong say in this rising issue. I believe their say should be an alternative to the dams. They may not think this is best for them but in the end there are plenty of ways to find irrigation for their plants. Maybe they can lobby for the removal of the dams but ask for part of the river to be rerouted for their use. There doesn’t have to necessarily be one winner. This whole region can win if they all decide to work together to do the right thing. Barge operators are very similar to farmers in that they too should have an influencing say. Their job is based off of exporting materials from port to port along this river and without any dams the river would be to shallow for them to cross. Well in their case they should work together with the farmers and maybe make an agreement or pact to export the farmer’s materials via a different route. This would save the Snake River valley from pollution and over usage. The recipients of electrical power should have little say. It is only a small portion of the Northwest region that is supplied by these dams. They will get their energy even if it comes from a different source, the same way the rest of America does. Conservation Scientists on the other hand should have the strongest say because after all they know the most about our environment and how it works. Also they are familiar with many other successful operations of removing dams all over the United States. This is evidence enough that the possible removal will most likely be successful. Scientists have spent practically their whole life studying organisms like us humans, and the ecosystems we live in. They know what’s best for the earth and therefore what’s best for the people.
The senators who are lobbying against the removal have muddied the waters and gave facts that aren’t exactly facts. The American Corps has over estimated long-term losses and at the same time they have underestimated long-term gains if removal occurred. They did a great job of assuming what was to happen and not actually researching. In the end yes we would probably lose more jobs than gained but in the long run removing these dams would do a lot more good than bad. The actual percentage of jobs lost would be 1/15 of 1 percent of all jobs in the Washington, Oregon & Idaho region. This “economic blow” as some senators would call it could recover within a few years instead they are assuming that everyone that loses a job won’t go on to find another one. If we look at areas surrounding the river we would see...