BAY DAILY EMAIL SIGN-UP

Receive this blog via Email

Awards


Voted 'best news blog' by readers of The Baltimore Sun in the 2010 Maryland's Outstanding Blog (or Mobbies) awards.

DISCLAIMER

  • PLEASE READ OUR TERMS OF USE
    The views and opinions expressed in the media, articles or comments on this site are those of the speakers or authors and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions held by CBF and the inclusion of such information does not imply endorsement by CBF. CBF is not responsible for the contents of any linked Web, or any link contained in a linked Web site, or any changes or updates to such Web sites. The inclusion of any link or comment is provided only for information purposes. CBF reserves the right to edit or remove any comments and material posted to this website and to ban users from the site without notice. Partisan, pornographic or other inappropriate content, product or service promotion, foul language or bad behavior is expressly forbidden and will be removed.

Mobile Auto-Detection: Bay Daily

Tracking Code - Bay Daily

« American Farm Bureau Road Apples | Main | Governor's Proposed Budget Undermines Critical Land Preservation Program »

03/03/2014

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

um something tells me the easiest solution to this is removing the dam all together, unless it has a serious necessity, which i don't know, but doubt it does

Well, it is a hydroelectric dam, so removing it would reduce the amount of emissions-free electricity generated in the region.

Also, removing it would allow the tons of sediment stored up behind the dam to flow freely down into the Bay. That would mean a lot more pollution, all of a sudden.

Now, in theory, workers could dredge the silt out first, truck it to a landfill or use it as fill in construction projects, and then remove the dam.

Why is it the Federal or State Tax Payers problem and not the electric company's problem?

I don't remember getting a check as a share of the electric company's profits over all these years, so why should I assume their liabilities?

An excellent point, Paul, and I agree with you completely. The power company that owns the dam should have to pick up much of the cost of dealing with the sediment problem, in my personal opinion. It's a matter of maintaining their own generation facility. Now, the power company could argue that they aren't responsible for all the silt flowing down the river -- which is true. But they are responsible for maintaining their dam in a way that does not cause excessive damage to the river.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment