Consider future generations

Dear Gary,

I am disappointed that the state Pollution Control Hearing Board says more water must go over Enloe Dam (G-T 8/1). While I love to watch the water rush over the dam this seems very short sighted for the environment. The use of the Enloe Dam is a good way to reuse a structure already in place instead of the impact of building something new. We will use more power in the future. if we don’t use the dam we will get the power from another source. Building a totally new structure is potentially more degrading to the environment than using an existing structure. Hydroelectric energy, while not without problems, is still one of the cleanest forms of energy. The idea that more natural gas will be burned somewhere else so we can watch water spill over the dam is sad.

I do not agree with Joseph Enzensperger’s implication in his letter (G-T 8/8) that we do not need additional energy sources. A local source of power has lasting benefits. In addition to the savings of not having as much electrical line loss, we also get local jobs. The economic gain of powerhouse workers will out weigh the service sector jobs of full hotel beds.

I enjoy walking the trail along the river. I am glad the PUD put the money into making this trail available to the public.

I hope the PUD commissioners look at the price per kilowatt and make a reasonable long term decision, a decision that does consider future generations.

Scott Olson