The people's voice., 1957-08-23

of the Salmon and Clearwater riv-
ers against the dambuilders. Many
have become convinced the future
task would be easier if big dam,
developing the full power and water
storage potential of the site, were
| built at Hells Canyon.
That is the reason a number of
conservationist groups throughout the
country came out recently in support
of the high Hells Canyon Dam as
workable alternative to the Clear
water project. 1t offers 100000
acre-feet of storage compared to L.
49, 900 acre-feet at Bruces Eddy. It's
power potential exceeds the capacity
of Bruces Eddy. The Hells Canyon
location. while causing inundation of
a spectacular section of the deepest
river gorge in North America, does
not threaten vast fisheries, wildlife,
or recreational resources.
Licenses for the three private dams
in this same stretch of the Snake
River-Brownlee, OXbow and low
Hells Canyon-have been granted to
the Idaho Power Co. by the Federal
Power Commission. Brownlee is now
under construction. But these dams
together offer much less in the form
of flood storage and hydroelectric
potential than the proposed high Hells
Canyon project. They do little to re-
lieve the pressure for Bruces Eddy
o,,1 fA,. +ha ,NpOnacnA at h.
Nez Perce site, downstream from
Hells Canyon on the Snake River.
The Nez Perce Dam would block the
vast runs of steelhead and chinook
salmon that now use the Salmon Riv-
er. 1t is considered to be the biggest
single dam threat to the great sport
and commercial fisheries of the en-
tire Columbia Basin.
Elsewhere in the Columbia system
similar problems are faced and SINH
ar losses threatened through con-
struction of high dams. Proposed
Glacier View Dam in western Mon
ana, for example, would flood por-
ions of Glacier National Park. Pro-
)Onents of Glacier View have been
Iuiet of late but like dam promoters
everywhere. they have the blueprints
lied away and are biding their time
When they decide to push, the nation
will see another controversy not un-
ike the Echo Park Dam struggle that
vas won by the conservationists in
he 84th Congress.
- al E4.I
die Fork of the Flathead River, pro-
posed Spruce Park Dam would
flood out wilderness, big-game win
tering areas, and some of the last
remnants of grizzly bear range in
the United States. Here again con-
servationists might well consider
the wisdom of supporting multi
purpose dams at less destructive
sites. Two that are now proposed,
Libby Dam on the Kootenai River
and Paradise Dam on the Clark
F Fork, would relieve much of the
demand for upriver projects that
place park, wildlife and wilderness
resources in jeopardy.
The lesson to be drawn. then. from
lie related Bruces Eddy and Hells
anyon fights, is that in controver-
es over river development, conser-
ationists must choose, or devise,
an that will serve best to protect
e valuable resources which. if not
ught for, will be lost in Americas
lssion for pouring concrete. Some
mes the choice may parallel the de-
res of private industry; in other in
ances, it may support the plans of
lblic power. This is not to depreci-
e the private enterprise-versus-gov-
nment issue, the outcome of this
sue may well be critical, in one way
another, to the future of America.
1T the way we use or misuse natural
sources can be equally critical, and
lch more quickly, in the ultimate
estion of survival or disaster. The
culiar function of conservationists.
d part of their great opportunity to
rye America, is to insist that river
velopment plans make conservation
nse. And if they do their Job for
nerica, they cannot be deferred by
Sc accusations of partisanship that
IL be hurled at them by partisans.