Before you freak out over the subject, read on. I recently ran the run above Ernie's on the NF Snoqualmie, and I met a guy at the bridge who told me that he is looking into setting up a diversion dam on Ernie's Canyon for electricity. He said that he is a rafter, and he would like to talk to people who do this run about how to work together. His idea is that his company would work with kayakers so that if they want to do the run, the diversion amount would be modified to make it possible for people to do the run. He even mentioned the idea of providing transportation down to the put-in at the bridge.

If you guys want to contact him, here is his info:

Thom Fischer
Whitewater Engineering Corp.
360-738-9999
thom@whitewatereng.com

I hear rafters saying Damn kayakers all the time,
would this make it appropriate to say Dam Rafter by any chance....

ahahah probably a totally inappropriate joke.

I don't think it is freaking out or trying to make him feel bad, Dcell. I think it is great that he is willing to entertain discussion on the subject, of course I think it is more important to fight the whole project considering the permitting requirements that have not be fullfilled yet. There are few drainages that make sense for Hydro, and I am against them in general I can understand the appeal of this one because it is above snoqualmie so it does not affect steelhead and salmon runs, but quite honestly the affect to recreation along the N.Fork road would be terrible.

Just because someone disagrees does not mean they are trying to make you feel bad. Ben understandable is passionate on the subject considering he paddles that run alot.

Imagine if they said they were going to repair howard hanson and make it much bigger thus the Green River would flow less and less often. Many folks would be equally passionate against that type of project and I am sure this is just how Ben feels about ernies.

Before we all start emailing this guy, it might behoove us to link in Tom O'Keefe and AW... 

How can the cost of building a dam on the NF, the cost of the permits and the general maintenance costs associated with a long term project possibly be less than just buying the power from PSE. Or just using a generator? What are they doing out there other than harvesting trees? There is so little water in that creekbed I don't see how it can be considered a viable powersource? This doesn't make sense.

I emailed Tom this morning asking if he has heard about this and to please check out this thread.

I have more of a beef with the fact that the purpose of the resevoir on the Green was not for water sales, and that the usage of the resevoir over the past 15 years has become increasing targetted at just that. In my opinion the breech in the integrity of that dam is due to the change in usage. If it were simple flood mitigation that resevoir would have been drained prior to the storm a few years ago. That change in usage is what is also a concern on any river project, you say lets just skim off a little 50cfs maybe 100 but in 2 years that can easily get bigger, and history shows we don't often reverse the cycle of demand in profits but rather increase it.

I do recall a few threads by the way about the usage of HH res. and the increase in capacity. The difference is that when they increased the capacity they never set about major construction with an advertised repurpose for the res. If they did that, ie stated hey were not worried about flood mitigation, were going to do power and drinking water, which would be like the Skagit, well I do think you might hear a big of squaking, and I can promise at our next wine and cheese night you would have a hard time getting me to put a lid on my can!!!

I typed a nice response and lost it so I will make this one short.

1. Lowest ele on the green res. is 1020, sediment damage is 1030-1040 per ACE.
2. They could have gone lower, I don't think it would have made a huge difference so I agree with you on that.
3. The biggest issue is that they not only held off letting out water but they backed off by lowering the flow for 16 hours during the biggest peak. Why? well that may never be known. My understanding is that they wanted the luxury of leveling off the res. to the level they wanted to enter summer with knowing that this particular storm could have big impact on the snow pack that season, limiting captures which it did.

Had the focus been on mitigation only I think it would have ended differently but that is not my main point. MY point is that they use that structure for something other than it was designed. I don't argue it is needed, the Green used to flood the valley bad bad bad back in the day and that res. saved lives and a lot of money. So yea I agree it was a good purpose but mitigation is not what people were focusing that dams use for a few years ago. It had been almost 10 years since a late season storm so folks got soft and thought they could balance profits with purpose. Was it a massive storm, sure but there is still fault regardless of the fact that it might not have 100% changed the outcome.

I just don't want more developed hydro projects, I would prefer to turn off the car and maybe not use a computer before loosing these priceless resources. Unfortunately that is not what 99% of the people feel which means we need to start blowing up cars and infecting PCs with Viruses. Holy crap, does that make Terrorists and Chinese hackers patriots? ... I just did it again, started yaking about. Ok time for me to get back to work.


Edited by James - 26 May 2011 at 11:30am

And to those who jumped on dcell... give him a break. Don't shoot the messenger. He's a boater and has the same concerns as the rest of the community. That's why he passed this info on. He should be thanked for sharing and getting information on this matter first hand.

And also, he didn't say don't freak out... He said to read his full post on the matter before you freak out (and not just freak out on the title alone). Once you read his full post (which isnt very long) you are free to freak out in whatever manner best befits you.

Thanks dcell that was kind to pass along and I agree with Joe 100%. We should be thanking you and your friend for even letting this information flow and allowing discussion and comments.

Brian I agree with your points but would prefer to save face and keep arguing ... Nkay

Again since I am a rafter too I should have never cracked a joke. I am not funny and I am just trying to be more sauve.

I agree. I'd like to see what it is that's being proposed. I'm concerned about more of these smaller hydro projects creeping in... such as the one on Youngs creek in the Sky drainage.

Well done, after that stern talking to, you should take a bow.

And the other point I was trying to make is that Ernie's is not just some random stretch of water (I've never heard of Young's Creek), but arguably the 2nd best whitewater run in the State of Washington, after the Little White Salmon