Shasta Dam Debate
Jeremy Rodriguez
City College
Abstract
On September 28, 2019 the New York Times published an article called ‘The Interior Secretary Wants to Enlarge a Dam. An Old Lobbying Client Would Benefit’. Inside the article, the Shala Dam in Northern California was proposed to create major expansion. The project had many negatives including violating California state law, the harm to local and endangered species, the cost of over 1.5 billion dollars being cost-prohibitive and it being proposed by the Internal Secretary who was a former lobbyist for the company that would contribute in the project. Even the pros are likely negatives as well, for example, the wealth to local farmers would not be the most efficient way to make sure people are fed and being paid for by the company would still further negatively impact the environment. The best course of action would likely be to postpone voting on the bill until the issue with the California state is dealt with and find alternative projects that can be funded by Westlands Water District that do not have any impact on the local environment.
On September 28 the New York Times published an article titled, ‘The Interior Secretary Wants to Enlarge a Dam. An Old Lobbying Client Would Benefit’ by Carol Davenport. Inside the article dam is being built with almost certain effects on the local environment that would damage the local industry. Debate rises in whether if it should be built, including the controversy that it is violating a law in California state and could be evidence of corporate influence over politicians. We can see a lot of debate occurring on what to do over the proposed solution of a dam. We should handle both major scientific and ethical decisions in congress prior to executing anything with the dam.
There is a negative side we can see in going forward with the project as it is. The writer states, “The department’s own scientists and researchers concluded that doing so (further construction of the dam) would endanger rare plants and animals in the area, as well as the bald eagle, and devastate the West Coast’s salmon industry downstream.” This is clearly showing an adverse effect on nature that also affects the economy, & welfare of other people’s income. Fewer plants have multiple disadvantages like easier erosions and killing the animals that depend on them. The salmon industry in the area also has a direct economic effect on the people who live on it. Furthermore, the article discusses that the dam, “not only would be environmentally damaging and cost-prohibitive, but it would also be illegal under California law.” Allowing such a project puts law itself into question if it is done. If one agency can disregard another this lays the groundwork for lack of coordination that can be damaging to civilians and the government. Again, it is also cost-prohibitive making money a limiting factor. The other negative is that the person proposing the idea, “Mr. Bernhardt stopped lobbying for Westlands in November 2016 and began work at the Interior Department in August 2017, first as its deputy secretary. Soon thereafter, the agency moved ahead on Shasta, explicitly naming Westlands in their budget request to Congress.” This calls into question if the proposal is to everyone benefit or is a way to carry out favor or earn something for himself.
Even though there are potential benefits the many not be worth it. The author notes, “The project is going forward now, in a big win for a powerful consortium of California farmers that stands to profit substantially by gaining access to more irrigation water from a higher dam and has been trying to get the project approved for more than a decade.”
It seems apparent that there are people that do benefit from the decision and the profit. More money to farmers could help to feed more people but it runs the risk of using more land from forests and taking money away from projects that could have a greater benefit to feeding the hungry. Another possible benefit is Westlands could help cover one-third of the projected $1.5 billion costs and perhaps paying “the lion’s share,” and “If it’s built the way it’s described, Westlands will benefit,” but the state of California as a whole also stands to gain …” according to Mr. Birmingham, the water district’s general manager. The additional money saved if the project was to go through could be reflected in other projects around the city. Even though it is not directly stated how the state would benefit, there are likely ways that those would backfire. Even with the additional money to spend on the project itself could cost much more in the long run due to the degradation of the environment.
Overall it seems that the best course of action is to put down the decision in order to settle the fact that it violates the state law as well as time to investigate the intentions of the deal. A possible way to make the most out of the offer is finding a project that Westlands could fund that has less impact in order to gain in effect 1.3 Billion in discretionary spending. Whatever decision would allow time to better protect the local environment or choosing a different project to fund.
References
Davenport, Coral. “The Interior Secretary Wants to Enlarge a Dam. An Old Lobbying Client Would Benefit.” The New York Times. The New York Times, September 28, 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/28/climate/bernhardt-shasta-dam.html.
