20030179 Ver 6_Public Comments_20071024 (2)

RE: Dillsboro Dam and West Fork
Subject: RE: Dillsboro Dam and West Fork
From: "Mike" <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:48:34 -0400
To: <[e-mail]>
From my biog....
The muck behind Dams .

> People rarely consider long-term maintenance when they are renting
> an apartment; similarly power companies rarely look beyond the terms
> of a lease when investing in maintenance of the publicly owned hydro-electric dams.

> Silt naturally accumulates behind dams slowly filling the reservoir and
> reducing the capacity of our hydro-power generation stations. The soil
> types in our area are especially prone to silt run-off.

> The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission does not require that
> leasees return these leased dams in the original state (without silt
> accumulation). This creates a problem of incentives and a premature
> obsolescence of our hydro dams which taxpayers and electricity
> customers have paid for and now own (not Duke or FERC).

> Dam lease agreements should include provisions for removing the silt.
> Forcing the taxpayers to pay for clean-up or destroy the ecosystem after the taxpayers already
> paid for building the dam and land (usually taken from citizens) is shortsighted
> and wasteful.

1 of 2 10/24/2007 12:22 PM

RE: Dillsboro Dam and West Fork
> Unfortunately, back room deals from special interests demanding
> recreational provisions or some price mitigation allows power
> companies to ignore the what is best for the taxpaying public and ecosystem.

> It is the shortsightedness of the hydroelectric lease process that
> has created the problem with the Dillsboro dam and that needs to be corrected.
> New dam leases lack the basic maintenance provisions protecting the
> longevity of these expensive and eco-friendly power sources and flood
> controls; that must be changed
2 of 2 10/24/2007 12:22 PM