Goldy

It’s double the fun on the AM dial, as “The David Goldstein Show” officially expands to two nights a week! Join me tonight from 7PM to 10PM on Newsradio 710-KIRO. I like to go with the flow, so things could change, but here’s what I have lined up for tonight’s show:

7PM: Rail-to-trail or Rail nor Trail? Is King County Executive Ron Sims’ proposal to acquire Burlington Northern’s Renton-Snohomish rail corridor a clever subterfuge to build commuter rail on the line, or a clever subterfuge to kill it? Rail booster (and former Seattle mayoral candidate) Al Runte joins me in the studio to argue for commuter rail now, while Sims’ spokesman Sandeep Kaushik calls in to defend his boss’s proposal.

8PM: Is the US conducting an illegal war in Iraq? Daniel Ellsberg of Pentagon Papers fame joins me by phone to discuss the case of Lt. Ehren Watada, and the state of the US war in Iraq. Ellsberg is in town to testify at the Citizens Hearing on the Legality of U.S. Actions in Iraq being held this weekend in Tacoma; he is most recently the author of SECRETS: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers.

9PM: TBA

Tune in tonight (or listen to the live stream) and give me a call: 1-877-710-KIRO (5476).

PROGRAM NOTE:
Join me Sunday night at 7PM when I’ll be talking to state Sen. Rosa Franklin about her bill to enact a state income tax.

When King County Executive Ron Sims proposed acquiring a 47-mile rail corridor from Renton to Snohomish, and converting much of it to a recreational trail, he instantly made himself a target of pro-rail activists. And yesterday’s approval of the plan by a regional advisory committee has done little to lesson the controversy.

The 24-member Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) rail-corridor advisory committee recommended that the corridor be converted into a trail for most of its length. The real decisions will be made by the county, but that didn’t stop about 15 protesters from standing in the rain to support keeping the railroad tracks, or committee members from arguing over the future of the corridor.

King County Executive Ron Sims wants to buy the corridor as part of a complicated land swap and convert the line to a trail within county limits and a trail-rail combo from Woodinville to Snohomish. The advisory committee, meeting in Redmond, approved the same plan, while leaving open the possibility the corridor could revert to train use in 20 to 40 years.

[…]Members of All Aboard Washington, a Seattle pro-rail group, protested that idea. They stood with signs reading “Trains are Green” and “Do the Obvious … Use These Tracks Now!” […] “Why are we the last city in the United States of America to be catching on [to rail transit]?” asked Al Runte, a group member and former Seattle mayoral candidate.

The pro-rail group wants the corridor to be converted to commuter rail now, using the existing tracks, but transit experts who have studied the route insist that it just isn’t economical. The tracks themselves have been neglected over the years and would require expensive upgrades, while current commuter patterns simply won’t support much of the route. Or at least, that’s what I’ve been privately told.

I suppose one can argue over the facts and the analysis — indeed, we should argue over them. If Al Runte can make the argument for commuter rail now, I’m all for it. But the pro-rail folks need to keep the big picture in sight, and be careful their opposition now doesn’t scuttle the hope of a commuter rail line in the future.

The deal is complicated. The corridor is owned and operated by Burlington Northern, which currently runs a few thousand containers a day a year on the line, a volume it has decided is uneconomical. Under Sims proposal, the Port of Seattle would purchase the corridor from Burlington Northern, and then swap it to King County in exchange for Boeing Field. King County would then pull up the tracks along much of the route and replace it with a trail… thus saving the corridor intact for possible conversion back to rail at some point in the future.

But if the deal falls through, Burlington Northern will sell the corridor to private developers who will subdivide the land into parcels, thus removing the corridor forever.

The important thing to remember is that one way or the other, Burlington Northern is shutting down this freight line, and there is no potential buyer on the market with a promise and a plan to keep it operating. So if pro-rail opponents manage to nix the purchase and swap agreement because they oppose the rail-to-trail proposal, they will destroy any chance of building commuter rail on the corridor in the future.

First and foremost, the Sims proposal saves the Renton to Snohomish corridor for future commuter rail use — indeed, much of the corridor is wide enough to support both rail and trail side by side, and there are engineering options available to accommodate the two uses where the corridor narrows. But one way or the other, Burlington Northern is absolutely going to shut down the line, so if the deal falls through the corridor will end up being parceled off to private developers.

So here’s my suggestion to Al and the entire pro-rail group: continue to make the argument for commuter rail now (that is, if you have a good argument to make,) but make it absolutely clear that you wholeheartedly support the county acquiring the corridor. For if, through your efforts, the deal is scuttled, the region will end up with neither rail nor trail.

Twice now I’ve mentioned “war crimes” and the Bush administration in the same sentence, acts of deliberate provocation that sure tied the righties’ panties in a knot. But contrary to the screaming headlines of the all-knowing Orb, I have never explicitly called Donald Rumsfeld a war criminal — and out-of-work radio host Brian Maloney doesn’t do his job prospects any good with his incoherent and (and fictional) assertion that I have twice called for administration officials to be executed.

Gimme a break.

But given the recent show trial of Saddam Hussein and his top aides, and their subsequent “fumbled” executions (I suppose Bush was referring to the moment Barzan Ibrahim’s severed head hit the ground,) I think it quite an appropriate time to stop and consider the very notion of “war crimes,” especially considering the inherently violent and unforgiving nature of war itself. As Americans, we are quick to examine Saddam’s murderous life and discard him as a monstrous dictator undeserving of mercy… and that very well may be true. But at the same time, President Bush — our Commander in Chief — has himself been directly responsible for the death and dismemberment of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, not to mention the destabilization of Iraq into a bloody civil war that claims hundreds more lives every day.

Perhaps such “collateral damage” is an unavoidable and thus acceptable consequence of war, and perhaps our unprovoked “preemptive” invasion of Iraq is both morally and legally justified.

But… even if one disagrees with the notion that our own government is guilty of war crimes itself, it should at the very least be possible to empathize with the hundreds of millions of Muslims who may view the administration’s actions less charitably. We invaded Iraq, allegedly in pursuit of weapons of mass destruction that were not there, and possibly with high government officials fully cognizant that the publicly touted intelligence was false and/or deliberately misleading. We tortured, humiliated and perhaps murdered defenseless Iraqi prisoners. President Bush’s decisions have undoubtedly resulted in death, destruction and untold human misery.

I’m not saying that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld committed war crimes, or that they should be brought before an international tribunal. But I certainly believe it to be a proper subject of debate, for moral introspection — even self-recrimination — is a worthy and absolutely necessary exercise within a functioning democracy. So for those of you who would attempt to silence this debate, who would denounce any mention of the subject as an act of treason or terrorism, well… I strongly suggest you stay away from the Citizens’ Hearing on the Legality of U.S. Actions in Iraq being held this weekend in Tacoma:

The Citizens’ Hearing on the Legality of U.S. Actions in Iraq will be held on January 20-21, 2007, in Tacoma, Washington, two weeks before the Feb. 5 court martial of Lieutenant Ehren Watada at Fort Lewis.. The Citizens’ Hearing will function as a tribunal to put the Iraq War on trial, in response to the Army putting Lt. Watada on trial as the first U.S. military officer to refuse deployment to Iraq.

[…] The hearing will present the case that Lt. Watada would, if allowed, make at his court martial. His defense attorneys maintain that the war on Iraq is illegal under international treaties and under Article Six of the U.S. Constitution. Further, Lt. Watada’s defense argues that the Nuremberg Principles and U.S. military regulations require soldiers to follow only “lawful orders.” In Lt. Watada’s view, deployment to Iraq would have made him party to the crimes that permeate the structure and conduct of military operations there.

The format of the Citizens’ Hearing will resemble that of a congressional committee, employing a dignified approach to gathering information. Testimony will be offered by Iraq War veterans, experts in international law and war crimes, and human rights advocates. Your gift of funds (or frequent flyer miles) will enable more of these clear voices to be heard by people around the country and the world. Among the figures that have committed to testify are:

• Daniel Ellsberg, military analyst who released the Pentagon Papers in the Vietnam War;
• Denis Halliday, Former UN Assistant Secretary General, coordinated Iraq humanitarian aid;
• Richard Falk, Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University;
• Stacy Bannerman Military Families Speak Out; author of “When the War Came Home”
• Harvey Tharp, former U.S. Navy Lieutenant and JAG stationed in Iraq;
• Antonia Juhasz, policy-analyst and author on U.S. economic policies in Iraq;
• John Burroughs, Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy executive director;
• Benjamin G. Davis, Assoc. Law Prof., Univ. of Toledo; expert on law of war;
• Eman Khammas, Iraqi human rights advocate (via video).
• Geoffrey Millard, 8 years in NY Army National Guard; stationed in Ground Zero, Kuwait, Iraq.
• Ann Wright, Retired Army Colonel and State Department official
• Darrell Anderson, Army 1st Armored Division in Baghdad & Najaf; awarded Purple Heart
• Dennis Kyne, 15 years as Army medic & drill sergeant; trained in NBC warfare; Gulf War I.
• Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law at University of Illinois (video testimony)
• Chanan Suarez-Diaz, Former Navy hospital corpsman; awarded Purple Heart & Commendation with Valor.

A panel of citizens will hear the testimony, examine witnesses, and issue a fact-finding report. The panel will be comprised of veterans, members of military families, high school students, union members, and representatives of local governments, academia, and religious organizations. David Krieger, Director of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, Former Army 2nd Lieutenant stationed in Hawaii during the Vietnam War, and a member of the Jury of Conscience at the 2005 World Tribunal on Iraq (in Istanbul) will serve as panel chair.

Panelists’ questioning will focus on the legality of the war and whether or not the invasion of Iraq in 2003 constituted a “crime against the peace,” whether the military occupation and economic constriction of Iraq constitutes a “crime against humanity,” and whether individual soldiers have an obligation or duty to refuse unlawful orders. We expect that this hearing will focus attention on the role of the U.S. government–rather than that of individual soldiers–in perpetrating the crimes of the Iraq War.

If you find the very notion of such a mock war tribunal offensive, then absolutely don’t attend Friday Jan 20 and Saturday Jan 21 at Evergreen State College’s Tacoma Campus, 1210 6th AVE. And absolutely don’t tune in to my show on 710-KIRO Saturday night at 8PM, when I’ll have Daniel Ellsberg on to discuss the Watada case and the conduct of our war in Iraq.

It’s been a bannering year for the Federal Way School Board, which is now considering banning cell phones and other electronic devices:

Federal Way School Board is exploring a ban on iPods, MP3 players, CD players and electronic games from campuses. Cell phones still could be brought to school, but they’d have to be turned off and stored in backpacks or otherwise out of sight.

Why ban cell phones, an object as integral to the lives of modern teens as weird piercings and moodiness? School board members have been coy, but one district insider tells me that the real concern is that too many Federal Way High School students have been using their cell phones to call Al Gore.

Is “The Straight Talk Express” really headed straight for the White House in 2008?

McCain’s political colleagues, however, know another side of the action hero — a volatile man with a hair-trigger temper, who shouted at Sen. Ted Kennedy on the Senate floor to “shut up,” called his fellow Republican senators “shithead,” “fucking jerk,” “asshole,” and joked in 1998 at a Republican fundraiser about the teenage daughter of President Clinton, “Do you know why Chelsea Clinton is so ugly? Because Janet Reno is her father.”

I’m just askin’.

As of next month I will no longer be employed by Entercom. Unfortunately for the righties who would like to see me off radio altogether, my paycheck will simply be signed by another company.

In what I suppose is a big shakeup in the Seattle and San Francisco radio markets, Entercom is trading KIRO, KTTH and KBSG to Bonneville for KOIT, KDFC, and KMAX. I’m not really sure what this means, but after the meeting today in which Entercom CEO David Field delivered the news, there wasn’t any wailing and gnashing of teeth in the office.

So I suppose this could be good for KIRO. Or bad.

State and city leaders met for hours yesterday to decide the fate of the Alaska Way Viaduct, but couldn’t come to a decision. That’s pretty much because city leaders refuse to accept the rebuild option, and state leaders refuse to pay for anything but that. But as recalcitrant as the participants were, one new idea did emerge from the meeting:

The joint statement says there are two options, build an elevated replacement or, “Reprogram funding to the 520 replacement project.”

I think this was supposed to be a threat or something, the implication being that the city risks losing $2.2 billion in state funds if we don’t budge on a rebuild. But if the governor does repurpose the Viaduct money towards the 520 bridge, it could actually end up saving local taxpayers a ton of money.

Stick with me on this one.

The region needs to replace both the Viaduct and the 520 bridge, but the total amount of money thus far committed by the state towards construction of the two projects combined is less than the projected cost of the 520 bridge alone. Who makes up the difference? Local residents, via various city, county, port and RTID taxes. And possibly tolls.

If the governor forces through a rebuild, not only would Seattle get a double-decker freeway it doesn’t want, but we’d be forced to tax ourselves to pay the difference between the state share and the total cost. Talk about adding insult to injury. And then we’d also have to tax ourselves to make up the difference between the cost of a new 520 bridge and the state share of the project.

But… if Governor Gregoire were to repurpose the state’s Viaduct commitment towards the 520 bridge, local taxpayers would pay much less for their share of that project. And then freed from the strings that come with state money, Seattle could choose a surface-plus-transit alternative that costs much less money than a Viaduct rebuild.

Think about it. The state share of the cost of the two projects remains the same, but the combined cost is substantially slashed. This saves local taxpayers money.

As far as I’m concerned, this might be the perfect political compromise. The state refuses to pay for any Viaduct replacement that reduces capacity. Fine. Don’t. We’ll use our own money to tear it down and do what we want with it. It is our city afterall. But as long as the state keeps the money in the region, local taxpayers don’t actually lose a dime. Indeed, by choosing a less expensive surface alternative, we actually save money.

Sounds to me like a win-win situation.

These days, when local Drudge wannabe Orbusmax takes offense at one of my posts here on HA, he describes me as a deranged “710 KIRO talk show host” rather than merely as a deranged “liberal blogger.” I suppose his hope is that if he wakes up enough people to the awful danger I pose, perhaps KIRO will fire me.

It’s kinda flattering.

Well yesterday conservative radio industry blogger (and former KIRO host) Brian Maloney picked up the Orb’s lead with the screaming headline “MORE ‘EXECUTION’ TALK: Second KIRO Host Calls For Presidential Death Penalty.” (The first, he claims, was Mike Webb, who’s been off the air since 2005.)

Now, a second KIRO host has kicked up the rhetoric several notches, going even further by posting such thoughts on the Internet. In two examples found at HorsesAss.com, David Goldstein (known as “Goldy”) has called for Bush Administration executions.

Hmm. Nice fact-checking Brian. I suppose you didn’t link to these “two examples” because, um, you couldn’t actually find them, huh? (Hint: they don’t exist.) And… uh… it’s HorsesAss.org.

In fact, I’ve never called for Bush administration officials to be executed. Hell, I oppose the death penalty on principle. All I snarkily asked was that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld be treated humanely, so I’m not really sure what Brian is getting at when he accuses me of “kick[ing] up the rhetoric several notches.” But I’m pretty damn sure I understand what he’s trying to achieve by branding me an unhinged, hate-talking, fringe extremist:

Here’s the big question: if lefty talk didn’t pan out for Air America, why does KIRO believe going even further to the fringe extremes will fare any better?

Well… the national audience for Brian’s Radio Equalizer may only be about the same size as my puny, fringe, local blog, but there’s no denying the respect he commands from industry insiders. Yesterday he questions the business sense of KIRO putting a kook like me on the air. And today… well… I just got notice from KIRO management that… they’ve doubled my weekly airtime.

That’s right, starting this week “The David Goldstein Show” can now officially be heard from 7 to 10PM on both Sunday and Saturday.

(Hey Brian… wasn’t that your old time slot on 710-KIRO?)

Brian claims to be some sort of radio industry expert, but he seems to have missed the most basic lesson of Talk Radio 101. If I succeed at KIRO, it won’t be because of my politics — it will be because I have a knack for entertaining and engaging my audience. If Brian understood this simple rule — and had the talent to act on it — then perhaps he’d still have the radio show and I’d be the one blogging about him, instead of the other way around.

“Stefan has an accuracy rate that Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf would envy…”

That’s what Ron Sims spokesman Sandeep Kaushik told me when I asked about Stefan’s suggestion on (un)Sound Politics that the King County Executive was “actively seeking” the Port of Seattle director’s job.

Sims’s candidacy for Port director sounded fanciful. But I’m told Sims was actively lobbying for the job (The annual compensation is over $350,000, more than twice that of County Executive). Sources familiar with County Council backroom dealings report that several Councilmembers were already jockeying for the appointment to succeed Sims.

“Sources”…? Uh-huh. Stefan should stop listening to those voices in his head.

Besides, councilmembers are always jockeying to succeed Sims. (Sources tell me that Larry Phillips and Bob Ferguson actually carry carpet swatches with them whenever they visit the Executive’s office.)

Kaushik described Sims as a little annoyed that this rumor persists despite his blunt denials to several members of the press. According to Kaushik, Sims said that he never sought the position, never put his name in for consideration and never asked anybody to recommend him on his behalf. “I’d swear on a library full of bibles,” Sims told Kaushik.

From what I hear, Sims not only fully intends to fill out his term, he has not yet completely ruled out running for reelection in 2009. Of course… a cabinet secretary appointment from a Democratic president could cut Sims’ tenure short. So Bob… Larry… keep those carpet swatches handy.

The Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally meets tonight (and every Tuesday), 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E.

Our fearless leader Nick tells us that the Alehouse is open, and DL is going on as usual. I’ll be there if I can manage to get my car off the Graham Hill Glacier.

Not in Seattle? Washington liberals will also be drinking tonight in the Tri-Cities. A full listing of Washington’s eleven Drinking Liberally chapters is available here.

Article IX, Section 1 of the Washington State Constitution is pretty damn clear:

It is the paramount duty of the state to make ample provision for the education of all children residing within its borders, without distinction or preference on account of race, color, caste, or sex.

“Ample” is not synonymous with “adequate” — it means “more than adequate,” “abundant,” “liberal” or “copious.” And a “paramount duty” is one that is “chief in importance or impact”… “above others,” and “superior in power or jurisdiction.”

Attorneys might semantically nitpick over the subjective meanings of these words, but us normal folks understand that when our per-student education funding ranks amongst the lowest in the nation, our state can’t possibly be living up to the spirit of Article IX, Section 1.

A suit was filed last week challenging the state’s inadequate funding of K-12 education, and I agree with the Seattle P-I editorial board’s assessment:

While it is regrettable that public dollars will need to be spent on lawyers, experts and depositions, it is more important that words in our state constitution have real meaning. The state can’t win this suit. One way to limit legal expenses would be to negotiate a settlement that honors the words and intentions of the state’s founders.

But it is not enough for our state’s editorialists to simply join the civic-minded chorus demanding more education funding. It is time they start laying the groundwork for the type of tax restructuring necessary to assure that the state has the resources to live up to its paramount duty.

Gov. Christine Gregoire’s new budget already provides several hundred million dollars more for education. But even though this is still at least a billion dollars a year short of the mark, her spending “increase” has already generated faux outrage by those who either refuse to, or are incapable of understanding the true nature of our state’s long term structural budget deficit. It’s not state spending that is out of whack — it continues to steadily decline as a percentage of the overall state economy. The problem rather, is the antiquated, early 20th Century hack of a tax system that simply cannot grow revenues at a pace sufficient to keep up with the demands of our post-industrial service economy.

Both the governor’s mansion and the state legislature are controlled by Democrats. Does anybody really believe that the Democrats wouldn’t spend amply on such a popular item as K-12 education if they had the money to do so? For all the recriminations we continue to focus on the wrong end of the problem, and the Democratic leadership is just as guilty as the obstructionists across the aisle.

We need to start having a grown-up, mature and informative debate about tax restructuring. We need to be willing to broach the idea of an income tax without fear of political retribution.

But we’re never going to get that debate unless our state’s editorial pages start leading the way.

Whoops…

As Tikriti fell to the gallows, his head was taken off by the rope noose, and the body and the head fall to the floor while Bandar swings on the rope.

My only hope is that when Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney are held accountable for their war crimes, that they be punished more humanely.

…I am as deeply concerned about our troops there as anything else. For it occurs to me that what we are submitting them to in Vietnam is not simply the brutalizing process that goes on in any war where armies face each other and seek to destroy. We are adding cynicism to the process of death, for they must know after a short period there that none of the things we claim to be fighting for are really involved. Before long they must know that their government has sent them into a struggle among Vietnamese, and the more sophisticated surely realize that we are on the side of the wealthy and the secure while we create hell for the poor.

Somehow this madness must cease. We must stop now. I speak as a child of God and brother to the suffering poor of Vietnam. I speak for those whose land is being laid waste, whose homes are being destroyed, whose culture is being subverted. I speak for the poor of America who are paying the double price of smashed hopes at home and death and corruption in Vietnam. I speak as a citizen of the world, for the world as it stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The great initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be ours.

This is the message of the great Buddhist leaders of Vietnam. Recently one of them wrote these words:

“Each day the war goes on the hatred increases in the heart of the Vietnamese and in the hearts of those of humanitarian instinct. The Americans are forcing even their friends into becoming their enemies. It is curious that the Americans, who calculate so carefully on the possibilities of military victory, do not realize that in the process they are incurring deep psychological and political defeat. The image of America will never again be the image of revolution, freedom and democracy, but the image of violence and militarism.”

[…] The world now demands a maturity of America that we may not be able to achieve. It demands that we admit that we have been wrong from the beginning of our adventure in Vietnam, that we have been detrimental to the life of the Vietnamese people. The situation is one in which we must be ready to turn sharply from our present ways.

In order to atone for our sins and errors in Vietnam, we should take the initiative in bringing a halt to this tragic war.

— Martin Luther King Jr., April 4, 1967

(Hat tip to The General.)

Both the Eagles and the Seahawks have been eliminated from the playoffs, so what better way to distract yourself from your sorrows than to tune in tonight to “The David Goldstein Show” from 7PM to 10PM on Newsradio 710-KIRO. Subject to change, here are the topics for tonight’s show:

7PM: Are Eastern WA taxpayers getting screwed? Boosters of the Black Rock Resevoir out in the Yakima Valley are asking for $4.2 billion in state and local subsidies on project the Bureau of Reclamation says will only return 30 cents on the dollar. And yet we constantly hear complaints from Eastern WA legislators that tax dollars flow East to West. Are Eastern WA taxpayers getting screwed? Or deceived?

8PM: Sweet Relief. Author Jennifer Abrahamson joins me to discuss her book“Sweet Relief: The Marla Ruzicka Story. Ruzicka was a relief worker who championed the cause of civilian victims of war, and was tragically killed by a suicide bomber along Baghdad’s notorious Airpport Road. Abrahamson chronicles the life of her friend and the people she championed.

9PM: Who is your fallen hero? We all have ’em. Contemporary or historical figures who we hero worship… until we learn they’re only human… and then some. I’m going to share a couple of mine, and ask you to call in with some of yours.

Tune in tonight (or listen to the live stream) and give me a call: 1-877-710-KIRO (5476).

In writing about the Black Rock project it wasn’t really my intent to trash the notion of a new Yakima basin reservoir. Mainly, I saw the $2 billion miscalculation as an opportunity to chide Eastern Washington voters for constantly complaining about tax dollars flowing East to West (they don’t) when in fact the irrigation, electrification and transportation infrastructure that makes their economy possible was large built courtesy of huge state and federal subsidies.

I understand the imperative to maintain the Yakima region as a productive agricultural center in the face of the increasing strain placed on the water supply by climate change and population growth, so I don’t want to dwell on the negative side of this project without sufficiently educating myself on the details. But an astute observation by HA regular Roger Rabbit deserves broader consideration. In the comment thread Roger asks what should have been an obvious question: “Is Black Rock a Perpetual Motion Machine?”

One of the alleged “benefits” touted by Black Rock promoters is hydroelectric generation. Apart from the 600% error in calculating power sales, let’s examine where the water that generates the power will come from in the first place.

It will be pumped UP to Black Rock Reservoir, elevation 1778 feet, from Priest Rapids Dam, elevation 390 feet. Then it will flow through turbines at Black Rock dam and into the Yakima River, which flows into the Columbia River below McNary Dam, elevation 340 feet.

Someone please explain how you get net power generation from pumping the water that generates the power uphill in order to generate the power? Are these folks saying the water in Black Rock Reservoir will generate more power than is consumed getting the water up there?

[…] When they talk about Black Rock hydropower generation, all they’re talking about is recapturing a small percentage of the energy that was used to get the water up to the reservoir.

The Yakima Basin Storage Alliance originally touted revenue from power generation at $2.4 billion over forty years, but after discovering a calculation error, revised that figure downwards to only $412 million. But if the Black Rock Reservoir sits at a higher elevation than its source, then any power generated by Black Rock’s turbines could only amount to a fraction of the power it takes to pump the water into the reservoir in the first place. Indeed, the Bureau of Reclamation estimates the annual energy costs alone for operating the pumps at $62 million — that’s $2.48 billion over the same forty year period. (I asked my 9-year-old daughter, and she assures me that $412 million is indeed less than $2.48 billion.)

But this post isn’t really about math. It’s about honesty.

Understand that whatever their accuracy, the YBSA’s power revenue projections were put forth within the context of a discussion over recouping the estimated $4.2 billion cost of construction. But since the laws of physics dictate that it will take more energy to pump the water into the reservoir ($62 million annually) than could possibly be generated drawing the water out ($10.1 million annually,) any discussion of energy “benefits” within this context is entirely bogus. And always has been.

Yet it took the sometimes rabid Roger Rabbit to do the minimal legwork necessary to dispel the YBSA’s misinformation — legwork that consisted of little more than browsing the source documents and applying a little logic. For even after the YBSA admitted a 600 percent miscalculation, the journalists covering this story never bothered to challenge the underlying assumption that energy revenues could be used to offset the cost of construction.

I thank my friends in the legacy media for calling this story to my attention. But chalk one up for the blogosphere for setting the record straight.