Cowlitz - I will not debate the issues you've raised. I agree with some points and disagree with others.

However, in your last reply, you outlined your basic concern. That is, you disagree strongly with the settlement agreement regarding the Cowlitz Project relicensing. This helped me understand your concern. I don't blame you in disagreeing with the settlement. I read the agreement and the FERC licensing order. It seems like the fish got too little for such a major project.

But the question is whether anyone could have gotten more and what would that have been? In these negotiations, the participants are only going to get what the applicant (i.e., Tacoma Power) wants to give up. It is highly unlikely that FERC would have required more. FERC has never shown an interest in protecting fish if it's expensive or reduces power output. An example is volitional fish passage. Getting volitional fish passage at Mossyrock and Mayfield would have been great but if Tacoma declines to proposed that, FERC is not likely to force them. Why? Because it's expensive and the merits are questionable, particularly since getting the juveniles downstream is still a difficult, if not impossible, task. The folks that I've talked with who participated in the negotiations (you weren't one of them) honestly believe that they got more in the settlement than FERC would have required in the absence of an agreement. I suspect you would disagreement with that assessment.

So, was it enough? No. Should there have been more. Absolutely yes. But could the participants gotten more? In my view, not likely.

That's all for me. I'll let you have the last word. I'm headed for the Kalama River to hit the summer runs.......