Not surprising that the Port of Chehalis (port? for real?) is supportive. Aside from Ports typically being tax-sucking leeches on citizens while never operating in the fiscal black, Chehalis has been wanting this dam for at least two decades now. As long as someone else pays for it, of course.

I perused the EIS, which is a state (DOE) SEPA EIS, meaning that in order to move forward, federal permits and a Corps EIS will have to happen somewhere down the road yet in order to make this parasite a reality. Alternative 1 in the only one that includes the Chehalis River dam. The fisheries impacts are downplayed in that the proposed action includes habitat restoration as mitigation that would offset, or more than offset, the losses. It's a programatic EIS and I haven't seen the level of detail that would allow one to analyze if maybe the impacts are understated and the mitigation benefits overstated. I also didn't have time to read the economics section to see who the hell they intend to have pay for this.

I do have a concern that Thurston Co., which has the largest and more affluent population and the least affects from flooding, could end up on the hook paying a disproportionate share of the eventual costs. It will be imperative to lobby the Thurston Co. Commission to not sign on as one of the local sponsors. That could likely kill the project because I don't think the Lewis and Grays Harbor Co. tax base could shoulder the financial tax load to pay 25% of the project cost.

I'm trying to figure how to include the concepts of natural and logical consequences and that stupidity should hurt in my comments.

Sg