Steve-It bears repeating, I am not far right, just plain right. You say that I don't think yet I put together cogent thoughtful responses to every one of the personal attacks brought against me and as you will see below, enjoy people with an argument. Yes I do proudly proclaim my political persuasion. Anyone with an opinion should be prepared to do the same. If you cannot be proud of what you think you probably haven't begun thinking. I have no vested interest in Slade outside of the fact that he more closely replicates my thinking than does Cantwell. After some divorces I have been placed firmly out of the inheritance loop on all farmland so I think my interest there is limited at best. As to the welfare, that family has farmed that land since the mid 1800's, long before any dams. Many lost lives and lots of lost land since the dams probably equals any perceived benefits. If they were allowed to farm without the gov't intervention on crop rotation and fallow seasons I am sure they would gladly give up the gov't sponsored price fixing and locks use. As you may or may not know, when dealing with thousands of acres (I think they have about 100,000 now) one does not water the crop and thus the well behind the house takes care of all water needs. Pumping the water 15 miles uphill from the river would be prohibitive anyway. As an aside, 100,000 acres is nearly a rounding error for some of the farmers on the dry side of the state.

As to your comments regarding the german people...(I can't believe I am even dignifying this) you've got your political spectrum reversed. Was I being compared to the people who voted for him or Hitler himself???

Robbo- you obviously have some experience here. Prepared an SWPPP or two? While I generally agree with your premise I believe some things jump out immediatly.
The number of rain events should have little effect on total TSSL accumulation but rather higher ppm counts in spot samples during dryer weather and vise-versa. Rain in and of itself should not create TSSL. If the rain did have an effect it would indicate that the rain is carrying airborne solids into the equation that may or may not be attributable to vehicles. I suppose it could be suspended solids from tailpipe emissions but could just as easily be dirt stirred up from the travel or winds. Much of the TSSL count could also be attributed to ambient or atmospheric generation could it not. (much like dust accumulates in our homes)
While copper does have health risks I am not aware of any associated with magnesium and Zinc is harmless unless you get hit with a large chunk of it. As I am sure you know, homeowners with miracle grow are a much larger contributor of copper to the environment than all industry combined. No felony charges for feeding your petunias. I am not aware of the use of toluene, xylene or benzene in the auto industry outside of non-street legal racing gasoline and some fuel additives (aftermarket) I have not however looked at gas formulations lately. There are LOTS of filtering systems that will remove contaminants from stormwater to much better than 99.99 percent purity and RO or nanofiltration can also remove the disolved metals well beyond motca levels. Ro and nano are slow now but the technology is moving quickly. I am currently involved with an oil absorbent firm that is far and away the best I've ever seen. Oil on water is absolutely no trouble. It floats without aid and makes a pretty good hog fuel. Currently testing on some military bases and certain private industries. The only sorbent that will actually meet and exceed ALL astm requirements. The best part, 100% post consumer recycled content. We get paid to haul it away.

B.Gray- I am sorry to say that either way it goes will probably have about the same effect on fish (in my opinion) and that is not much. I tend to agree with many on this board that harvest plays a large part in the current state of fish runs. All species are quite adaptable including fish and if harvest of any kind was outlawed I think the rivers would be overflowing in short order. My advice would be to go with your gut here. If you think that more roads would negatively impact fish runs more than they would positively impact the general welfare of the populace then vote no. I will be voting yes.