Fork in the river

Steven Hawley said, “The feds have struck out.” We all know that, but what should we do, select another committee of stakeholders? [“Columbia Basin salmon plan: Agencies spin judge’s ruling,” Opinion, Aug. 12].

I have a plan, a real plan; one that is simple. My idea is simply treat the Columbia River with what I would call “A fork in the river.”

We have all seen a fork in a river, but imagine the Columbia River Basin with several forks in the river where the Columbia River would be divided in two parts, one to a basin with a dam in it and the other half with a continuous river flow. Now further imagine how the salmon swimming up stream can school up in these basins and rest like they do in eddies and backwash flows in the main stream river. This will help them survive and multiply, and support their survival, as well as deliver the salmon to Eastern Washington waters to spawn.

Here is how my idea works: Build-in or landscape a fork in the river, including its estuary. One flow goes to a basin, the other continues downstream. The water in the basin continues through the existing dam’s turbines to produce power and then reconnect with its tributary and continues on down the river to the next fork in the river. Then, believe it or not, the river dose the same thing again, and again until it reaches the Pacific Ocean.

I said my plan is simple in context. I did not say it was easy, cheap or quick to do. But it would take planning, engineering, resources, determination and leadership to carve out a future for our salmon, our power generation and water control and distribution.

I picture this as a democratic landscape as big as the state of Washington.

— Roger Patten, Seattle