As a community, we would expect the expenditure of the likely $500 million to scuttle Capitol Lake would improve water quality, reduce invasive species, improve salmon rearing and reduce aqueous toxics, all while promoting aesthetics, public use and overall quality of life.
Virtually none of these benefits will occur under the current proposal to remove Capitol Lake.
Powerful entities with political leverage have formulated the selling of the “Sick Lake Narrative” over the past three decades, quietly and methodically planting the seeds of this false narrative with tens of thousands of well-meaning citizens and public officials. Their true motivations are rarely if ever made public as they pretend that dam removal will be environmentally beneficial and that no other alternatives are preferable. This massive effort has required information control, occasional deceit and manipulation via political leverage. Independent experts not influenced by the above have effectively been silenced or ignored.
The following are just a few of the many verifiable truths from these independent experts:
~ Jack Havens, Olympia
The opinions above are, of course, those of the writer and not necessarily those of The JOLT, its staff or board. Got something you want to get off your chest? Write it up and send it to us. We'll likely run it the same day we get it.
7 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
PaulTheOak
What an entertaining piece of misinformation. The estuary restoration has been fought tooth and nail by wealthy landowners near the lake. The movement to restore the estuary began as a grassroots effort by local environmentally-conscious citizens.
The science has been reviewed extensively and the best and latest information was provided in the EIS. But Mr. Havens, a long-term advocate of the mistake we call a lake had turned all those facts on their head in a class piece of political spin. He even trots out mysterious "independent experts". We don't know who they are - I've met lots of "independent experts" in local drinking establishments, maybe they're some of them?
The story is actually very simple - the dammed Deschutes seemed like a good idea at the time, but science tells us now it's just a knot of problems. Pay no attention to silly political misinformation.
Monday, February 20, 2023 Report this
JohnGear
I dunno, I would think that really "powerful entities" who had the power to sell all these ideas despite them not being true wouldn't let the dams go for three decades . . . maybe they're not that powerful at all, just concerned citizens like you, advocating for the best course of action as they see it.
I start out with the assumption that you want what's best as you understand it, and that the people who are so wrongheaded (as you see it) are probably the same. But I have to say, when you start accusing people who reach a different conclusion than you of being part of or controlled by "powerful entities," I downrate your credibility a lot and find myself inclined to think that the case for keeping the dams and Capital Lake must be pretty weak.
Monday, February 20, 2023 Report this
bonaro
Jack Havens is spot on!
Capitol lake was designed to solve a problem, the sedimentation of lower Budd inlet from the Deschutes river. When planned they also took into account the opportunity to create a reflecting pool for the Capitol which is considered one of the most beautiful in the nation. Overall, this design was perfection.
Capitol lake is a sediment trap for the Deschutes river and periodic dredging is part of the intended plan. Dredging was prevented and now the lake is full of sediment. This is manufactured fuel for the sick lake strategy.
Removing the dam will allow huge amounts of sediment to flow and settle in lower Budd inlet. There is no plan to abate this. The marinas will be clogged and will suffer loss of business. Shipping at the port of Olympia will be restricted or prevented costing jobs and revenue. Local business will be harshly impacted because of shipping problems. The proponents of this scheme and maneuvered so they cannot be legally or fanatically responsible for what is already known to come.
The Estuary is a horrible idea, hatched by progressive utopians who have little concern for commerce and prosperity in Olympia so long as they can have their artificial, self imagined form of utopia.
Tuesday, February 21, 2023 Report this
FirstOtter
While I think that the posters do have their points, both pro and con, I would ask that they go and see what happens when a river is allowed to run free. If you go up to the where the Elwha dams were removed, it didn't take the river more than a few weeks to begin dumping sediment into the ocean (thereby creating new beach, which supports shorebirds, clams, etc. It carved a new riverbed, providing red alder and other species of vegetation to grow,.
A much closer example is Beatty Creek, off of Delphi Road. . In 2005, the neighbors of this salmon creek removed a dam that supported a bridge. Thurston Conservation District kicked in for the removal of the dam and a new bridge to be built. Willows, red alder and other species were planted on the banks and a few root wads thrown in. It was thought the creek would have to be dredged.
Nope. Mom Nature said, here. Hold my beer and watch this, and she brought down tons of gravel...which provided hiding spots for the salmon smolts that showed up in less than a month. The first one we named "Lucky" and I do hope he has returned to spawn by now.
Before it was an ugly pond. Now you have to look hard to find it...it's shaded and beautiful and provides homes for insects, salmon, and other creatures.
As for swimming in the Capitol Lake? Unless the city has done a lot of treatment, I wouldn't. Having done water samples..again this was a decade ago...the e.coli counts were off the charts. No thanks, I won't swim in it.
Give the estuary a chance, please? Because if nothing else, it may serve to reduce the amount of water that will be flooding Olympia in the very near future. Remember the flooding from last months King tide? Because Olympia didn't think to put up signs saying "CLOSED Water over Roadway", I blundered into a pond at the roundabout in front of the Farmer's Market. It washed my car's floorboards. It stretched from just below Dockside Bistro clear to the roundabout. That flooding is just a foretaste. It's going to happen again.
Tuesday, February 21, 2023 Report this
Georgewalter
Havens writes: "Their true motivations are rarely if ever made public . . . . " Well Mr. Havens, this was your chance. What are those nefarious true motivations? It's hard to imagine that, after all these years of debate, there are still some hidden motivations.
Tuesday, February 21, 2023 Report this
Yeti1981
Mr. Havens isn't out of line here. I have read the entire EIS and reviewed the proposed alternatives. The EIS itself states that none of the alternatives will significantly improve the chemical composition of Budd Inlet. The EIS also states that the largest environmental improvements will be aesthetic. It also states that the dissolved oxygen levels in the inlet will not improve enough to meet state standards, let alone EPA standards. And, unfortunately, the scope of the EIS doesn't include the real impacts of what is happening upstream. Now, I haven't been around in this community long enough to know what lead to here, but an objective review of the information provided in the EIS doesn't really bode that well for the "it's going to improve water quality" crowd.
Tuesday, February 21, 2023 Report this
Southsoundguy
The “estuary” is going to be a smelly mud flat.
Wednesday, February 22, 2023 Report this