On page 2 of the August 26, 2015 edition, the Mail Tribune ran an article titled “Property owners decry Fielder Dam removal.” (correct link?) I feel it’s important to draw attention to three quotes in that article. The first is a direct quote from Mr. Hunter of WaterWatch, to wit: “Certainly WaterWatch was willing to enforce the law.” WaterWatch is a 501(c)3 non-profit group and, as such, has no law enforcement authority – none.

Yet it very telling on the arrogant mindset of that organization, and Mr. Hunter in particular, to arrogate to themselves law enforcement authority. As an attorney, Mr. Hunter should know better. Drunk with power perhaps?

It is common practice for WaterWatch to bully private parties, and in some instances local governing groups, into compliance with their radical, and ill-informed agenda. On August 6, 2014 I attended a meeting of the Gold Hill Irrigation District, which had been coerced by WaterWatch into shutting off water from the irrigation district’s customers, at the peak of the irrigation season and during a drought. As in this more recent incident, WaterWatch threatened the self-financed, self-governing irrigation district with a lawsuit if they did not agree to WaterWatch’s agenda.

Second, the quote from Scott Wright is absurd, i.e., “We didn’t find anything upstream (from an abandoned mine). I don’t know why we’d find anything downstream.” Well, contaminants are not salmon – they don’t swim upstream, that’s why. So of course you didn’t find any contaminants upstream from an abandoned mine.

Those very samples he referred to were, in turn, used to facilitate approval of the (downstream) Fielder Dam removal, without performing an environmental impact statement. Worse, there is an inherent conflict of interest to have a (for profit) company, the very one contracted to perform the demolition and Mr. Wright’s employer, certify that a project will not have any negative environmental impact. That is clear evidence