janelane wrote:
Skeptics are concerned that reservoirs cost millions of dollars in planning and consulting fees — and that's before any groundbreaking.
Actually, consultant fees are only 10% of the project; the lion share goes to contractors and suppliers. Of course, all phases of the project would be a huge local white- and blue-collar jobs boom.
"The cynic in me says these reservoir projects and the push to build reservoirs is really about consultants and engineers making a lot of money," said Joe Cook, executive director and riverkeeper at the Coosa River Basin Initiative.
Not all engineers or engineering firms are created equal and you will get what you pay for. I can think of several reasons why you should pay a qualified engineer to oversee the construction of a state-of-the-art dam in a metropolitan area.
Cook said money would be better spent fixing leaking pipes and infrastructure that waste the state's existing water supplies.
This exercise has been done before. Fixing leaks would only save 10% of the projected shortfall. Draconian conservation measures would only save 30%. We simply must have new sources. See for yourself in the online report which was created by a coalition of engineers, scientists, politicians and businesses to analyze the feasibility of a hundred different scenarios for getting us out of this intractable mess.
Probably goes without saying that I'm not very impressed by that riverkeeper. He needs to go back to the kids' table if that's all he can contribute.
-janelane, environmentalist engineer
Excellent self-promotion, janelane. Color me impressed! I like the fact that this is the only article on memetreams main page right now, and on no level did I find it stupid, infuriating, ignorantly opinionated or pretentious. This site has obviously come a long way from its humble beginnings as a sounding board for jackasses. However, spell check still takes issue with the site's name. Just thought I oughtta let everyone know that.
