jdcooley (James Cooley)


Comment history

Letter: No easy choices

Sorry, it was your speculation, not Laurie's. Thanks for the support.

November 14, 2012 at 4:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Water move

Not very potable, however.

November 14, 2012 at 4:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Water move

You have a valid point that the power plant benefits one Lawrence family. If early day Lawrence residents had wanted to, they could have built a dam and benefited as a community, but they apparently chose not to. The dam could of course be condemned by eminent domain and made a public utility, at fair market value.
As far as the green electricity is concerned, it doesn't really matter who consumes the electricity, we all benefit from the forgone production of brown electricity and the resulting pollution. Westar could have purchased the power for Lawrence, but they apparently passed.
I expressed my opinion about Brownback's tax policies in a letter back in October.
Kansas water rights policy is an issue that will probably need to be revisited in the future, but intrenched interests will fight any changes to the death.

November 14, 2012 at 4:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Water move

You are correct, my error. That's why you are/were an editor. The principle is the same as stated, however; the water is still impounded.

November 14, 2012 at 3:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: No easy choices

As DC noted and I pointed out in my letter on Sat. the 10th, the water is still there and available for both Lawrence residents and people living downstream. If you have been down to the river in the past week, you will have noticed that the river level above the dam is at least two feet higher. The water was simply moved from one or more upstream lakes down to the mill pond where it makes possible power generation from the current and future river flows. The 9 million gallons will always be there short of a breach in the dam or near complete cession of river flow.
I suspect your speculations about the original editorial are both correct.

November 14, 2012 at 3:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Editorial: Water issue

Let's not use any for golf courses either. Actually the water is still there, it's just being stored a little further downstream where it benefits Lawrence residents by raising the river level at the water plant intakes, the reason Lawrence residents pay for the maintenance of the Bowersock dam.

November 8, 2012 at 12:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )