RoguePundit

Fees

As I've said many times, while Oregon's taxes are lower than average, its fees (and other charges) are higher than average.  Here's a story from the Sunday Oregonian that shows what most tax advocates avoid mentioning...facts essential to an informed debate on how we pay for government. 

Oregon legislators say they won't raise your taxes to balance the next budget. But they might make it more expensive for you to attend college, dredge a stream or get a teaching license.

Their blueprint is the governor's budget, which would increase a range of fees and other charges to help support programs. That continues Oregon's rapid climb in the past decade from 23rd to seventh in the nation in state and local government fees paid -- an average of more than $1,000 a year by every person.

The rise in revenue from fees -- paid by people who use a particular service -- has eased the pressure on the general fund, which comes primarily from taxes -- levied on the general population for services that benefit everyone.

That's one reason Oregon ranks among the nation's lowest-taxing but highest-spending states.

Fee increases don't carry the same stigma as tax increases, so they don't have the kind of voter opposition that drove Gov. Ted Kulongoski and lawmakers to their no-new-taxes pledge. But, as many retailers know, there could be a point at which people cannot, or will not, pay more. And there are questions about the fairness of some fees.

This trend has never been examined in depth by lawmakers, but a Senate committee plans to look at the implications this session.

The average Oregonian is not fooled by the misleading presentation of facts regarding how much we pay for government.  Taxation is just part of the story.  We know that Salem has a spending problem, and until the government does a much better job of addressing that, the majority of Oregonians are not going to trust Salem with the "blank check" a tax increase provides.

Higher fees and other charges are generally easier to swallow because they are more specific to purpose.  It's like a la carte government...we're paying for what we're using.  When it comes to fairness and pricing points, these are good areas to explore.   

Kulongoski's budget boosts revenue from fees by 9 percent to about $3.5 billion for 2005-07, including college tuition increases of 5 percent a year and a doubling of food-safety permit fees. Fees represent about 13 percent of the state's $44.2 billion in total revenue.

Theresa McHugh, his chief of staff and budget adviser, said the Democratic governor decided not to extend his ban on taxes to fees. But he kept a tight rein on agency requests, she said, forcing them to demonstrate that programs supported by the fees are effective.

"Even when you can find someone to pay who wants to pay for the service, it may not be a good idea," McHugh said. "It makes the budget harder to explain, and you are expanding government. Somebody has to pay, and it is part of their personal burden."

This approach sounds eminently sensible.  Bureaucracies have a natural tendency to protect their interests, which generally means not just maintaining the status quo, but trying to grow.  Government agencies always ask for more money than they need to do the job, as they expect cuts during budget-balancing time.  Been there, done that.  Advocates who wail whenever agencies are given less than they asked for are either disingenuous and/or ignorant.

Governments can do more for more people with more money, but someone's got to foot the bill.  Despite the recent lean years, Salem still spends more per capita than the average state, supported by a populace which earns a bit less per capita than the average state.  And nowadays, Salem is in fiscal crisis.

This article today noted that the Government Performance Project gave Oregon a D grade for how the government manages our money.  That tied us with California for worst in the nation. 

Oregon's shift to supporting state government with fees has been dramatic.

In 1992, taxes accounted for 45 percent of total state revenue and fees brought in 10 percent. Ten years later, taxes had dropped to 36 percent and fees had grown to 13 percent, the most recent Census data show.

Along with infusions of federal money for transportation projects and health care, the shift helps explain why Oregon ranked 41st in state and local taxes per capita but 11th in spending in 2002.

The trend may be unmistakable, but the policy has been largely unconscious. "We've never taken a look at the policy implications of that change," said Paul Warner, legislative revenue officer.

I've blogged on this subject a number of times, and can understand why the author is using 2002 data when it would seem newer information should be available.  Not all data is published annually, and a fair percentage of it just considers taxes when coming up with the per capita numbers.  One sometimes has to use older data to ensure the comparisons are apples to apples.

Depending upon who's doing the calculations how, our state and local taxation per capita ranks from the mid-30s to the mid-40s, and our government's per capita spending (numbers that include fees and other charges) ranks from single digits to the teens.  But, the end result is the same...we are taxed less than the average state, and Salem spends more per capita than the average state.  Higher-than-average fees and other charges help make that possible. 

That may change. An analysis of the fees shift has been included in the Senate Revenue Committee's work plan, Warner said.

"Fees have become such a huge portion of the budget, we've got to be crystal clear about the choices we make for the state," said Sen. Ryan Deckert, D-Beaverton, the committee chairman.

Deckert wants to do more than discuss fees in his committee. He'd like to buck the political tide and push the line back toward a government financed more by taxes and less by fees.

"Every day, Oregon is becoming more of a user-pay society," he said. "I think Oregonians ultimately want a straightforward finance structure where you do it once, pay the tax, and government leaves you alone for 364 days."

I'm not sure that the average Oregonians is very emotional about this subject.  There's no question that when people have to pay various fees, a number of them wish they were lower or non-existent.  But, that doesn't necessarily mean that Oregonians would rather go to an all tax system.  There are some allures to parts of government being a la carte, especially to folks who fear that the central government won't spend the money wisely.

We continue to pour more money into our educational system, and we watch an increasing percentage of it get siphoned off by things like PERS, shrinking the number of teachers and the length of school years.  Such a high percentage of our revenues are going towards government wages and especially benefits that there isn't much left over for the employees to govern or teach with.  A good stock market would help, but the structural problem would remain.

Is it just me, or it is a bit hypocritical to criticize private social security accounts but continue to support plans like PERS that are tied to the stock market?  Those expert PERS investors rode the bubble up and down just as most amateurs did.  Their failures are causing PERS contributions to jump from an already exhorbitant 11.2 percent of employees' wages today to 16.6 percent in July and to 22.8 percent in July '07. 

What an absurdly unaffordable system, whether or not the Supreme Court upholds the PERS "reforms" passed by the Legislature last year.  Why aren't we either giving our retirees a pension tied to cost of living (like military retirees) or a 401k where the government doesn't cover investment losses? 

Anyway, back to topic. 

Fees offer lawmakers a political line of least resistance.

Efforts to raise gasoline taxes for highway projects have failed miserably in recent years, but the 2003 Legislature increased various vehicle fees to finance a $1.3 billion bond program for bridge repairs -- with hardly a ripple of protest.

Fees -- such as tuition, water and sewer charges, camping permits, teacher licenses, system development charges, and air quality permits -- can be an efficient way to pay for services people want.

But they also can create contentious questions of equity: How should the cost of regulating air quality be split between the pollution-generating industries and residents who benefit from clean air?  Should developers, or residents who benefit from a growing community, pay for new streets, schools and other services?

Local communities, county governments, etc. are debating these issues every day.  There's plenty of experience to learn from.

McHugh traces Oregon's increasing dependence on fees to the 1990 passage of Measure 5, which limited property taxes and forced the general fund, fueled mostly by income taxes, to pick up a larger share of K-12 school costs. Other parts of state government -- higher education, natural resources, parks -- felt the squeeze and looked to fees to maintain programs.

The shift is most visible in higher education. In 1989, taxpayers contributed about 56 percent of the cost of a state college education, McHugh said. That has dropped to about 30 percent. Tuition and fees for the average resident undergraduate climbed from $3,759 per term in 2001-02 to $5,037 in 2004-05.

Budget shortfalls drove the decisions to raise tuition, not a philosophical discussion about the appropriate level for students and their families to pay, Deckert said.

Budget realities also are behind the governor's plan to increase permits paid by food processors. General fund support for the agriculture department's food-safety program was cut in 2001-03, and the agency was told to spend down reserves in its 2003-05 budget. To maintain food-safety inspections and other enforcement, said Lisa Hanson, the assistant director, the agency proposed fee increases.

"There are social implications around how the state chooses to pay for the program," Hanson said. "It's not just an industry issue. Everybody benefits."

Once again, we have a big government advocate bending the debate into one of how the state collects revenues without addressing the Salem's spending woes.  With the amount of money Oregon spends per capita on government, we ought to be getting at least average government services.  But look at the decline in our educational system, the cut backs in state police, etc.  We're not getting our money's worth...but our government employees sure are. 

As fees mount, opposition could grow as residents resent paying for a service that benefits everyone. And Oregon's sluggish economic recovery means fees take a bigger bite from the pockets of people who need or want certain services. That may be taking place already in higher education as students shop for bargains out of state.

The Legislature is seeing some resistance this session. A House committee last week approved a bill that would split the costs of firefighting insurance equally between taxpayers and private landowners, including timber companies and rural homeowners. Currently, landowners pay 60 percent.

But despite misgivings, it seems unlikely that the political atmosphere will favor a move back to reliance on taxes soon. If anything, the search for someone other than taxpayers to foot the bill continues.

One idea, McHugh said, is to means-test services, or require people who can afford it to pay part or all of the cost of a government program. That already happens in health care and other human services, and McHugh said she's heard discussions about charging wealthier families for the cost of juvenile detention.

The idea could be extended to K-12 schools, McHugh said. Experiments along these lines are sparking controversy in England.

...

"How," McHugh said, "do you make sure a public institution is still public?"

McHugh's theoretical question is not one most Oregonians worry about.  We want good government...and in several key areas, we're not getting it.  It's not for lack of raw spending.  The "how" problems far outweigh the "how much" problems when it comes to government spending.  If we're not going to address the "how" issues, the answer to "how much" will always be "not enough," even if we have another stock market bubble.

Fears About the Arctic Ozone Hole

The Arctic's ozone hole is smaller than the more famous one in the Antarctic, because the weather over the frozen southern continent is typically much colder (previous blog here).  Drowned out by the recent high-profile stories about imminent disastrous global warming (like this one) is the fact that the North Pole is having its coldest winter in 50 years.  That's driving fears that this year's northern ozone hole could be really large.

The seasonal hole in the Arctic ozone layer could be the worst ever this year if the current cold conditions persist, scientists are warning.

Temperatures in the Arctic ozone layer are now the coldest for 50 years and have been consistently low for two months. The ozone layer blankets the Earth at an altitude between 15 to 30 kilometres. It is part of a zone called the stratosphere, and absorbs ultraviolet light.

European Union scientists said on Friday that if the exceptionally cold temperatures continue, and the persistent polar clouds - which alter the chemistry of the ozone layer - remain, then large ozone losses will be likely when spring sunlight returns in the coming weeks.

The researchers from the EU's SCOUT-03 project, which involves over 200 scientists from 19 countries, fear that the ozone hole could be bigger than that which followed the worst-ever winter of 1999-2000. Over 65% of the ozone was eaten away by manmade chemical products in that season, although ozone can naturally replenish itself.

"The meteorological conditions we are now witnessing resemble and even surpass the harsh conditions of the 1999-2000 winter - when the worst ozone loss to date was observed," says Neil Harris at the European Ozone Research Coordinating Unit at the University of Cambridge, UK.

A gaping hole in the Arctic ozone could mean higher levels of UV radiation in some inhabited areas in northern Europe, such as Scandinavia.

Levels of ozone-depleting chemicals (ODCs) in the upper atmosphere peaked in the late 90s.  Thus, it would likely take a record cold winter at/near the North Pole to make this year's ozone hole a record one (though still much smaller than an average ozone hole over the Antarctic). 

As many articles note (like this one), scientists don't tend to measure temperatures at the North Pole's surface...the ice under Arctic weather stations likes to drift and break up.  But with satellites, we get regular temperature measurements from various atmospheric levels all over the globe.  That's how scientists know about the record cold temperatures referenced above.  We do have surface measurements near the South Pole, and temperatures have been trending slightly downward there. 

While temperatures have definitely been trending warmer in places like central Alaska, Hudson Bay, and the peninsula of Antarctica, other regions have been having significant cold.  Siberia is having its coldest weather in many years, which is impressive considering Jan '01 was its coldest in 50 years (though not near the record lows set in the early 20th century). 

Key is trying to separate out individual weather events versus longer-term trends.  Global warming is a trend, meaning its advocates shouldn't be too concerned with trying to explain an abnormal storm or season (like the current harsh winter in New England).  Thus, the aberrant trend at the South Pole deserves more attention, like this.

Unfortunately, many of the same folks who legitimately decry the administration's attempts to shape science can't resist doing so themselves. 

But whether this massive loss of ozone occurs depends on whether the polar stratospheric clouds stick around for the next six to eight weeks, says Harris. "If the vortex breaks up then all bets are off," he told New Scientist.

These clouds form in the polar vortex which is whipped up in the stratosphere by westerly winds in late autumn. The air in the centre of the vortex can become extremely cold as it is isolated from the rest of the atmosphere and there is no sunlight in the dark polar winter to warm it.

When the temperature falls as far as -80°C, clouds start to form. These polar stratospheric clouds are chemically different from normal water clouds which form near the surface of the Earth, and they change the chemistry of the air in the vortex.

This chemical change means "you end up having chlorine from CFCs converted from forms that don't deplete ozone into forms that do", explains Harris. The chemical breakdown of ozone by the active chlorine form is triggered as sunlight starts to penetrate the polar region in spring.

The first signs of Arctic ozone loss have already been seen 20 km above the Earth, says Markus Rex at the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, Germany, a coordinator on the project.

And the polar clouds are forecasted to stay for at least the next 10 days, says Harris. But he cautions that predicting the weather in the stratosphere is no more reliable than regular weather predicting.

Minor point...we predict weather in the stratosphere all the time, from thunderstorms to cirrus layers.  A number of passenger planes fly in the lower parts of the stratosphere daily.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see how large the Arctic ozone hole gets this year.  If man's efforts continue to cause ODC levels to decline, the size of this year's hole might be a historical maximum...unless global warming causes the polar stratosphere to get colder.

Mad Cow Found in a Goat

Remember that decorated Green Beret who the Army was kicking out for various disciplinary issues when it was discovered he had Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, the human form of mad cow disease?  No one could figure out how he got it, though he thought it was from eating a ceremonial meal of sheep brains while deployed in Oman.  His parents thought he maybe ate some contaminated beef a few yeas ago in England.  No one knows. 

Sheep and goats can get a related "transmissible spongiform encephalopathy" (TSE) known as scrapie.  But, the only two TSEs that have been found in humans are Creutzfeldt-Jakob and kuru, found in cannibalistic Fore tribes in New Guinea.  Other TSEs we hear about in the news are chronic wasting disease in deer and elk, and FSE (the "F" for feline) found in cats in Europe.

Three years ago, British scientists thought they'd found mad cow occurring naturally in sheep, but it turns out the researchers were accidentally dissecting cows brains.  Then in France this week, testing showed that a goat slaughtered because officials thought it had scrapie actually had mad cow disease.  Maybe the Green Beret was right.  The EU is now going to test 200,000 goats throughout the EU over the next six months. 

Meanwhile, Sgt. Alford--the Green Beret in question--is still alive but is "in a vegetative state."  There is no cure for Creutzfeldt-Jakob, and it's only been injections of an experimental drug (pentosan polysulphate, a paint thickener with medicinal uses) that has extended his life. 

It's a point of honor to his parents (his dad is a retired Army command sergeant major) that Sgt Alford be allowed to die on active duty.  So they're fighting the Army's efforts to medically retire him.  Both the Army and his parents understand that the death benefits are better for retired soldiers.  In fact, the military sometimes goes to extraordinary means to retire soldiers who are about to die on active duty.

Example...a good friend of mine (Ed) drowned on a family weekend to North Carolina's outer banks.  A sudden rip tide pulled him and one of his daughters into danger, and he drowned while saving her.  If was 30 minutes until rescue crews could find his body, which they then successfully "revived."  His wife is a nurse, so she knew he was brain dead, and in fact asked the emergency medics working to revive him to leave him be. 

Once his heart was beating, they rushed Ed to the hospital and put him on several machines to keep his body alive...he was brain dead with several other organs failing.  She called his boss, a commander he and I had worked with in a previous assignment.  He told her to keep the machines on while he initiated the emergency paperwork to retire him (Ed had about 15 years in...and a wife and three kids).  It was done in a matter of hours, then she had him unplugged and he quickly died.

One thing Hollywood military funerals rarely get right is how startling the rifle cracks are.

Rural Fire Safety in Timber Country

Article 76 and Senate Bill 360 are both intended to reduce the fire risk of homes located in rural areas.  Slowly but surely... 

The following is from an article in the Tuesday Grants Pass Daily Courier (dead tree only) entitled "Rural Homes Might Get a Bit More Costly."

If you're building a new home out in the country, you may have to clear more brush and build a better driveway than in the past.

People who build on land zoned rural residential will face more regulations, and cost, if county commissioners approve new wildfire safety standards recommended by the Wildfire and Safety Standards Review Committee.

The committee formed two years ago, part of the landmark Josephine County Integrated Wildfire Protection Plan, to increase safety in an area where more and more homes are being built on hilly, forested terrain.

Since 1994 the so-called Article 76 regulation has applied only to homes on land zoned forest, and on new subdivisions.

The addition of rural residential would add about 2,800 lots to the ordinance.

The existing 13,200 homes on rural residential lots won't have to comply unless a remodeling project doubles the value of the home, or if a manufactured home is removed and a new home built.

Grandfathering current owners reduces a significant percentage of the Measure 37 implications.  For instance, my parents have a couple smaller properties in land now zoned as rural residential, 40 acre-minimum.  The County grandfathered current owners in that change, meaning that if my parents want to build a home on their 15 acre chunk, they can.

Heavy-handed zoning changes helped drive the backlash that spawned Measure 37.   

"The money impact will be the driveway," Kellenbeck said.  "That's one of the things we really want to discuss with commissioners before we move forward.  But many rural residential homeowners are already meeting the standards, according to builder Dave Anderson, although in relatively flat areas some get away with simply laying down gravel.

Higher standards for turnarounds will also add cost to the driveways.

"Rock and gravel is a practical function building anything new," said Adams, who builds homes all over the county.  "People who do not have rock and gravel create a real mess for the public right of way."

"This is a good step in the right direction," said Phil Turnbull, chief of Rural/Metro Fire Department.  "It should ultimately make the community a safer place to live."

Turnbull said steep, thin driveways crowded with brush and trees make life miserable for firefighters.  Article 76 will also require clearing to 13.5 feet above driveways the full width of 12 feet.

...

Forest zone builders previously had to pave anything above 15 percent grade, but the new standard will allow up to 18 percent in rock and gravel, if done correctly.  An erosion control plan will also be required.

Things would be safer still if these rules were applied to existing landowners.  While a number of folks could afford the changes, the expense could really hurt the landed poor and some of the elderly on fixed incomes...and JoCo has a number of both.  Fires would cause them more harm financially, but their risk doesn't change if the rules don't change.

Oh, and JoCo already has a county reg where if you build and have a gravel driveway, you have to pave the entrance with the paved road.  They don't like gravel getting on their paved roads either...understandably so. 

Article 76 partly overlaps Senate Bill 360, which requires all existing rural homes to clear brush from around homes or face liability of up to $100,000 if fuel buildup on their property contributed to a large wildfire.

SB360 went into effect in Jackson and Deschutes counties this year, but is at least a year away in Josephine County. 

Most rural properties cost between $300 and $800 to hire someone to fireproof to a 100-foot clearance, according to Eric Wernew of Eric's Tree Service, but large jobs can cost more.

The new standards would require a 50-foot primary buffer of cleared vegetation and pruned limbs; and a secondary 50-foot buffer with less strict standards.  Those standards would comply with both Senate Bill 360 and Article 76.  The Oregon Department of Forestry has $330-per-acre grants available for the sixth straight year.

Requirements to screen decks, underneath porches, soffits and vents also add relatively small costs.

I have a neighbor who was laid up by an accident, so she paid somebody to do the clearance work on her property.  Even with a grant, she spent far more than the estimate above.  The property around here is anything but flat, but when's the last time the government overestimated the expense to taxpayers when proposing a change?

The screening of decks and vents and underneath porches is primarily to limit the ability of embers from a nearby fire from finding a cozy place to smolder and eventually set a house ablaze.  It has nothing to do with fuel buildup, but it's not a bad idea. 

Meanwhile, some of our legislators think they've come up with a way to spread the financial burden of fighting wildfires.

Oregon taxpayers should assume more of the costs for fire protection on private forestland, a legislative committee recommended Wednesday.

The bill, which now heads to the House floor, would require taxpayers to help pay for the state's one-of-a-kind fire protection insurance policy, plus assume the risk for as much as $10 million in firefighting costs in a nasty fire season.

Currently, those expenses are borne by private landowners through the Oregon Forest Land Protection Fund. It is filled by a variety of assessments on timber companies and homeowners in urban-forest interchange areas where homesites sit in the trees.

Supporters said the additional public subsidy is justified because taxpayers benefit from private forestland, which provides clean drinking water, wildlife habitat and jobs.

In addition, statistics show the public causes about one-third of forest fires.

In most states, the state (meaning all all taxpayers) shoulders the cost of fighting wildfires...examples include California, Arizona, and Colorado.  In Oregon, the land owners pay about 60 percent ($14.5 million) and the taxpayers 40 percent ($11.4 million).  This proposal wouldn't result in a tax decrease for us timber owners.  The state would keep the difference to improve its quick-strike firefighting capability, a noble goal. 

So, where's the legislature supposed to come up with the money to make this happen?  With the current fiscal climate, the proponents, like Rep. Chuck Burley (R-Bend) and Rep. Susan Morgan (R-Myrtle Creek), are only looking for a small change.   

It would require an immediate $900,000 commitment from the general fund to cover half of the fire insurance policy.

...

Rep. Mark Hass, D-Beaverton, said he initially had some questions about fairness because the state isn't subsidizing the insurance for other industries.

However, the public gains more benefit from healthy forestland then, say, a warehouse, he said.

The state's fire insurance does not repay the value of any lost timber or houses. It only covers firefighting-related costs. The policy cost the state $3.8 million for 2004.

Plans call for buying a cheaper insurance policy this year, which can be accomplished by setting a higher deductible. The policy kicks in after the state pays $15 million in fire costs, but the proposal would raise the deductible to $25 million.

In a dry year, this would turn out to be a stupid decision.  In a wet year, would it be any smarter?  Do we need the bottom line, a boost in quick-strike firefighting capability, more than we need anything else our limited state revenue could buy?  Will the increased quick-strike capability give Oregon a better chance of not paying the additional $10 million deductible? 

Needless complexity is sometimes a way of hiding things in plain view.

Destroying Chemical Munitions

The Umatilla Chemical Depot has lots of dangerous munitions to destroy and wastes to clean up.  There aren't many incineration facilities approved to destroy chemical munitions, and the work must be done slowly and carefully. 

The United States was originally supposed to be done destroying its chemical weapons stockpiles by Dec 31, 2004 (as per Public Law 99-145, passed by Congress in 1986).  Technical problems, safety concerns, legal issues, etc. doomed that deadline.  If everything goes as currently scheduled, Umatilla won't be done until 2010, two years ahead of the Chemical Weapons Convention Treaty deadline of April 2012.

There are currently eight sites which store chemical munitions (map here):  Anniston AL, Pine Bluff AR, Pueblo CO, Newport IN, Blue Grass (Richmond) KY, Aberdeen (Edgewood) MD, Umatilla OR, and Deseret (Tooele) UT (also home to Dugway Proving Grounds).  Only four of those sites have operational incinerators:  Anniston, Aberdeen, Umatilla, and Tooele.  Two of the sites (Newport and Pine Bluff) should have their incinerators on-line later this year.  The other two sites (Pueblo and Blue Grass) do not yet have the ability to dispose of the munitions they store. 

The Army is concerned about its ability to meet the 2012 deadline, so it's studying shifting some of its chemical stockpiles to incinerators which look like they'll finish their efforts early...like Umatilla.  This would require a change to Public Law 103-337 (the National Defense Authorization Act for FY95) which made the transport of chemical weapons across state lines illegal.  Needless to say, Governor K is amongst the many who are concerned. 

Gov. Ted Kulongoski urged the Army Wednesday to drop any consideration of shipping more chemical weapons to Oregon for disposal.

The Army is studying the feasibility of sending stockpiles from at least two other storage sites to up-and-running destruction facilities, including the Umatilla Chemical Depot in Eastern Oregon, where destruction of some of the 7.4 million pounds of deadly nerve and blister agents started in August.

Moving the weapons would "increase the likelihood of accidents and terrorist attacks'' during transportation, and "threaten the health and safety of Americans nationwide,'' Kulongoski wrote in a letter to Army Secretary Francis Harvey.

"I cannot support a proposal that would put our citizens at risk," the letter said. "I urge you to reconsider any proposal that would change federal laws or policies to allow either the inter-state transportation of chemical weapons or increase the stockpile of weapons in Oregon."

Governor K is undoubtedly correct regarding the risks of such transportation.  The U.S. has to balance these and other concerns when making such decisions. 

- Will missing the international deadline for destruction of our chemical munitions hurt our credibility and thus capability to impact world relations the way we'd desire? 

- Would this strengthen NIMBY concerns in other states which contributed to their lagging ability to destroy the chemical munitions there...or for that matter the ongoing NIMBY concerns of storing, transporting, and disposing of nuclear wastes?

- Is delaying the closure of the Umatilla Chemical Depot so that it can incinerate other chemical munitions the most cost-effective option?  Umatilla is a long ways west of the storage facilities that are behind in their efforts. 

Let's hope our national politicians will make these and related decisions on merit.

Oh, and then there's this thought.  If a nation volunteered to give up its chemical munitions stockpiles, would we consider moving some of them to the U.S. (maybe up the river to Umatilla) for incineration?  Well, we're working with Russia on the funding, design, and construction of a facility to destroy its stockpile of nerve agent.  It will be at Shchuch' ye (one of Russia's seven chemical weapons storage facilities), just north of Kazakhstan (good map here).  The Germans are supporting a similar effort for the destruction of lewisite and mustard gas at Gorny, also north of Kazakhstan, but further west (map here). 

FYI, we did have a remote chemical munitions storage and disposal facility at the Johnston Atoll, 800 miles SW of Hawaii.  This military facility completed its disposal efforts in 2000 and is nearly finished with closure efforts. 

Kulongoski's letter was sent the same day that two U.S. Senators from Colorado introduced legislation to block funding to the Army's study.

Sens. Wayne Allard and Ken Salazar said the Pentagon assured them on Jan. 18 that the chemical weapons would not be moved from Colorado, but a day later the Defense Department announced the study to assess the option of moving weapons.

Army officials have said the study should be done by Feb. 18.

Binder (the Umatilla Depot spokeswoman) said it's too early to comment on either the study or Kulongoski's letter.

The U.S. military has an effective system for the movement of WMD assets in the U.S.  For instance, sometimes our nuclear missiles in the northern Great Plains or in various nuclear submarines need depot maintenance which can't be done locally.  With the far greater amounts of chemical munitions that might be moved and the danger of accidents, attacks, etc., is it worth the risk (or expense)?

Since August, there have been three incidents at the Umatilla Chemical Agent Disposal Facility that have caused it to temporarily shut down.

On the first day, operations were halted because an emergency button had accidentally been pushed the previous day. Later, two employees entered a room without the proper type of protective clothing. And in December, workers unclamped the wrong door in a filter unit they shouldn't have been in, Binder said.

None of the mishaps resulted in injuries.

I look forward to the U.S. finishing the destruction of its chemical munitions.  Sadly, I can't imagine we'll ever see the day when we don't have some level of threat regarding hostiles trying to use chemical weapons of some sort on others.  I spent two years of my Air Force career in S. Korea where we regularly trained for Kim Jong Il to attack us with chemical munitions.  My grandfather used to tell stories of what he saw and endured in WWI.  Let's hope all remaining chemical munitions are destroyed in facilities like Umatilla.

Random Nature #15

Westward Bound:  Before the birth of the Andes Mountains (which formed about 15 million years ago), the Amazon flowed west into the Pacific Ocean at what is present-day Guayaquil, Ecuador.  The Guiana and Brazilian Highlands were what created the continental divide.  When the Andes rose, they created a great inland sea...and left Ecuador's Guayas River with an enormous delta.

The large, shallow inland sea began to spring a leak about 10 million years ago at the Óbidos narrows (just NE of Santarem, Brazil on this map), creating the present-day Amazon that flows into the Atlantic Ocean.  Nonetheless, much of the Amazon Basin (which is about the size of the continental U.S.) remains very low-lying.  Leticia, Colombia (where Brazil, Peru, and Colombia meet), over 2,000 miles upstream from the river's mouth, is just 276 feet above sea level. 

With most of the Basin getting at least 10 feet of rain per year, the Amazon River, easily the world's largest by volume, flows forcefully despite its modest slope.  Large swaths of the landscape become seasonally inundated by the wet seasons, which vary in timing across the basin.  Even arboreal animals like sloths are powerful swimmers, using their dog paddle to seek better eating during the rainy season.

Distributaries:  Tributaries flow into other rivers, and distributaries do the opposite, generally as part of deltas.  Only one distributary in the world leaves a major river system and joins another, the Rio Casiquiare in southern Venezuela.  Noted explorer and scientist Alexander von Humboldt was the first to navigate the river. 

Early in its long route to the Caribbean, the Orinoco River splits, with about one-third of its flow departing southward...the birth of the Rio Casiquiare.  After about 200 miles, the Rio Casiquiare joins the Rio Negro, part of the Amazon River system.

The Casiquiare is often called a canal, but that is confusing terminology...it is a natural river.  In South America, the Spanish word canal is commonly used to describe channels.  The Casiquiare is seemingly a channel of the Orinoco, but one that never returns.  The Canal de Beagle (host to the port of Ushuaia) is a channel or straight on the south side of Tierra del Fuego...the Straight of Magellan is on the north and west side of that large island.

Variable Destinations:  The Colorado River hasn't always flowed into the Gulf of California.  Sometimes it's flowed into the Salton Depression (the northern part is called the Coachella Valley, and the southern part is called the Imperial Valley) in southern California.  The valley is nearly as low as Death Valley, though 50 foot of that depth is under the Salton Sea (surface elevation about 227 feet below sea level).  Like most desert lakes without outlets to the sea, the Salton Sea is naturally somewhat brackish. 

The Colorado River gained its name from all the reddish silt it carried, and it used to deposit a goodly amount of that silt in its lower reaches.  Dams now catch most of the silt.  Sometimes there was enough silt build-up that the river developed a distributary or two that overflowed the edge of its more typical flood plain and tumbled down into the Salton Depression.  Sometimes the river completely changed course, abandoning its outlet to the Pacific. 

The dry lake bed at the bottom of the depression would fill somewhat, creating what scientists call Lake Cahuilla (the Salton Sea before Europeans arrived).  At its biggest (in about 1500 AD), Lake Cahuilla completely filled the valley floor, forming a lake 26 times larger than the current Salton Sea.  When the Colorado would stay within its banks and flow into the Gulf of California, Lake Cahuilla would gradually dry up, only occasionally refilling a bit after rare good rains.  The populations of a number of species would boom and bust depending upon the amount of water available in the lake, if any.  But, the nearby soils were very fertile and were sometimes farmed by ancestors of the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians.

The last time the lake filled naturally for a multi-year duration was about 1700-1750.  Since then, Colorado River floodwaters have travelled that direction in the diversionary we now call the Alamo River in 1840, 1849, 1852, 1859, 1867, and 1891. 

An article in the current National Geographic made reference to a 1905 spring flood of the Colorado River that blew out an irrigation canal, causing the Salton Sea to fill...with irrigation runoff ensuring it now never dries up.  Silting had blocked the Imperial Canal in 1904 (only three years after its construction), so engineers were constructing a replacement canal that required the Colorado River to be moved into a temporary channel. 

What we were taught in engineering school (but I can't find an on-line link to) is that because recent years had been fairly dry, engineers decided to cut the temporary channel on the west side of the river near the diversionaries but where it was easier/cheaper to dig.  Bad decision.  The Colorado had huge floods in 1905, blew out the temporary channel, and flowed into the Salton Sea until early 1907.  By then, the Salton Sea was 32 feet higher and much larger than it is today.

With the significant loss of wetlands in much of southern California, the Salton Sea provides a critical stop for migrating birds on the Pacific flyway (a problem the Klamath Basin can relate to).  The birds dine on fish and worms, none of which are native species.  The sea is also getting saltier.  The irrigation of the fertile but mildly salty soils in the surrounding valleys is washing more salts into the sea.  Additionally, the waters of the lower Colorado River are naturally a bit salty, made more so through man's use and abuse. 

By treaty with Mexico, we have to allow at least 1.5 million acre-feet of Colorado River water per year to enter Mexico.  In 1992, the U.S. finished building the world's largest reverse osmosis plant at the border to remove enough salt from the river water that it's usable as fresh water.  Except that instead of using the plant, we are diverting some of the saltiest irrigation return water in southern Arizona around Mexico's Morelos Dam so that it doesn't make the river's salt content exceed the limit.  That diverted water doesn't count towards the treaty water we allow into Mexico.  Now, Arizona wants the feds to start-up the plant and stop diverting the salty irrigation water so that it can use more river water for irrigation.  The feds would rather spend the money retiring some Arizona and California farmland. 

Little wonder almost no water from the Colorado River enters the Gulf of California any more...and you wouldn't want to touch what does. 

Larger Diversion Plans:  In the days of centralized planning in the Soviet Union, the government was frustrated by the fact that most of the major rivers there flowed northward into the Arctic Ocean rather than southward into fertile but arid lands.  The Amu Darya and Syr Darya Rivers were/are two important rivers flowing through drier areas, but they were/are being used so heavily that the Aral Sea, once the world's fourth largest, was rapidly shrinking.  It now occupies just 60 percent of its former area, has lost 60 percent of its volume, and has doubled in salinity.  The fisheries there collapsed years ago, and health problems from the polluted dust continue to rise.

As the Soviets saw this happening (and with the need to increase their food production), they started developing plans to change the flow of several major northward-flowing rivers: the Lena, Ob (and its major tributary, the Irtysh), and Yenisey.  Environmentalists within the Soviet Union squawked, and finally succeeded in getting the project cancelled in 1986...not long after Gorbachev took power.

When this project was getting some worldwide publicity in the 70s, a number of scientists were greatly concerned that the loss of so much warmer fresh water flowing into the Arctic Ocean would cause an expansion of the ice cap, accelerating the globe's decline into an already impending ice age.  That concern seems rather quaint to many folks today. 

Nowadays, the lands the Soviet Union would have sent the water to are mostly in other countries like Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, etc.  The stressed Amu Darya and Syr Darya Rivers flow northwest from high mountain areas near China's western border (with Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Afghanistan).  Multiple immature governments are trying to figure out how to develop their economies and take advantage of their limited resources while maybe doing some sharing. 

Each country has an incomplete combination of dams, canals, melting glaciers, productive farm land, gas and oil, etc., and they are all landlocked.  As these countries increase their farming to support their expanding populations, the Aral Sea continues to die.  So, the president of Uzbekistan (which shares the Aral Sea with Kazakhstan) has resurrected the idea of diverting Siberian rivers to central Asia.  One of the things he says it would benefit is social stability. 

The world has been cold to the idea thus far.

Negotiating Tax Breaks

Peoples Energy is negotiating with Klamath County over tax breaks regarding its proposed 1,150 megawatt natural gas power plant in the Langell Valley (about three miles southeast of Bonanza).  If the County asks too much, the 400 construction and 30 permanent jobs never come (I've seen lower estimates on the number of permanent jobs the plant will bring).  If they don't ask enough, the County cheats its citizens.  And if the two sides carefully craft how the taxes are paid, the County can do a better job of benefitting its citizens.

A company seeking exemption from property taxes for a proposed power plant near Bonanza offered Tuesday to triple the amount of money it would pay in lieu of taxes - for the first year at least.

A representative of Chicago-based Peoples Energy told the Klamath County Board of Commissioners it would pay about $3.2 million in lieu of property taxes during the first year.

The figure represents half the estimated tax liability for the plant, and is more than three times the company's previous offer of $1 million.

Opponents of the Cob Energy Facility said that sounds like a good start, but think the county should hold out for more money.

The company is seeking a change in the Klamath Falls Enterprise Zone boundary to include the power plant site, making it eligible for property tax relief.

Cob spokesman Paul Turner on Tuesday acknowledged the company's previous offer of a $1 million annual payment for 15 years - in exchange for exemption from property tax liability estimated at $71.3 million - was inadequate.

Yes, it does seem that just 21 percent of the total tax bill isn't a very good offer.  But, I'm sure it was just an opening gambit.

The new deal Turner offered would have the company paying 50 percent of the annual taxes.

That would be about $3 million in the first year, declining over time as the property depreciated, Turner said.

In addition, Peoples Energy would give $300,000 a year to Klamath County Economic Development to put in a revolving loan fund for new local businesses.

Cob opponent Clif McMillan said the new offer is an improvement, and he is pleased plant officials have been responsive to the concerns of the community.

But he would like to see the plant give 100 percent of the taxes the county would waive should the enterprise zone be implemented.

"What will happen if we get down to turning the thumb screws?" he said. "...There's plenty of room for negotiation."

How often do we see such open negotiations? 

Commissioner Bill Brown asked Turner if Peoples Energy is open to negotiation, or if the latest offer is an "all-or-nothing proposal."

Turner replied, "It's all or nothing."

Members of the board of commissioners noted that one advantage of a payment in lieu of taxes would be the board's freedom to use the money according to its own discretion.

Property taxes, by contrast, must be distributed to taxing districts according to the tax base established for each district.

Furthermore, Cob representatives have pointed out that about 40 percent of property taxes would go to schools, and state school support would be reduced by the same amount to offset the extra revenue.

The school funding angle is certainly interesting.  Since the plant isn't bringing many jobs (and thus school children), the payment in lieu of taxes would be great for the schools...if the County gives them much of the money. 

Whether the county agrees to the new proposal or not, there are several things that could still prevent the plant from being built.

First, even if the county approves changes to the enterprise zone, the city also has to agree. City councilors postponed a decision in September, pending the decision of a state siting panel.

Second, Lyn Brock of Save Our Rural Oregon said after the meeting Tuesday that the irrigation-rights group still plans to appeal the state's decision to grant a permit to the plant to the Oregon Supreme Court.

Third, there are details of the siting process that have to be completed still, such as a seismic survey of the property to measure the risk of earthquake damage to the proposed plant.

The Langell Valley is sparsely populated, mainly by farmers who irrigate with well water.  Save Our Rural Oregon is concerned that these farmers have never been granted permanent water rights for their wells, and that the power plant's water usage may take priority over and/or adversely impact their wells.  At least the plant is now going to be air cooled...it was originally proposed to be water cooled.

"Alcohol Recovery Fees" and Other Revenue Growth Ideas

And 2004, and 2003...

Straightforward talk about raising Oregonians' taxes is hopelessly out of fashion in 2005.

Public service and education advocates aren't giving up on the subject, though. They're just avoiding the joint appearance of the words "tax" and "increase" when they string sentences together at the Capitol.

Sen. Bill Morrisette, D-Springfield, is hoping to bring in more money through the excise on beer. But he understands the necessity of steering the proposal around the stated opposition of House Speaker Karen Minnis and Gov. Ted Kulongoski to tax increases.

So don't expect Morrisette to call it an increase in the beer tax.

"It's not a tax. It's a fee. The 'alcohol recovery fee,' " said Morrisette, explaining that the increased revenue would address some of the social costs of alcohol consumption by providing more money for addiction services and counseling.

Morrisette obviously doesn't share the Governor's concern about trying to restore credibility in Salem.

As I've noted many times before, people who talk about Oregon's low tax burden are ignoring our fees and other charges, which are higher than average.  That makes what we pay for government about average.  But, too many big government types prefer to treat the populace as stupid or ignorant when trying to justify revenue increases.  Count Morrisette in that group. 

Our beer tax is $0.08 per gallon, tying us for fourth lowest in the nation.  Supposedly if we raise that tax to help treat alcoholics, Oregonians will reflexively say no.  If he just calls that same increase a fee, Oregonians will be more supportive.  And he was a career teacher...who put on his state candidate website that Oregon is the 44th lowest in state and local taxes.

Similar efforts are quietly under way to get the Legislature to look at closing tax loopholes, raising user fees and boosting the cigarette tax.

But the new legislative session's political climate has some lawmakers taking a hard-line posture in opposing all taxes. And even those like Morrisette - liberals who have unabashedly voted for higher taxes and gone on to win re-election - are choosing their words carefully when it comes to taxes.

That's because the Legislature returned to Salem this month mindful that twice in a 12-month span voters rejected statewide measures to raise taxes. Lawmakers responded, against the backdrop of a recession-squeezed state treasury, by cutting programs, tapping reserves, borrowing and allowing accounting gimmicks.

This session, budget analysts say the $11.9 billion in anticipated general fund revenue for 2005-07 will fall nearly $1 billion short of the cost of maintaining all programs at current levels. Top leaders have said they don't want to rely on one-time dollars through borrowing or bookkeeping tricks. That would seemingly leave two major options: reducing spending or raising revenue.

It's amazing that it took a second vote (and the wasted tax dollars to make it happen) for some--repeat some legislators to accept the feedback.  The majority of Oregon taxpayers feel they pay enough for government, and they leave it to Salem to figure out what "enough" will buy. 

Right on schedule, we're being bombarded by sad stories about what the government could be fixing if we only gave more.  It's never enough.  Maybe that's part of what makes higher fees easier for some people to take...you pay for government you actually use.  You want a driver's license or current tag, you pay for it. 

The two politicians with the greatest influence over the tax debate, Minnis and Kulongoski, have staked out positions opposing higher taxes. Kulongoski, a Democrat, wants to convince Oregonians that state government is living within its means, although he hasn't entirely ruled out increased revenue.

The governor has said he would entertain efforts to make the tax system more fair, and pointed out in an interview that the Legislature could always put revenue raisers before the voters through a ballot referral - a legislative act that does not require the governor's signature.

Minnis, who oversees a Republican majority dominated by conservatives in the House, has taken the stance that taxes should not be on the table. Her Senate counterpart, President Peter Courtney, has not ruled out increased revenue, although he and other leaders in the Democrat-controlled chamber are not actively seeking increased revenues. Oregon's constitution requires that revenue-raising bills start in the House, making it logistically difficult for the Senate to pursue such legislation.

Courtney would be flailed by the unions if he took revenue increases off the table.  And he's got allies in safe seats who can propose lots of tax and fee increases.  I wonder how Senator Morrisette (of the alcohol recovery fee above) likes not being considered a leader by the R-G?

Rep. Mark Hass, the Democratic vice chairman of the House Revenue Committee, said revenue-raising measures may have at least a faint chance of consideration, even if general tax increases are dead on arrival.

The Beaverton lawmaker is working on one such proposal. It would schedule all tax breaks for elimination in 2009. In the four-year run-up, lawmakers could study each tax credit or exemption on the books and make a determination of which of them should be kept; those that don't get a majority of support from both houses would vanish. Hass likens his proposal to the process Congress used in the 1990s to decide which military bases should close.

"I think it's up to us to make the case that, for instance, the pollution control tax credit should be allowed to phase out," he said. "That, while it's well-intentioned, it doesn't rise to the level of school funding."

How does this process parallel Base Closure and Realignment?  Every base wasn't scheduled for closure unless the Congress could justify it staying open.  What a ludicrous comparison.

Pardon the cynicism with the proposed solution, but wouldn't this motivate business lobbyists to buy support from our legislators (again?) for the continuation of their clients' tax breaks?  What a great way to solicit political donations to ensure one's re-election.  Isn't there a better way to address this legitimate issue?

Anti-tax activist Russ Walker said he fully expects statehouse leaders' live-within-your-means resolve to be tested by pressure to increase revenues.

Walker, the Oregon director of the national organization FreedomWorks, led the fight to refer the 2003 Legislature's tax package to the ballot, where it was defeated last year as Measure 30. He said that while no one is currently talking about a general increase in taxes, it's clear that raising revenue is on the minds of some lawmakers and advocates for programs that rely on public spending.

"I've been approached by groups asking if we would look the other way with various proposals," Walker said, referring to suggestions to reduce tax credits or increase the beer and cigarette taxes. He said his group of conservative activists will oppose any such effort because "once you open that door, it's a floodgate."

What a surprise...another article on tax increases that discusses anti-tax activists.  Most Oregonians are not anti-tax, they are anti-tax increase.  Salem tries to raise our taxes against our wishes, and anti-tax activists do the legwork to put those attempts on the ballot.  All we have to is vote no and maybe sign a petition.  Those anti-tax activists (that most of us don't agree with) have made our lives more convenient the last couple years.

Call it a marriage of convenience...that the renaming of taxes won't change.   

The Sounds of Silence

Last week, I blogged on the Salem-Keizer school district's attempts to cover up sexual molestations within its school systems.  The Salem Statesman Journal has followed up its strong investigative reporting on the subject with a superb editorial, finished as follows...

The Salem-Keizer School District's record is shameful. It's shameful in the multiple occurrences. It's even more shameful that the district's leadership is running away from the problem and pursuing business as usual.

The 2005 Legislature must not let children in other communities suffer the same fate. Legislators have a duty to protect children by removing the secrecy from school employee disciplinary records and by making it easier to fire anyone who engages in sexual misconduct, harassment or other abuse.

And the Salem-Keizer School Board should accept its responsibility and come forth with a plan for addressing neglectful supervision within its schools.

Not just in annual training. Not next year. Now.

I absolutely agree.  And remember that same administrators involved in this mismanagement and cover up just got an enormous 10 percent pay raise last summer, far more than the teachers within the district. 

But, how much hope do we have for change when our Senate is led by Peter Courtney, an educator who may have covered up sexual harassment complaints as assistant to the university president at Western Oregon University? 

I wonder how many more of our tax dollars are involved in buying guilty silence within our educational systems?

Awaiting More Water

Living through this double-digit streak of cool, foggy days, it's been strange seeing on the local weather that places as close as Roseburg have been warm and sunny...so much so that their lows have occasionally topped our highs.  We haven't surpassed the mid-40s since before we had the snow a couple weeks ago.  Maybe the sun has briefly made an appearance nearer the river, but up here, it's been fog or very low clouds without a break.  While it hasn't been raining, there's been condensation instead of evaporation, which is better than most places have been doing lately.

Warm and sunny January days may feel like a blessing, but they also can be a curse for the region's hydropower generators and utility ratepayers.

Recent record highs and dry skies have eroded an already paltry snowpack, and Columbia River dam operators are bracing for lower river levels later in the year.

The mild winter is worrisome for the Bonneville Power Administration, which sells power to 130 public utilities and supplies 46 percent of the Northwest's electricity.

"We're not using the drought word yet, but it's not looking very good water-wise," BPA spokesman Mike Hansen said on Friday. "The more this trend keeps up, our ability to hold rates where they're at becomes more uncertain."

The best snowpack in the state is at Mt. Ashland, where despite the melting, at least they're still skiing.  The few heavy storms we've had this year have produced an average rainfall year but below-average snowpack...they've vented most of their power on the south side of the Siskiyous.  The snowpack continues to be light in the Klamath Basin, which doesn't bode well for the competing interests there.

The federal power marketing agency lowered wholesale rates 7.5 percent last October in anticipation of a normal winter and a healthy market for selling surplus power this summer.

Wholesale prices remain promising, but the weather is not cooperating. The snowpack in the Columbia River Basin is about three-quarters of what it normally is in late January. The BPA projects that the Columbia's total flow now through July will be 82 percent of average.

"The snowpack for us is like putting money in the bank for a sunny day later on," Hansen said.

With temperatures reaching 20 degrees above normal, lower-elevation snow already is being withdrawn, slipping into rivers months earlier than state and federal officials want to see.

"We do have a pretty shallow snowpack and in some spots bare ground out there where there was snow just a week or so ago," said Dan Keirns, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service in Portland.

The warmth is good neither for future power rates (one of Oregon's few economic advantages) nor the potential for summer fires. That's why if it's not going to rain, I'll not complain about the fog. And judging from the forecast, we're soon going to replace the fog with rain. Someday my views will look like views again.

Warm air moving up from the tropics - a "pineapple express" - has pushed freezing levels to above 8,000 feet in the Cascades, Keirns explained. Cooler air and rain is expected to return next week, but new snow will fall only at the highest elevations, he said.

Making matters worse, there wasn't much of a snowpack before the recent balmy weather.

"Spring is a bit early, but we didn't have any winter to get us any snowpack going," said Jon Lea, a hydrologist with the Natural Resources Conservation Service in Portland. "We're seeing snowpacks in the entire Willamette River basin at a whopping 35 percent of average."

The amount of water stored in mountain snows has dwindled some since Jan. 1, when the basin's snowpack stood at 37 percent of average. Some of the highest automated snow survey stations in the Cascades indicate that the snowpack has lost half an inch of water in the past week.

There's plenty of winter left. But Lea also noted that by Feb. 1, the region usually reaches two-thirds of the total snowpack the season will bring.

"So it doesn't bode well for winter water supplies in those areas that depend on snowmelt to recharge our water," Lea said.

As my Dad the meteorologist has long taught me, the "pineapple express" is warm wet clouds streaming north from Hawaii.  When it's aimed at the Siskiyous, we Jeffersonians get some of our wettest winter storms.  It's easy to tell that Oregon is not experiencing a pineapple express at the moment...wrong clouds in the satellite photo (and a lack of rain).  We either lack a catchy title for the current warm spell or the term is mutating. 

The upside is that rivers and reservoirs in the Willamette Valley don't depend much on melting snow in spring and summer. Instead, rain in March, April and May does the most to fill local reservoirs, and it's too early to forecast how wet those months will be.

The outlook for filling reservoirs in the Columbia River system is not all that bad thanks to a healthier snowpack in Canada, said Cindy Henriksen, chief of the Portland reservoir control center for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

A mid-January forecast for points above Grand Coulee Dam in Eastern Washington showed stream flows at 95 percent of average, Henriksen said.

Even so, warm and dry conditions elsewhere in the region could undermine hydropower operations this year, the BPA's Hansen said.

"People think when it's not raining it's a good thing and these mild temperatures are a good thing, but for the Columbia River hydro system, this is exactly the wrong combination," he said.

It's likely the considerable variability in river flows and ocean temperatures/currents that's driven a few western species like salmon and lamprey to be anadromous...migrating up rivers after a few years at sea to breed.  That atypical lifestyle (with further seasonal variance via runs) allows them to better tolerate years when conditions aren't the best for them. 

Officials are holding out for a batch of cold, wet storms to shore up the snowpack.

"We had hoped that January might provide a little bit of assistance and get us closer to average, but it did not work out that way," Lea said. "So we're keeping our fingers crossed."

Winters have been saved before as late as March. That happened two years ago in what was dubbed the March miracle.

"We have come out of it in times past to get some snowpack up on those mountain peaks," Lea said. "But we're still waiting for that to happen at this point."

At some point, some brave scientist will predict how many years of above-average precipitation it will take for the dry areas in the Columbia Basin to catch up with their averages.  That will be the signal for the skies to open up, catching those places up in a few weeks.  Averages have a way of hiding the dips and spikes.