Real science supports saving Capitol Lake

People advocating the destruction of something our community values (Capitol Lake) and replacement by something else (an “estuary”) should be responsible for explaining why their alternative would be better. The estuary advocates haven’t done that. Aside from occasional feel-good statements like “free the Deschutes waters,” they’ve focused instead on bad-mouthing the lake and giving it a negative public image. If people really believe the lake is bad, the estuarians figure, the public will be willing to give up the lake without taking a close look at the flawed alternative. Rather than prove “the estuary is good,” they’ve forced the community into having to prove “the Lake is not bad.”

Environmentally, the lake is better than the estuary alternative in every way. I’m the only scientist who says so openly in public statements, and in reports whose drafts have been proof-read by retired Dept. of Ecology scientists (and others). That makes me a prime high-profile target for the estuary crowd. John Rosenberg’s ill-informed letter (April 12) is an example. He asserts that I’m wrong about everything and invent “alternative facts.” Olympians can judge for themselves the validity of my statements by looking at my reports on the CLIPA website (savecapitollake.org). In particular, read the two-page 15 Reasons For Capitol Lake summary. That one references two longer reports, Healthiest Lake and Budd Inlet Model Analysis, which utilize real science in technical detail.

The lake is the best environmental asset our community could possibly have. Distrust anyone who tells you it’s “sick.”

This story was originally published May 26, 2017 at 5:13 PM with the headline "Real science supports saving Capitol Lake."