Inaccuracies and misleading statements concerning alleged increases in electric rates as an effect of proposed minimum flows have recently appeared in publications from electric cooperatives in an effort to frighten their customers. The articles have been framed in an offensive attempt to pit trout anglers against electric ratepayers. These imprecise and outright erroneous articles argue that, if instituted, minimum flows from the dams would cause Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA) to pass on alleged higher costs to electric cooperatives and thus, to electric consumers.

A few facts should be kept in mind when reading anyone's opinion on the proposed minimum flow issue. Readers must have enough facts in order to separate truth from propaganda.

First of all, the study report on the proposed reallocations of water within the reservoirs has not yet been released. One article admits, "the total impact on hydroelectric production cannot be determined with any certainty until the Corps releases its draft report and recommendations on the proposed reallocation this fall."

Next, the water in the reservoirs is NOT owned by SWPA. The public owns that water and the water in the rivers. SWPA and the Corps of Engineers hold our precious resources in trust for the public's good. As such, they have a fiduciary responsibility to ensure that the value of what they manage does not diminish. The rivers have suffered a loss in value as a result of existing resource management by dam operators. I suspect what SWPA truly fears is that the public will realize that it is the public, and not SWPA, that should dictate the use of our water resources.

When built, the dams so negatively changed the rivers below them that the historic world-class warmwater fisheries were destroyed. To mitigate for this huge loss, artificial trout fisheries were established. However, the track record of the dam operators and SWPA to ensure healthy rivers downstream of the dams has been spotty, at best. There has been - and continues to be - a problem with the quality and quantity of water released from the dams, adversely affecting the rivers. To "expect the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission to pay for the storage it uses to support minimum flow releases for the trout fishery" is like asking the victim of an arson fire to pay for the accelerant the arsonist used to destroy the victim's property. How absurd is that?

One electric coop publication described the proposed minimum flow as a use of reservoir water "to artificially raise water levels in the river bed." Excuse me?? "Artificially" raise water levels??? Is it not the case that the existence of the dams "artificially" lowered the water levels? Is it not the case that years of hydroelectric operations caused the rivers to suffer degradation from extreme high water levels followed by extreme low water levels? How about giving the rivers a break by establishing some modicum of natural flow that existed before the dams were built? And while we're at it, how about providing flows with adequate dissolved oxygen at proper temperatures to support the artificial trout fisheries??

It is true that electricity cannot be stored. It is also true that the price of electricity sold on the grid can vary greatly from hour to hour. It is also true that SWPA tries to generate electricity when it can be sold for maximum profit. Equally true is that proposed minimum flows have the capacity to generate a small amount of electricity that will be sold on the grid for whatever rate exists at the time of generation. This "minimum flow" electricity will be sold, not wasted. In addition, proposed minimum flows would not hamper SWPA from generating and selling electricity when rates are at peak prices, just as they presently do. How much electricity are we talking about? One article states, "SWPA hydrologists estimate that reallocation from the power pools would result in the loss of about 42 megawatts of capacity from the Bull Shoals Dam alone." This information must be put into perspective. The assumption here is that all of the reallocation will be from the power pool, and we simply do not know if that assumption is correct until we get the study report. Even if that assumption is correct, put 42 megawatts in perspective with the "more than 488 million megawatt-hours of low-cost hydroelectricity from SWPA" provided to Arkansas electric cooperatives in 2002. If all five dams must put 42 megawatts on the grid at less than optimal rates, that's still about 200 megawatts out of 488,000,000. And, again, that's not "wasted" electricity - the 200 megawatts will be sold on the grid. It is possible that SWPA and electric cooperatives could see economic benefits.

I do not believe that electric customers would be subsidizing trout fishing if minimum flows are established, as claimed in these articles. It is wrong to make that assertion. Such assertions made before the study results have been released should be deemed invalid.

It is more likely that minimum flows would help repair some of the damage done to the rivers due to dam operations. The study report and its recommendations will help clarify these complicated issues. We've waited years for this report. Let's wait a little longer and see what it says. One thing is for sure: your opinion will count. If you value trout fishing, you will be ready to voice that opinion after the study report is released.