In the years leading up to WWII, the federal government, as part of the many programs resulting from the New Deal, created a program called “The Bonneville Project Act" in 1937. This act gave authority to a new federal agency known initially as the Bonneville Power Project, and after 1950, as Bonneville Power Administration, (the BPA). This agency, which still exists, was tasked with developing hydroelectric power resources on the Columbia River in rural western Washington State. In the process, they thoroughly cultivated a resource estimated to contain about 42 percent of the hydropower potential of the United States, and by bringing cheap, reliable power to the pacific northwest, they helped win WWII, keep the Cold War from becoming "hot"
…show more content…
In this era, BPA was inundated with problems such as unusually low river water levels due to severe droughts in 1973 and '76. As well as the problems associated with the hydro operations, problems were appearing with BPA's atomic power venture as well. Beginning in the late 1960's, a consortium led by BPA, planned to develop three nuclear power reactors and, by 1976, two additional reactors were planned due to possible further reductions in hydro output. This scheme became unfeasible in the end of the 1970's with the project becoming $7.75 billion over its expected costs, and by 1981, the project was now estimated to cost $24 billion, almost 2o billion more that originally planned. This failure was perhaps the greatest exception to the stable and generally competent management at BPA, and as such, the development of the Columbia River can be hailed as a success. In this project the state [the state as defined as the state of Washington] held an important, if dull, role. The primary purpose of the state was to supply demand for the BPA power thru public utility districts (known as PUD's) and encouraging greater development of industry and settlement in the region following the end of WWII. The state also provided political clout in …show more content…
At Hanford, because of concerns about nuclear accidents and Cold War security constraints, the complex was situated on over 670 square miles of open, unoccupied land, as such, the natural environment of flora and fauna was free to exist with little to no threat of disturbance from humans. All of this ecological activity was of course in the shadow of one of the world’s most [potentially] dangerous, toxic, and hazardous industrial complexes on the planet. Therefore the paradox occurs, how can something so environmentally bad possibly support so much prime ecological
In this era, BPA was inundated with problems such as unusually low river water levels due to severe droughts in 1973 and '76. As well as the problems associated with the hydro operations, problems were appearing with BPA's atomic power venture as well. Beginning in the late 1960's, a consortium led by BPA, planned to develop three nuclear power reactors and, by 1976, two additional reactors were planned due to possible further reductions in hydro output. This scheme became unfeasible in the end of the 1970's with the project becoming $7.75 billion over its expected costs, and by 1981, the project was now estimated to cost $24 billion, almost 2o billion more that originally planned. This failure was perhaps the greatest exception to the stable and generally competent management at BPA, and as such, the development of the Columbia River can be hailed as a success. In this project the state [the state as defined as the state of Washington] held an important, if dull, role. The primary purpose of the state was to supply demand for the BPA power thru public utility districts (known as PUD's) and encouraging greater development of industry and settlement in the region following the end of WWII. The state also provided political clout in …show more content…
At Hanford, because of concerns about nuclear accidents and Cold War security constraints, the complex was situated on over 670 square miles of open, unoccupied land, as such, the natural environment of flora and fauna was free to exist with little to no threat of disturbance from humans. All of this ecological activity was of course in the shadow of one of the world’s most [potentially] dangerous, toxic, and hazardous industrial complexes on the planet. Therefore the paradox occurs, how can something so environmentally bad possibly support so much prime ecological