Reading between the lines in the Oct. 6 Bulletin report “Mirror Pond into mudflats,” it seems the options for the future of the scenic waterway’s pond have been narrowed down to those choices that keep the Newport Avenue dam in place.

You arrive at that conclusion because PacifiCorp states in the article that the lower river level is necessary to conduct a “comprehensive inspection” of a dam they admit is nearing the end of its useful life.

If the dam is almost obsolete (for hydropower purposes) and is a candidate for removal under some of the Mirror Pond alternatives, why conduct a “comprehensive inspection?”

Why would you conduct a costly (to the ratepayers) inspection of the dam if it was destined to be removed for the sake of Mirror Pond? Why would the utility consider repairing the dam if the sensible decision would be to tear it down anyway? Seems like they would be throwing good money after bad in perpetuating the life of an out-of-date dam.

If the dam is in such an old state, springing leaks and providing an infinitesimal fraction of the utility’s power, it would appear the better choice would be to remove the dam as a cost-effective measure and move forward with a choice that would seal Mirror Pond’s future?

Fred Couzens