9 September 1972

The Press

Dear Editor:

The Columbia Slough Development Corp. (CSDC) has made a great deal of comment about why the Columbia Slough should remain open. Jim Bigelow of CSDC has said that complete closure of the slough at both ends would mean a loss of many manufacturing firms, meat packing plants, trucking firms, heavy equipment firms and others. He says there are 2400 people at work on the banks of the slough with an annual payroll of 18 million dollars.

The facts show that none of the companies on the slough use the slough for barge transportation. Instead they have used it as a cesspool and a place to dump cooling water. In general for the last forty years they have contaminated the slough and allowed it to become choked with debris. CSDC claims the slough was used for barge traffic in the ’40’s and ’50’s. There is very little on record supporting this claim; however, the slough was used for log towing to lumber mills that no longer exist.

Terry De Sylvia, attorney for CSDC, claims that the slough can have compatability between barge traffic and recreational boating. As an example he states that there is very little recreational use of the Willamette River during the hours between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. and that he sees a great deal of barge traffic during this period. The Columbia River Tow Boat Association says they operate on the river 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Each year lanes used by barges as the visibility around and in front of a barge is limited and they have to have room to maneuver.

The Columbia River Tow Boat Assn. has gone on record in favor of plugging the slough. They view an open slough plan as an uneconomical expenditure of funds. These men make their living pushing barges!

At the present time the purpose of the slough is to provide drainage and flood control. If the slough is developed as a navigation canal it will have to have a dike on the full length of the north side and much of the south side to protect the area from fluctuating slough level. This fluctuation may be in excess of twenty feet. The dikes will have to have protective rock rip rap to prevent the erosion caused by prop wash from tug and recreational boats.

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality notes that, “the trees, shrubs, and briar patches and grasses lining the slough levees provide an important habitat to upland birds and other wildlife species, and that the slough contains warm water game fish.” When the canal is dredged out 100 feet wide and ten feet deep all of the trees and shrubs will be gone. At low water there will be thirty feet of exposed barren rip rap and it will look equal to the east bank of the Willamette River between the Burnside and Morrison bridges. Also, the prop wash from tugs and power boats will keep the bottom constantly stirred up. There will be no way to manage a fishery and keep the trash fish out with the slough open to the rivers.

The CSDC claims that plugging the slough will cause it to become a stagnant dead-end sewer similar to the Swan Island Lagoon. Those in favor of the plan to plug the slough feel that water can be introduced into the slough on the east end, to flush out the slough and then pumped out at the west end. A more constant water level can be maintained.

There are two kinds of boating: active and passive. There is no place in the metro area where the passive boater with his cartop boat or canoe can safely get away from the active power boats. With the slough plugged we would have a quiet passive area and waterway that can readily be reached by the senior citizen or young family that can’t afford a power boat. Without power boats there would be no need for expensive rip rapping.

The letterhead corporation of CSDC states, “Columbia Slough Development Corp. a non profit corporation interested in preserving the Columbia Slough as a navigable waterway.’ I would liken their purpose to that of a man living on a mud hole street asking the city to improve the street to city standards and not assessing him for the costs. There is a projected difference of $15,000,000 between a basic navigation plan for the slough and a multi-use or recreational-conservation plan. I fail to see where a basic navigation plan is either financially or practicable compatible with the alternate plans.

A Concerned Citizen
Arthur E. Israelson
11919 N.E. Prescott
Portland, Oregon