There was a piece on the evening news about the flood and upcoming spring runoff and I think I had a few words in it, but have not watched it yet. I will have to give it some time before I work up to it, and am hoping the transcript will be online so I can see what part of what I said was used and then I'll know how bad it probably was, and I can watch the recording to see how bad I looked. I was reluctant to be on TV, but did wash my hair before I went over there.

The TV opportunity was at a motel east of here, so I got to meet those people. I thought the gal was kind of pushy and talked too loud, but at one point I was talking about something, and she was actually listening, and after I was interrupted she told me to continue, like she was really interested in what I had to say. I thought that was so nice, I almost forgive her for her irritating ways.

Her husband is quite a bit older, and very nice. He's not loud and talky at all. When I was getting ready to leave he asked me if I wanted to see the room units they have restored after the flood. They are much nicer than I expected considering how old the outside of the place is. He said they had to refund $30,000 in reservation deposits after the flood because they weren't sure when they can reopen again, and that was their getting through the winter money.

The TV piece was supposed to be about how the canyon residents are upset that the lake above us is supposedly only 2 feet below flood stage, and what is the government agency that controls that water level going to do about it when the snow starts to melt. But I have been watching that water level for years, and it's not two feet, for one thing - an hysterical woman misinterpreted the information and got everyone all stirred up.

While I was being filmed, I could see one of the women signaling me, and I thought she was reminding me to stop waving my hands around. When we were done filming I asked her what she was trying to say, and she was wanting me to rant about the two feet below flood level. I told her that's not valid, the lake is 89% full, and that's the number people should focus on if they must focus on something.

When it was done, the women said they thought I did a good job - not emotional, just the facts. That's what I was shooting for, because there are people around here who think we should all sue the federal government on the grounds that the dam releases that contributed to the flood. These lawsuits would never succeed because they would have prove negligence on the part of the federal employees.

The government employees weren't negligent, they were acting in accordance with their Emergency Action Plan. In my interview I said what we'd like to see is some flexibility in their future policies that would allow them to start releasing water earlier in a high water situation - on Tuesday, for example, rather than saving it up until Friday and sending the whole lake downstream on us.