[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

dam-l No subject given


     I thought you might find this op-ed piece of interest.
     
     Dan
     
     **********************************************************
     
     New York Times, October 6, 1997
     
       "Dams Aren't Forever"
      By Daniel P. Beard 
     
     WASHINGTON -- Sometimes when Congress holds hearings, things don't 
     work out as intended. A good example occurred last month when the 
     House Resources Committee met to discuss a plan to drain the reservoir 
     behind Glen Canyon Dam upstream from the Grand Canyon. By draining the 
     reservoir, known as Lake Powell, we would be restoring a natural 
     wonder: the magnificent Glen Canyon, which has been underwater since 
     1963.
     
     There was no mistaking the intent of the hearing. The Western 
     lawmakers on the panel wanted to use the forum to embarrass those who 
     support restoration of the canyon.
     
     It didn't work out that way.
     
     True, one representative after another tried to portray the idea as 
     ludicrous.  Millions of people, they said, could experience water 
     shortages and power failures.  Lake Powell tourism would collapse. 
     People who agreed with that view were paraded before the panel.  Those 
     who disagreed were painted as naïve, misguided or worse.
     
     But by holding the hearing in the first place, the panel gave 
     legitimacy to the option of removing dams because it tacitly admitted 
     that dams are not permanent fixtures on the landscape. They are there 
     because we made a political decision to build them. And they won't 
     last forever. Silt builds up behind them, and they deteriorate.
     
     The suggestion that we restore Glen Canyon is breathtaking. The 
     political and economic obstacles would be substantial, but we 
     shouldn't dismiss the idea. We already spend millions of dollars each 
     year to maintain the Grand Canyon's river ecosystem.  Millions are 
     also being spent to protect and restore endangered fish and correct 
     other problems caused by the dam. Why not consider spending that money 
     on restoring the canyon?
     
     Lake Powell is a tremendous resource, but there are alternatives for 
     boaters. The loss of hydroelectric power would be minimal; the region 
     has a surplus of power. Though the Southwest is booming in population, 
     Lake Powell has never been used as a water supply reservoir. Its 
     primary function has been to store water as insurance against an 
     extended drought, something that has not occurred since the dam has 
     been in place.
     
     We spent tens of billions of dollars in this century to build Glen 
     Canyon and several hundred other large dam projects. We have received 
     benefits from them, and they have contributed greatly to regional 
     economies.  
     
     But there is another legacy to our dam-building era. We drained 
     wetlands and destroyed biologically rich habitat. Dams have flooded 
     spectacular canyons, reducing many rivers and streams to a trickle. 
     Salts have built up from irrigation and destroyed farmland. Once 
     productive fisheries are now a memory in many places.
     
     We will spend more to correct these problems than we did to build the 
     projects in the first place. Dam boosters have always overlooked these 
     costs. Like high-pressure salesmen, they paint an ideal world: Cheap 
     power! Cheap water! More crops! Economic development! An end to 
     hunger!
     
     The reality is somewhat less rosy. Building a dam is the same as 
     constructing a nuclear plant: you get immediate benefits, but you also 
     get huge long-term costs. And a           dam, just like a nuclear 
     plant, can leave a legacy of environmental destruction that can take 
     generations to correct.
     
     Big dam projects were conceived to meet the needs of agriculture and 
     the mining industry. That was acceptable so long as urban demand for 
     water was limited, Federal money was available to build projects and 
     environmental values were ignored.
     
     All that has now changed.
     
     There is greater competition for water between cities and farms.  
     Federal construction money has dried up, and environmental concerns 
     have become more urgent.
     
     Draining a reservoir and restoring a canyon may just be the cheapest 
     and easiest solution to our river restoration problems. Congress has 
     already taken modest steps in this direction. It has agreed to pay to 
     remove two dams on the Elwha River in Washington State to restore a 
     salmon fishery, and the Army Corps of Engineers is removing concrete 
     channels from Florida's Kissimmee River to re-create the original 
     river meanders.
     
     The House Resources Committee should be applauded for holding its 
     hearing on draining Lake Powell. Even though its members didn't mean 
     to, they have acknowledged that all it takes is political will to 
     remove dams and give us back our beautiful canyons.
     
     *******************************************************************
     Daniel P. Beard is a senior vice president of the National Audubon 
     Society. From 1993 to 1995, he was Commissioner of the Federal Bureau 
     of Reclamation, which built and operates Glen Canyon Dam.