[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
dam-l Dams Aren't Forever (fwd)
Forwarded message:
From owner-irn-narmada@igc.org Wed Oct 8 00:09:58 1997
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 19:46:00 -0800
From: patrick@irn.org (Patrick McCully)
Message-Id: <v02140b05b0607fdd105e@[198.94.3.47]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
Sender: owner-irn-narmada@igc.org
Subject: Dams Aren't Forever
To: irn-narmada@igc.org
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by igc3.igc.apc.org id TAA17641
X-Sender: patrick@pop.igc.apc.org
> **********************************************************
>
> 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.
>