[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
dam-l ENS: Dam Removals on a Roll Across the USA/LS
This isn't about Africa, but is of interest anywhere there are dams to be
removed!
http://ens.lycos.com/ens/dec99/1999L-12-13-01.html (with pictures)
Dam Removals on a Roll Across the USA
WASHINGTON, DC, December 13, 1999 (ENS) - Removing small hydroelectric
dams is often the most effective way to help the environment and to save money,
says a coalition of U.S. environmental groups.
More than 465 dams have been removed across the United States, and the
restored rivers produce better fish habitat, yield financial savings,
improve public safety and revitalize communities, according to the report
released today by American Rivers, Friends of the Earth and Trout
Unlimited.
"When they hear how successful these dam removals were, we hope more
communities, dam owners and natural resource managers will consider
removing dams on their local rivers as one reasonable way to restore them
to health and
revitalize the communities along their banks," says Margaret Bowman of American
Rivers.
The report, "Dam Removal Success Stories: Restoring Rivers through Selective
Removal of Dams that Don't Make Sense," includes 25 detailed case studies of
dam removals. The groups call it the most comprehensive review to date of the
history and benefits of dam removal in the United States.
A 26th case study, detailing the removal of the Fort Edward Dam on the Hudson
River, while not a success story, provides lessons about some mistakes to avoid
when removing a dam.
Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, began swinging a sledgehammer to remove
selected dams across the country in the summer of 1996. The U.S. Department
of the Interior, after helping supervise the most intensive flurry of
dam-building in world history, is changing course," Babbitt wrote in a
guest editorial in
the November 29, 1998 edition of the Wisconsin State Journal. "Today, we
and other branches of the federal government are encouraging the selective
destruction of certain dams, public and private, that cause exceptional
environmental damage."
Babbitt wrote, "What's igniting this movement is not the federal
bureaucracy. It is community spirit. It is farmers, utility company
officials, civic boosters, fishermen, conservationists, aquatic biologists,
Native Americans and others. Together these Americans are finding promise,
not peril, in the unleashing of rivers. By removing dams, they are
diversifying their economics, healing watersheds, reducing Endangered
Species Act headaches and restoring beauty, vigor and recreation totheir
downtown centers."
The National Hydropower Association today welcomed more public attention to dam
issues where public safety, health and welfare are concerned, but cautioned
against a campaign that erodes the nation's hydroelectric infrastructure. The
Association represents about 60 percent of the providers of power that is
generated by dams.
"This could be a case of 'you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone,'" said
executive director, Linda Ciocci. "It would be dangerous and environmentally
reckless to tear out the nation's existing hydroelectric infrastructure
that provides us with clean, renewable and reliable power without properly
weighing all of hydropower's public benefits. Similarly, a campaign that
fails to distinguish between major hydroelectric developments and a
railroad bridge with trash buildup, as is done in this report, does the
public a major disservice in helping to understand these issues."
The report examines dams that were removed in California, Colorado,
Connecticut,
Florida, Idaho, Maine, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. Different types of dams are
examined, including hydroelectric, water supply and irrigation.
"As society's needs continue to change, more and more dam owners are seeing
removal as the best approach for dealing with old, unsafe or uneconomical
dams," adds Sara Johnson of Trout Unlimited."As this report shows,
selective removal of
dams is a cost-effective river restoration tool that can be a 'win-win-win'
situation-for dam owners,for fish, and for the local community."
The report examines dams that were removed because their negative impacts on
rivers and riverside communities outweighed their benefits. Many were blocking
fish migration and degrading water quality, while others were abandoned and
threatened public safety. The report found that dam removal is often less
expensive than repair, particularly where the benefits of the dam were
marginal or non-existent.
"Surprisingly little attention has been paid to the hundreds of dams that
have been removed in the United States, despite the growing national policy
debate on the subject," says Shawn Cantrell of Friends of the Earth. "This
report provides valuable information on the ecological, safety, and
economic benefits that accompanied past dam removal efforts."
Restoring rivers improves wildlife habitat and water quality, which often
leads to economic benefits and improved quality of life for communities
near the rivers, concludes the report. Tourism, boating and fishing
improved when dams are removed and, in many cases, decommissioning also
restored a community's
connection to its river. The case studies highlight consistent
collaboration and
support from local communities and demonstrate a variety of financing options.
"Contrary to popular belief, dam removal is not new and radical," adds Bowman.
"This report shows that for decades dam removal has been an accepted approach
for dam owners and communities to deal with unsafe, unwanted, or obsolete
dams."
There are 75,000 dams of at least two meters (6.5 feet) in height on U.S.
rivers, and tens of thousands of smaller dams, according to Interior
Secretary Bruce Babbitt. "Seventy-five thousand dams means we have been
building on average, one dam a day, including weekends, since the
Declaration of Independence."
These facilities can block or slow river flows, reduce river levels, block
or inhibit fish passage, obstruct movement of nutrients, alter water
temperature, low oxygen levels, limit public access to the river, and harm
the aesthetics and natural character of a setting, according to the new
report.
"In some places the case for removing a dam is so easy to make that one
wonders why it took so long," Babbitt said today." Last December I took a
sledgehammer to the Quaker Neck Dam on the Neuse River in North Carolina.
As dams go, Quaker Neck isn't much; it's only six feet high and it doesn't
generate power. But to the American shad trying to spawn upstream, that six
feet might as well be six
hundred, blocking off 900 miles of upstream spawning waters. Now biologists and
engineers have figured out an alternative water diversion method and the dam
has come down. And, just a year later, the shad are spawning seventy miles
upstream all the way to the city of Raleigh."
Babbitt believes that flood control - one of the main reasons for building many
dams - has not been accomplished by dam construction. "Flood damage in
American has increased, not decreased, despite billions invested in big
dams," he wrote.
Babbitt says all dams must justify their existence today. "I do believe we
should challenge dam owners everywhere - including the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation, the Army Corps of Engineers and other federal agencies - to
defend themselves, to demonstrate by hard facts, not sentiment and myth,
that continued operation of a dam is in the public interest. Often, this
will mean adopting more environmentally friendly operating regimes, such as
we have done at Glen Canyon Dam in Arizona to begin to restore the Colorado
River through Grand Canyon National Park. In some cases, it will mean
actual removal of dams themselves," Babbitt wrote.
In the history of dam removals, the Fort Edward Dam experience is in many
ways a
testimony of what not to do, the conservation groups report details. Fort
Edward
Dam was built in 1898 on the Hudson River, 54 miles upstream of Albany, New
York. By 1969, the condition of the dam was poor, and engineering studies
showed
that repair or replacement of the project was uneconomical. The owner, Niagara
Mohawk Power Corporation, decided in 1971 to remove the structure to avert the
danger of dam failure.
Inadequate research and engineering analyses were conducted prior to removal of
the dam in 1973. As a result, several tons of PCB-laden sediments from behind
the dam were released downstream following dam removal, adversely affecting
navigation, fish and wildlife, water quality, flood control, and public health.
Large-scale cleanup and restoration efforts were required to address the
serious
environmental and economic damage resulting from the Fort Edward Dam removal.
"The next big test for river restoration is approaching on the lower Snake
River and its four salmon killing dams," Babbitt said today. "The
Columbia-Snake is one of the most industrialized river systems in America.
The largest of its dams, Grand Coulee, cuts off more than a thousand miles
of salmon streams in Washington and British Columbia. Bonneville Dam,
dedicated by President Roosevelt in 1937, initiated the damming of the
lower river. After that the dams marched relentlessly up river - the
Dalles, John Day, McNary, Priest Rapids," Babbitt said.
"Through all this dam building the salmon managed to hang on, continuing their
annual migration rites up the Columbia, then into the Snake and on into the
Salmon River system of Idaho. Fish ladders helped some. Hatcheries were
built by
the dozen to boost production of declining stocks and offset fish ground up in
turbines and eaten by predators in the long stretches of slack water."
Dam proponents point to the value of U.S. dams. For instance, the 550 foot high
Grand Coulee Dam built during the 1930s across the Columbia River in central
Washington state is the largest concrete dam in North America and the third
largest producer of electricity in the world. It supplies electricity to 11
western states and irrigation to over 500,000 acres of farmland in the
Columbia Basin. A laser light show at the dam during warm weather provides
a combination of entertainment and history of the dam. Excellent fishing in
Lake Roosevelt formed behind the dam is advertised by the Grand Coulee Dam
Area tourist authority.
"A reasonable discussion over dam removal would also recognize the enormous
contribution hydropower makes to local economies," said Ciocci on behalf of the
hydropower industry. "This year's drought and flooding on the East Coast would
have been much worse both on human populations and fisheries were it not for
dams that regulated river flows. The city of Baltimore would not have had its
drinking water in August and there are towns in New England and the Southeast
that are standing today because dams controlled flooding in September.
"Removal is not appropriate for all or even most" of the dams in the U.S., the
report issued by the conservation groups acknowledges. It suggests that
operation of these facilities could be improved to minimize their
environmental and societal impacts, while still generating electricity,
irrigating land or controlling floods. Less than one percent of all dams
are even under consideration for removal.
"However, some dams cause such significant damage that no amount of improved
operation will alleviate the harm," and the report concludes that, "for
these dams, where the impacts of the dam outweigh its benefits, dam removal
is a reasonable and viable option."
© Environment News Service (ENS) 1999. All Rights Reserved.
//*\\*//*\\*//*\\*//*\\*//*
Aleta B. George
Home office: 707.435.9255
//*\\*//*\\*//*\\*//*\\*//*
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Lori Pottinger, Director, Southern Africa Program,
and Editor, World Rivers Review
International Rivers Network
1847 Berkeley Way, Berkeley, California 94703, USA
Tel. (510) 848 1155 Fax (510) 848 1008
http://www.irn.org
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::