Divided Over Dams
The building of dams represents people's attempts to control and
harness the awesome power of nature. In this case, a rapidly running river.
While few dispute the ingenuity behind the design and construction of America's
most famous dams, Hoover among them, opinion is currently split as to whether
dams are environmentally and economically sound or harmful.
 Strictly speaking, the purpose behind a dam is to control the flow of water,
usually running through rivers. Proponents of dam building, such as the United
States Committee on Large Dams (USCOLD), "a nation-wide professional
organization dedicated to advancing the technology of dam engineering,
construction, and operation...," contend that dams are necessary because they
provide water for drinking, for industry, for irrigation, for fishing and
recreation, and for hydroelectric power production. Among the more than 2,000
hydroelectric power dams in the U.S. are Hoover Dam, Bonneville Dam, Glen
Canyon Dam, and the Niagara Power Plant.
Dams, in the view of the USCOLD, also perform a crucial public service by
reducing or preventing floods. Recently, a report published by the Desert
Research Institute, credited a system of reservoirs created by dams along
Nevada's upper Truckee River with saving "the city of Reno from extreme
disaster" during the January 1997 floods. The report contended that managed
release of water from upstream reservoirs, made possible by dams, prevented a
"1000-year flood." The United States Geological Society (USGS) further
projected that without the upstream reservoirs, Reno would have been inundated
with an additional 52,600 acre-feet of water. The USCOLD maintains that "flood
control measures (made possible through the use of dams) taken during the 20th
century...will undoubtedly continue to prevent or lessen the incidence of
property damage and loss of lives due to floods."
 When it comes to the benefits of hydropower dams, the USCOLD is equally as
enthusiastic. In listing of benefits to society produced by dams, the USCOLD
states that "dams contribute significantly to reducing air pollution." The
organization says that "hydropower is the most plentiful and most efficient
renewable energy resource, contributing more than 90% of all renewable electric
energy produced in the United States." Drawing a comparison with thermal power
plants, the USCOLD claims that the modern hydropower plant exceeds 90%
efficiency, more than twice that of a thermal plant, and that the conventional
installed hydropower capacity in the U.S. is capable of producing over 300
billion kilowatts annually. "To generate the equivalent amount of energy from a
fossil-fueled generating plant fired by oil, coal, or natural gas would require
520 million barrels of oil, 129 million tons of coal, or 3.16 trillion cubic
feet of gas," notes an article in the July 1996 USCOLD Newsletter. The
article goes on to say that "if all the energy produced by hydropower were
instead produced by coal, pollutants from coal would increase by 16%."
Despite such impressive claims made by proponents of dams, environmental groups
have been speaking and acting out against the construction of new dams and
have recently succeeded in championing the taking down of existing dams. In
1997, former Sierra Club president Adam Werbach proposed draining Arizona's
26,997,000 acre-feet Lake Powell, a reservoir created by the Glen Canyon Dam
which is situated on the Colorado River. Saying "it's time for an angioplasty,"
Werbach suggested restoring the Colorado to its free-flowing state. The
proposal was passed unanimously by the Sierra Club's board. Environmentalists
have long viewed the Glen Canyon dam and the resulting Lake Powell (derisively
called Lake Foul) as a prime example of man's manipulation squelching nature's
splendor. Mike Obmascik, an environmental columnist and reporter for The
Denver Post, asks rhetorically, "How could anyone view towering spires,
battalions of hoodoos, redrock amphitheaters--and then drown them beneath 700
feet of water?" But Obmascik admits that Glen Canyon is unlikely to go away any
time soon. "The turbines at Glen Canyon Dam," he explained in Outside
magazine, "generate enough hydroelectricity to power a city of 240,000." On top
of that, Lake Powell is the destination of over 3.4 million visitors each
year.
For its part, the Sierra Club rejects the idea that dams are permanent
fixtures. They report a trend, disputed by groups such as USCOLD, that around
the nation dams "are falling like dominoes in the name of river restoration."
They point to the December 1997 removal of the Quaker Neck Dam on the Neuse
River in North Carolina and the demolition of the Western Canal Dam on a
tributary of California's Sacramento River a month earlier. Also in November
1997, the Federal Regulatory Commission (FERC) ordered the removal of the
Edwards Dam on Maine's Kennebec River in an effort to restore fish habitats.
The FERC decided that the small amount of electricity generated by the dam did
not justify the environmental damage being caused by the dam. Environmentalists
and sport fishermen welcomed the prospect of returning salmon, shad, and other
fish to 15 miles of the Kennebec.
When speaking of restoring a river, the Sierra Club maintains that with the
elimination of the Quaker Neck Dam, 75 miles of stream and 900 miles of
tributaries to striped bass, American shad, hickory shad, and short-nosed
sturgeon were opened up. The Club points to studies indicating that dams
devastate fish runs and destroy fragile ecosystems. The Sierra Club is not
alone in this belief. American Rivers, a non-profit organization dedicated to
river conservation, lists seven "dam facts" on its Web site. Among them: of the
nearly 75,000 dams on rivers throughout the US, only a fraction of them produce
power. The group also claims that hydropower accounts for only about 10% of the
electricity generated in the U.S. In 1996, American Rivers helped secure the
experimental release of over 120 million gallons of water from Glen Canyon Dam
to restore "essential habitat" along the banks of the Colorado River.
Groups in favor of removing dams and draining reservoirs contend that energy
deregulation and overall low electrical costs, caused in part by a worldwide
oil and natural gas glut, no longer make dams economically viable. They further
trumpet what they say are the benefits of more efficient natural gas turbines
and successful conservation efforts. USCOLD rejects this notion and points to
an overall world-wide increase in the number of dams being built, and
higher dams at that. Further, USCOLD contends that as human populations
increase, and the demand for water follows suit, the need for technically safe
dams will no doubt increase. The pro-dam group does concede though that these
dams will have to be "environmentally responsible and socially acceptable."
Whether dams rise or fall, one thing seems certain: they are no longer being
looked upon solely as monuments to man's control of nature. Now, they are
expected to also represent man's efforts to live in harmony with nature.
Sources: Outside Magazine, April '97; The Planet (Sierra Club Newsletter),
March '97; USCOLD Newletter, March '95, July '96, March '98; The Associated
Press via The Fort Collins Coloradian, April 17, 1998; "The History of American
Rivers," American Rivers Web site
|
