[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.
>