the film forum library tutorial contact

Dam Nation: Reservoirs of Controversy by Michael Zuzel Intellectual Capital.com - June 8, 2000

There is no Columbia River anymore -- not really. The West's largest waterway, which stretches 1,200 miles from Canada, through seven states and into the Pacific Ocean, stopped being a flowing river in any real sense decades ago. More than 200 dams on the river and its tributaries have turned the Columbia into a chain of slackwater reservoirs -- placid, predictable, closely monitored and tightly controlled, as domesticated as a dairy cow and just about as attractive.

The dams have turned vast reaches of the arid intermountain Northwest into productive farmlands. The main stem of the Columbia hardly ever floods anymore. Lewiston, Idaho, 300 miles inland on the Columbia's main tributary, the Snake River, is a major seaport. And the eight major federal hydropower dams and dozens of others in private ownership generate 75% of the region's electricity -- some of the cheapest power in the nation.

But the dams have negative effects, as well. They also kill fish, for instance. Over the past four decades, wild salmon populations on the Snake have plummeted to less than 10% of their previous levels. Eight species of salmon and steelhead in the Columbia and Snake rivers have been listed under the Endangered Species Act. Where thousands of sockeye salmon used to migrate all the way to Idaho's Redfish Lake to spawn, only two or three have returned in recent years. Scientific evidence increasingly points to the dams as a major culprit.

So despite their clear economic benefits to the region, the dams are on the chopping block. Several government agencies and a panel of independent scientists have concluded that breaching four dams on the lower Snake River in southeastern Washington state would be the most effective means for salmon recovery. Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber (D) has endorsed breaching. A final call probably will not come this year, due to delays that to most observers seem designed mainly to preserve Democratic presidential hopeful Al Gore's hopes of winning Washington and Oregon this fall.

The decision, when it finally does come, could have far-reaching implications. A nation that just a few decades ago seemed close to corking every stream larger than a rivulet might be about to embark on an unprecedented dam demolition effort.

Those dammed rivers

But not, of course, without a fight.

Trout Unlimited, a national conservation organization, estimates that there are 75,000 dams taller than six feet on rivers across the United States, and tens of thousands of smaller dams. Virtually all of them were built during the last century, and the majority of the large ones were erected during the public works frenzy that extended from President Franklin D. Roosevelt's "New Deal" to President Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society."

During that period and beyond, dams were almost universally considered to be beneficial. In addition to irrigation, shipping and flood control, they provided good, generally well-paying jobs during a construction period that, on the big dams especially, could last years. Monolithic river plugs such as Hoover Dam on the Colorado River and Grand Coulee Dam on the Columbia were touted as shining examples of American ingenuity and technological prowess.

In the early years of the environmental movement, hydroelectric power was widely celebrated as "renewable" and "clean," an Earth-friendly alternative to coal plants and nuclear reactors. And not insignificantly, dams turned unruly and inaccessible streams into inviting lakes -- recreational magnets for boaters, water skiers and anglers who did not mind that most of the fish they caught had been trucked there from hatcheries just a few days or weeks earlier.

The downside of dams, recognized if not thoroughly understood by biologists, hydrologists and engineers, remained something of a trade secret for decades. The loss of natural rapids, pools, streamside vegetation and the fauna that thrive there; the severing of aquatic migration routes by inadequate (or nonexistent) fish ladders; the often radical changes to a river's temperature, nutrient and chemical levels -- such things were considered minor concerns at worst, given a dam's clear benefits.

The benefits began to be called into question, however, as the problems became more widely apparent. Construction in the early 1960s of Glen Canyon Dam, which turned a spectacular Colorado River canyon into Lake Powell, galvanized the environmental movement against the big river blockers. The collapse of salmon populations on both coasts, though decades in the making, hurt communities dependent on commercial fishing. Sport fishermen, people more likely to belong to the National Rifle Association than the Sierra Club, began to long for the days before their favorite trout streams were turned into reservoirs. And by the early 1970s, just about every major free-flowing stretch of water in the country that could be dammed had been.

Which drove home the question: Isn't it time for some of the dams to retire?

Changing the course of the rivers debate

The conservation group American Rivers thinks so. Each spring, the organization assembles a list of what it deems the nation's most endangered waterways. This year, the lower Snake came in at No. 1. At least six of the other 12 rivers on the list, from the North Feather in California to the Presumpscot in southern Maine, are in trouble because of dam operations.

Says Rebecca Wodder, American Rivers president: "We have straightened the curves, blocked the flows and hardened the banks of thousands of miles of waterways, wiping out habitat and making it difficult for our nation's rivers to support native fish and wildlife."

The anti-dam forces have a major ally in Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, who has presided over more dam demolitions than some of his predecessors did over dam dedications. The most visible demonstration of that effort came last summer, when Babbitt watched approvingly as a bulldozer restored Maine's Kennebec River to free-flowing status for the first time in 162 years.

"The blow that brings down the Edwards Dam should ring in a new era where the environmental costs of some of the more than 75,000 dams in this country weigh heavily against the limited purposes they now serve," Babbitt said.

On the opposing side are industry organizations such as the National Hydropower Association (NHA), which contends that breaching or tearing down dams is economically irresponsible and environmentally unnecessary. "Singling out dams as the scapegoat when so many factors play a role in salmon declines is unacceptable and reckless," NHA President Mike Murphy said in response to the American Rivers list. "There is simply no silver bullet to restoring healthy salmon populations."

Righting a century of wrongs

Silver bullet or none, the dams are in the crosshairs, and the industry seems destined to lose a few. More than 250 hydroelectric projects are up for re-licensing in the next 15 years, and for the first time, water quality, wildlife protection and habitat preservation will be considered key to their survival. Efforts in Congress to shift the priority back to power generation and commerce are not likely to undo three decades of environmental law, regardless of the shape of Congress or the occupant of the White House.

Given current scientific knowledge and public opinion, a lot of dams of the last century would never be built today. Over the next century, that situation may finally be corrected.

Related Links
The National Hydropower Association publishes a report on river stewardship. While Trout Unlimited.org has a study documenting the benefits of dam removal. The U.S. Geological Survey has studied the environmental effects of the Glen Canyon Dam. The University of Wisconsin studied the impact of dams and also came to the conclusion that dam removal is best for the environment. In Washington state, a law was passed that bars the power company from raising rates to pay for dam removal.

Are dams a threat to endangered fish species or other animal populations?
Do they pose environmental threats in other ways?
Should more of them be torn down, and if so, which ones?
Is the NHA right to argue that tearing down dams is economically irresponsible and environmentally unnecessary?

Read the 'cleaned-up' Discussion on this site
or join the Discussion on the Web .