Dam
November 19, 2022 9:03 AM   Subscribe

 
The start of the end of the dam era.
posted by aniola at 9:23 AM on November 19, 2022 [2 favorites]


All I know about dams I learned from Arundhati Roy's "The Cost of Living"
posted by aniola at 9:32 AM on November 19, 2022 [1 favorite]


See also NPR's story. I'm ordinarily pro-hydro power, it's an essential part of fighting global warming. But by all accounts these dams did very little to generate power. NPR says
The dams produce less than 2% of PacifiCorp's power generation — enough to power about 70,000 homes — when they are running at full capacity, said Bob Gravely, spokesperson for the utility. But they often run at a far lower capacity because of low water in the river and other issue
Coupled with the cost of upgrading the dams to meet current standards and it sure makes sense to remove these. And hopefully replace them with some hydro installations in a better spot.
posted by Nelson at 9:37 AM on November 19, 2022


Cadillac Desert Is a fabulously interesting account of how how the West was dammed, and where it got us.
posted by sixswitch at 10:26 AM on November 19, 2022 [4 favorites]


Hayduke’s dream coming true at last.
posted by interogative mood at 12:17 PM on November 19, 2022 [4 favorites]


As the NPR article points out, for the utility it ended up as a business decision, with much lower costs for removal vs upgrading and relicensing the dams. This is increasingly the case both for large dams like these and for the innumerable small low-head legacy dams that are everywhere. They made sense at one point in time (when environmental costs weren't even a consideration) but things have changed and they are mostly a liability now.

The biggest losers are the people with (currently) waterfront property that will end up high and dry.
posted by Dip Flash at 12:43 PM on November 19, 2022 [2 favorites]


Hayduke’s dream coming true at last.

Well, I'd like to think this long-coming reality is an event both Abbey and Wallace Stegner would agree with and celebrate even if it lacks the gonzo fireworks of Hayduke's fever dream.
posted by thecincinnatikid at 12:58 PM on November 19, 2022 [1 favorite]


Hayduke lives!

The biggest losers, and the angriest, will be the farmers reliant on the irrigation water from the Klamath. Or so I would assume.
posted by suelac at 1:51 PM on November 19, 2022 [1 favorite]


The eponymous falls of Klamath, however, will remain disappointing.
posted by sjswitzer at 2:39 PM on November 19, 2022 [1 favorite]


Farmers are not, for the most part, losers when it comes to the dams being removed. It's mostly grazing land along the stretch of the Klamath River where these dams are located, and a relatively small amount of the water is used for irrigation. It's mainly property values (and thus lower tax revenues) and potentially flood-control concerns that are the main complaints of some people in the area. All of which I think are outweighed by the benefits to the people for whom salmon are a vital part of their culture.

The more intensive agriculture drawing water from the river is upstream of the Keno Dam, which is not slated for removal.
posted by theory at 2:50 PM on November 19, 2022 [2 favorites]


Who gets the land when a reservoir is drained? Or do the adjacent properties enlarge to keep the river as the boundary?
posted by ctmf at 3:31 PM on November 19, 2022 [2 favorites]


I know, I know, comments. But from the comments on a linked article:

"This can be stopped, first refuse to pay the Dam Removal Fee on your power bill, the object is to force PP&L into court action. Second protest with the object of having Warren Buffett's name and picture on nation wide news, he will crawl like a worm to get away from PP&L news. Third, break out the 30/06 and get ready for the State Of Jefferson Civil War"
posted by booooooze at 5:30 PM on November 19, 2022


The concerns about "this will not really benefit the salmon" and "wow, sediment will take forever to clear" are both concerns seen in the removal of dams on the Elwa River, which is another river in the PNW where dams were removed in 2011. Here's the US Park Service youtube on that. Here's an interview about effects of removal on the Elwha.

Don't have time to look at the links? Here's the TL:DR. Basically, the Elwha river dams were removed in 2011. Scientists estimated a "full recovery" of the river to take 30 years. Ten years in, the sediments have stabilized and the fish populations are increasing. So far, so good.
posted by which_chick at 7:11 PM on November 19, 2022 [9 favorites]


That sounds like one of those the best time to plant a tree is 30 years ago and the second best time is now sort of things.
posted by Mitheral at 7:17 PM on November 19, 2022 [3 favorites]


Basically, the Elwha river dams were removed in 2011. Scientists estimated a "full recovery" of the river to take 30 years. Ten years in, the sediments have stabilized and the fish populations are increasing. So far, so good.

The Elwha dam removals have set the expectations really high for future large dam removals. My guess is that as you go further and further upstream (vs the Elwha dams which were only about 5 miles from the mouth) you will see decreasingly dramatic results in terms of fish recovery, particularly in a water-limited basin like the Klamath. Don't get me wrong -- all of these dams need to get yanked out, sooner rather than later, but not all of them are going to lead to fast recoveries.
posted by Dip Flash at 7:33 PM on November 19, 2022 [1 favorite]


The dams produce less than 2% of PacifiCorp's power generation — enough to power about 70,000 homes — when they are running at full capacity, said Bob Gravely, spokesperson for the utility. But they often run at a far lower capacity because of low water in the river and other issue.

For about a year and change, the Seattle area had a lot of billboards and other advertising calling on people to save the dams because they generated clean power. I saw a lot of targeted online advertising, too. The campaign particularly leaned into the heat dome we had in 2021.

And all along, if you actually looked into the issue, you came up with figures noting that relatively low power productivity. Almost as if the whole campaign was kinda dishonest... but you needed more than a billboard or an online ad or a headline to find that out.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 11:05 PM on November 19, 2022 [1 favorite]


I've been teaching a Klamath River dam removal case study in non-majors biology for 10 years. Students take on roles of stakeholders and debate dam removal. It's usually pretty successful, and students often all agree that the dams should come out, even those advocating for farmers, ranchers, and barge operators, because of respect for indigenous rights. For the past few years, we've ended by watching videos of Elwha dam removal and salmon recovery. It will be really cool to be able to end the lesson with videos of actual Klamath removal.
posted by hydropsyche at 4:28 AM on November 20, 2022 [6 favorites]


For about a year and change, the Seattle area had a lot of billboards and other advertising calling on people to save the dams because they generated clean power. I saw a lot of targeted online advertising, too. The campaign particularly leaned into the heat dome we had in 2021.

But... who paid for all that? Like, who benefits from keeping the dam(s) enough to run a PR campaign? It doesn't sound like they were real money-makers for anyone involved.
posted by Kadin2048 at 2:32 PM on November 21, 2022


Property owners are one possibility. If you've got a 10 million dollar waterfront priperty that will become water view you might band together with other owners and drop 100k a piece or so trying to keep the water.
posted by Mitheral at 4:43 PM on November 21, 2022


Who gets the land when a reservoir is drained? Or do the adjacent properties enlarge to keep the river as the boundary?

This is a land-law issue that varies by jurisdiction.

In England and Wales:
-The presumption for a non-tidal river is that land-owners own to the centre line of the river
-The Crown / government owns the bed and foreshore of tidal rivers
-If the boundary changes gradually and naturally, your ownership moves with the river and stays in the middle BUT if it is a sudden event or due to human action then the boundary line stays where it was before! The former case is called the doctrine of accretion and diluvion which is also found in the land law of some US states under that name.
-Canals and many reservoirs were "created" in many cases by statute so will depend on what the primary legislation says.
-Lakes I'm not sure

Generally (not legal advice!) the further West you go in the US, the less the land law and especially where it touches on water rights looks like English law.

I did see an online reference that in California where:
A river or lake is tidal, the boundary is at the ordinary high water mark
An inland body is navigable and not tidal, the land boundaries are to the edge of the lake.
Otherwise to the middle of the lake or river

From here specifically on artifically dammed lakes:

For generations, private owners of lake front lots in California’s Sierra Nevada Range have maintained boating and fishing docks on their property, to enjoy the lakes and the recreational opportunities they afford. Under established law, these property owners own the land down to the low water mark of the lake, and on lakes that never supported commercial navigation, they own the lake bed to the middle of the lake. Many of these lakes had small dams added to them, so that the high water level encroaches on the lakefront owners’ property. Thus, the docks can access the water but are still on private property instead of a state owned lake bed.
posted by atrazine at 2:34 AM on November 22, 2022


I really think that we, as a society, continually underrate the impact that trying to control rivers has. In the PNW it's the salmon; elsewhere it's the flood cycle that no longer happens, or the formerly wandering course that's been locked in. Loosing these has a much bigger, and deleterious effect, than we ever count on while putting the dams in.

Night Moves is an interesting movie about one, shall we say, approach to the subject.
posted by vibratory manner of working at 1:39 AM on November 24, 2022


Definitely vibratory manner of working, a river near me (The Clutha River) was dammed in the late 1950's, and since the 1970's there has been dramatic, and less visible, coastal change through the loss of most of the transported sediment. The dam reduced sand arriving at the coast by at least 2.1 million tonnes a year. This has led to serious erosion, massive costs for coastal 'defences' and the loss of most of The lost kelp forest* (700Kb .pdf @ coastal society nz) that formerly anchored loose sediment all along the coast here. Socialisation of costs through impacts on tourism, coastal damage, tourism are very high.

This is a review of a much deeper thesis - which is also a great example of interviewing locals to prove 'anecdote' as a robust proxy in the absence of data.
posted by unearthed at 12:06 PM on November 25, 2022


« Older Comparing dairy milk; almond milk; soy milk; and...   |   Key takeaway: Reading multiple books at the same... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments