Dale+Zielke+Dam+Removal

A common argument for the removal of dams is the improvement of fish habitat and increased recreational opportunities that come with a natural river. What usually is not considered is that one of the functions of dams is to create a reservoir for recreational boating, as well as a large warm water fishery, capable of supporting high usage by fishermen. While each dam has its own scenarios, most of the time, a decision must be made between creating a trout stream and canoe and kayaking resource, or keeping an established fishery and recreational boating resource. Dams serve many purposes, but at some point, they will fail to fulfill those purposes and create problems detrimental to the public. In this light, the most obvious justifications for dam removal are safety, and cost. Dams have an average lifespan of 50 years. By the year 2020, 80% of the dams in Michigan will be older than that. At that point the most logical and economical decision is to remove the dam. As dams age they create safety problems as the probability that they will fail increases. The cost to restore them also increases making dam removal the more economical choice. While public safety is an issue that proponents of dam removal argue, opponents of dam removal also argue that removing dams is a safety issue because of polluted sediments trapped behind the dam. They argue that the sediments trapped behind dams contains heavy metals that are toxic to humans. While this is sometimes true, there are methods that can be implemented that could curtail the transport of these toxins downstream. The costs and benefits of having a natural river, and an established resevoir must be weighed, and may be heavily supported by stakeholders for both positions.

References

Hayes, Dan. Guest Lecture. Fisheries and Wildlife 293. Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. 18 Nov. 2009.