Ashley+Potter's+Wiki+Space

**Dam Removal:**
= = ==**Balancing Costs and Benefits**  == = = =By: = =Ashley Potter =

**Why oppose?**
Different livelihoods lead to different perspectives pertaining to the removal of dams. While ecologists and advocates for nature support river restoration for environmental reasons, public and economic concerns often take precedence over the demands of a healthy environment. Although dams are known to alter and harm natural ecosystems, dam removal necessitates change. Whether faced with a change in outlook or in livelihood, individuals in society tend to greet change with skepticism. Such skepticism can impede progress towards improvement.

Whine Ona Cry, from part II of the video series, expressed a great deal of concern regarding removal of a specific dam. Because the dam provides power to the surrounding area, one pert inent question posed by Whine Ona Cry was if coal or nuclear power plants would replace the hydropower offered by the present dam. The problems that could arise with either alternate energy source is important to recognize. Coal energy, for example, is inexpensive and easy to recover, but requires expensive air pollution controls that cannot compensate entirely for its contribution to acid rain and global warming. Nuclear energy, on the other hand, is an inexpensive fuel with more compact waste that shows no greenhouse or acid rain effects. However, providing nuclear power entails a large capital cost to cover the essential emergency, containment, radioactive waste, and storage systems. Moreover, as mentioned by Whine Ona Cry, there is the extreme possibility of a power plant meltdown. A disaster of this magnitude, such as the Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant meltdown in the U.S or the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant meltdown in the Ukraine, is not impossible.

Additional concerns of Whine Ona Cry were the costs she might incur as a result of the dam's removal. For example, how would the costs of dam removal be covered? Would Whine Ona Cry's taxes rise? Indeed, dam removals are costly and require proper planning. However, who pays for the project is often a complex issue. Removal may be financed by the dam owner or the local, state, or federal government. In some cases, an agreement may be made in which multiple stakeholders contribute to cover the costs. Thus, whether or not Whina Ona Cry's taxes rise is indeterminable in the given scenario. Even if the local, state, or federal government pays for the dam's removal, this does not necessitate a rise in taxes already payed by citizens in the area.

Change is difficult to accept and undertake. Why would individuals like Whine Ona Cry, whose current quality of life is fine, want to risk the uncertainty that accompanies dam removal. Obviously, the decision for or against dam removal is not objective due to the variety of costs and benefits inflicting a variety of individuals in society. Different individuals possess different perspectives. Thus, you cannot rely solely on the opinion of a person whose livelihood is dependent on the dam's presence or on the opinion of a person who is a very passionate environmentalist. The best practice is to have a committee of different individuals weigh all costs and benefits of dam removal. Only if the benefits of removing the dam outweigh the costs should society move forward in planning the dam's removal.



**Why favor?**
== Dam removals are favorable for the protection and restoration of river environments. For decades, fisheries managers and ecologists have studied the changes in ecological processes brought about by dams. Research has revealed that the character of rivers emerging downstream of a dam may be substantially altered from the character of rivers entering a reservoir above. Because the health of aquatic communities is closely linked to temperature tolerances, flow regime, and water quality, any changes to these basic needs can cause considerable problems for the present community. For one, the massive amount of still water that accumulates in reservoirs behind a dam permits the storage of heat. Depending on geographic location, water within deep reservoirs can exhibit thermal stratification. Water in the deep, hypolimnion layer may then be released in pulses into the downstream environment due to hydropower operations. Thus, not only do temperature alterations in the reservoir impact native fish species upstream, but pulse releases further impact the temperature tolerances of native fish normally present downstream of the dam. In addition to temperature changes. dams harm the integrity of a river system by preventing the free flow of water that is essential to its dynamic character. The filling of pools, encroachment on riparian vegetation, and channel simplification that arises as a result of a dam's presence reduces the amount of habitat available for fish and other aquatic species. Dams also impede the movement of aquatic life, including the migration of anadromous fish attempting to access historic spawning grounds upstream. Another important issue is water quality. Excessive amounts of sediments, nutrients, and aquatic plants that accumulate in a reservoir negatively impact the survival of native species as well.

media type="custom" key="4916071" align="left" width="102" height="102" For a decision regarding dam removal to be made, society must weigh the costs and benefits with an unbiased eye. While dams were originally designed and built to serve a particular purpose, most are no longer needed and stand more as artifacts of history than as modern machinery. Many of the reasons underlying opposition to dam removals can be easily overcome. For instance, some opponents to dam removal fear losing hydropower as a source of energy to society. However, there are alternatives, each offering its own pros and cons. For those individuals strongly opposed to coal or nuclear energy, solar and wind energy are potential sources that do not impact the atmosphere. Other opponents fear that the economy will suffer due to dam removal. However, while some livelihoods may be lost, others may be created. As stressed by Brent Boundarywaters, from part I of the video series, removal of the dam in question could generate revenue for stream fisheries and guide jobs, as the number of fishermen and wildlife watchers would rise substantially given the greater diversity of fish and the more natural setting. Shirley Richmond, also from part I of the video series, proposed another option to generating revenue with dam removal. Richmond put forward her plans to create a vibrant downtown scene along the exposed waterfront. Condos and apartments, restaurants, educational museums, art galleries, and additional businesses combined with recreational opportunities on the river would be designed to parallel San Antonio's River Walk, providing a beautiful place to live, work, and hang out.



**Sources**

 * Information from class: **

 Dam Removal Videos Class Presentations

**Information from Scientific Journals:** 

Bacher, Pierre. "Meeting the energy challenges of the 21st century." International Journal of Energy Technology and Policy 1.1-2 (2003): 1. Academic OneFile. 28 Nov. 2009 .  Poff, LeRoy. "Homogenization of regional river dynamics by dams and global biodiversity implications." //Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States// 104.14 (2007): 5732+. //Academic OneFile//. 28 Nov. 2009 . Whitelaw, Ed, and Ed Macmullan. "A framework for estimating the costs and benefits of dam removal. (Articles)." //BioScience// 52.8 (2002): 724+. //Academic OneFile//. 28 Nov. 2009 . 


 * Images: **

[] []

**Video:**

[]