Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

57 Dams in 16 States to be Removed in 2003 Says American Rivers
releases.usnewswire.com ^

Posted on 08/19/2003 2:41:38 PM PDT by chance33_98

57 Dams in 16 States to be Removed in 2003 Says American Rivers

8/19/03 2:45:00 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: National Desk and Environmental Reporter

Contact: Serena McClain, American Rivers, 202-347-7550; Helen Sarakinos, River Alliance of Wisconsin, 608-257-2424; Leon Szeptycki, Trout Unlimited, 703-284-9411

WASHINGTON, Aug. 19 /U.S. Newswire/ -- 57 dams in 15 states and the District of Columbia are scheduled for removal in 2003, continuing the strong trend in recent years for restoring rivers and improving public safety by removing stream blockages. Each summer, American Rivers surveys government and private conservation organizations to determine how many dams and other obstructions have been or are scheduled to be removed in that calendar year.

More than 114 dams have been removed since 1999 when the breaching of Edwards Dam on Maine's Kennebec River captured national attention. This promising trend is the result of two converging developments -- a growing appreciation of the ecological benefits of removing dams and the rapid aging of much of the nation's dam infrastructure.

"Communities across the country are experiencing a new beginning on their local rivers," explained Serena McClain, of American Rivers' Rivers Unplugged campaign. "And while many regard these efforts as dam removals before they happen, afterwards they are remembered as river restorations."

The dams slated for removal this year represent just a tiny fraction of the total number of dams in place across the country. There are approximately 76,000 dams greater than 6 feet high and countless smaller obstructions. The vast majority of these dams were built for purposes such as running mills, controlling floods, and creating municipal and agricultural water supplies. Less than 3 percent generate hydroelectricity.

While dams can provide valuable services, the ecological price is high. Dams drown valuable habitat under reservoirs, block the annual migrations of fish, and can create downstream conditions inhospitable for fish and wildlife.

Dams also create several safety hazards, some of which increase with age. Small dams are sometimes called "drowning machines" because they can create dangerous undertows. Recent flood events in Michigan and North Carolina illustrate the potential for dams to fail. For example, on May 15, 2003, a safety dike on a dam on Michigan's Upper Peninsula burst during a rainstorm. The resulting flood forced 1,800 people to evacuate their homes and caused more than $100 million in property damage. Fortunately, such instances are rare and nobody was hurt or killed.

"Dams do not last forever, and as they age they tend to move from being assets to liabilities," said Leon Szeptycki, Eastern Conservation Director for Trout Unlimited. "Many communities choose to remove local dams when they have reached the point where expensive repairs can no longer be deferred."

Communities that choose to pull out obsolete dams enjoy once again the benefits provided by healthy free flowing rivers--better water quality, revitalized fisheries, new recreational opportunities, and recovery of habitat suitable for parks and other public use. The Esh Dam, for example, on Amish farmland in the Mill Creek watershed of Pennsylvania was removed this year as part of a more comprehensive restoration project aimed at remedying water quality problems in Mill Creek. The removal, which only cost $675, is expected to improve dissolved oxygen content and normal water temperatures.

These benefits become even more attractive once the costs of renovating aging dams are considered. When the Ohio-American Water Company was faced with repairing or rebuilding a decrepit dam on the Sandusky River in Ohio, they chose to work with the state to remove the dam and donate the abutting land for creation of a park and public access point.

"Dams can quickly become economic sinkholes, often outliving their intended use," said Helen Sarakinos, Small Dams Program Manager for the River Alliance of Wisconsin. "However, innovative solutions are sought, the entire community can benefit from the results."

American Rivers, Trout Unlimited, and River Alliance of Wisconsin all provide educational, technical, and financial assistance to communities that are considering or have committed to removing a dam it no longer needs.

Complete list with local contacts available at: http://www.amrivers.org/docs/Dam_Removal_Summary(unde r)2003.pdf


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: americanrivers; damremoval; dams; environment; rivers
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-57 next last

1 posted on 08/19/2003 2:41:39 PM PDT by chance33_98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: chance33_98
Lots of folks get injured running their boats into these damn dams. Of course they are drunk, but so what!
2 posted on 08/19/2003 2:43:21 PM PDT by Voltage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chance33_98
Lets see: No to dams. No to nuclear power generation. No to new oil wells. No to wind generation. No to coal fired plants. No to oil fired plants. No to hamsters on treadmills.

Better get out your old exercise bicycles folks, I understand they're about to become very popular after a few alterations.
3 posted on 08/19/2003 2:47:29 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mhking
Just dam?
4 posted on 08/19/2003 2:55:05 PM PDT by TrappedInLiberalHell (Pete Rose, but then he fell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
You read the article, and still see no benefit to removing some of these dams?
5 posted on 08/19/2003 2:55:28 PM PDT by stands2reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
I don't remember saying no to Hamster Treadmills... only Hamsters Dancing.

-- lates
-- jrawk
6 posted on 08/19/2003 2:56:31 PM PDT by jrawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Is there any particular reason why maintenance of decrepit, obsolete dams would seem beneficial to anyone?
7 posted on 08/19/2003 2:58:00 PM PDT by AntiGuv (™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: chance33_98
The removal, which only cost $675

Who built these things, beavers?

8 posted on 08/19/2003 3:04:40 PM PDT by philo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
banana = Build Abosutely Nothing At Noplace Anytime.
9 posted on 08/19/2003 3:04:47 PM PDT by Mike Darancette (Save Traditional Marriage -- It's for the Children!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
ping
10 posted on 08/19/2003 3:06:01 PM PDT by Libertarianize the GOP (Ideas have consequences)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: jrawk
...just a minute. I'm Googling... Har!
11 posted on 08/19/2003 3:06:27 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason; DoughtyOne
You read the article, and still see no benefit to removing some of these dams?

There probably is some benefit to removal of some antiquated dams.
However, by focusing primarily on dam removal rather than more objectively placing equal emphasis on dam renovation and new construction, American Heritage Rivers has sacrificed credibility on this issue.

12 posted on 08/19/2003 3:07:35 PM PDT by Willie Green (Go Pat Go!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Here in Pennsylvania we're talking primarily about "low head" dams, not the kind that generate power.

That being said, I don't understand how this is going to "increase recreational opportunities" when the dams are actually responsible for the water being deep enough to permit safe boating. Take some of those dams away, and you'll be able to walk across the Susquehanna River.

13 posted on 08/19/2003 3:07:57 PM PDT by Tallguy (Just taking life with a grain of salt....oh, and a slice of lime and a shot of tequila...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason; AntiGuv
I have no problem with damns being replaced, and even destroyed with no replacement upon occassion. However I think you guys are failing to note that the removal of all damns has been a quest of the radical green factions. Don't take this article at full face value. There's more to it than this.
14 posted on 08/19/2003 3:08:29 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: philo
Amish Beavers. They are not allowed to use their teeth or tails.
15 posted on 08/19/2003 3:10:43 PM PDT by Starstruck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Tallguy
I think your comments are reasonable. I agree with you. I guess it's the "damn all dams" mantra that the radical greens have that gets my hackles up.

I don't think God was anti-environment when he created beavers. Not all dams are bad.
16 posted on 08/19/2003 3:11:40 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: philo
Here's American Rivers on the Mill Creek Dam:

Daniel Esh Dam, Mill Creek, PA: Approximately 2 feet high, this Amish-owned dam was removed July 2003. Originally built to impound water for skating and to power a very small 6 pump, the dam is the fifth of six blockages on Mill Creek, a tributary of the Conestoga Creek and the Susquehanna River. The remaining blockages are being addressed through a combination of removals and fish passage projects, most of which are currently in the design stage. In addition to dam removal and buffer planting, USFWS partners built a single-strand high-tensile-wire fence along both streambanks to keep cattle from walking into the stream. Follow-up work includes building stone crossings at intervals along the streambank so the farmer can get cattle from one side to the other for rotational grazing and so cattle can still drink from the stream at limited access spots.

One may read a brief summary of every dam removal effort here:

Dams Slated for Removal in 2003 and Dams Removed in 1999, 2000, 2001, & 2002

As far as I'm concerned, this is a great endeavor..

17 posted on 08/19/2003 3:11:59 PM PDT by AntiGuv (™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
No, I'm well-aware of the radical green efforts to eliminate all dams, however I'm skeptical that they would succeed in having much of anything aside from useless dams removed. There are extremists calling for just about everything and anything, but it does not require one to reject moderate, beneficial policies in order to reject extremist, detrimental proposals..
18 posted on 08/19/2003 3:14:39 PM PDT by AntiGuv (™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
Agreed Willie.
19 posted on 08/19/2003 3:15:57 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: chance33_98
Dams also create several safety hazards, some of which increase with age. Small dams are sometimes called "drowning machines" because they can create dangerous undertows.

THIS has got to be a crock - BEAVERS have been building THOUSANDS of small dams on creeks and small rivers FOREVER!

20 posted on 08/19/2003 3:17:27 PM PDT by _Jim (First INDICT the ham sandwhich ... the next step is to CONVICT it ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-57 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson