A Dam Site Better?
Reversing the Bureau of Reclamation and
Army Corps of Engineers' Legacy

© 1999 Streamline Publications

With 13 California dams either removed since 1990 or scheduled to soon be torn down, one immediately begins to wonder why. When you consider a population increase of tens of millions of new Californians projected for the first quarter of the new century, it sounds like a wacko plan. But it is happening elsewhere too—34 dams in Pennsylvania, 35 dams in Wisconsin, more dams in 10 other states. The numbers seem radical until compared with the more than 75,000 dams on America's rivers.

Beginning in the 1930's with the massive Hoover, Shasta, Grand Coulee and Bonneville constructions, dam building became a four-decade-long obsession that didn't slow appreciably until the 1960s. The Bureau of Reclamation took as its mandate the notion that every drop of river water that reached the ocean was wasted—when it could be put to better use generating electricity, irrigating fields or meeting the recreational needs of Americans. The Army Corps of Engineers staked out flood control as its raison d'être. Between the two federal agencies a quiet competition developed that resulted in massive spending and a strong tendency to find reasons to build new dams. As with many government entities they became self perpetuating, and like drug addicts, needed more and more.

The Other Side

Environmental interests were routinely subjugated to the "greater good" symbolized by dams. This tension has continued, with the environmentalists gaining clout in recent decades with establishment of the powerful Environmental Protection Agency.

Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, attending a dam deconstruction in Maine recently, was quoted as saying, "If someone's got a dam that's going down, I'll be there."

The Cascade Dam in Yosemite Valley will be one of them.

But what about the water California desperately needs? The hydroelectricity? So far, the major high dams will likely remain intact, though the Sierra Club and others have lobbied strongly for removal of many, such as the Glen Canyon Dam on the Colorado River and the Hetch Hetchy Dam on the Tuolumne River in the Sierra.

In his book, Cadillac Desert, Marc Reisner makes the case that cattle ranching using subsidized water is a major contributor to the water problem. Reisner argues that, "Feeding irrigated grass to cows is as wasteful a use of water as you can conceive." In the semi-arid west it's said to take 50,000 pounds of water to produce one pound of beef. In 1986 about the same amount of water was expended growing cattle food as was used by the entire population of Los Angeles.

Such figures give rise to calls for reallocation of water resources, a move generally opposed by the powerful farm lobby. But then how does one raise cattle? Do it in states where rainfall is sufficient to provide the fodder, Reisner says.

Changing Balance

The "water hegemony" of the Bureau and Corps is no longer a given. Existing and new dams are now subjected to scrutiny that examines actual benefit. According to a Newsweek story (July 12, 1999) the Edwards Dam in Maine was breached and will be razed because the benefit it conveyed—producing one-tenth of one percent of the state's electric power—could not offset the environmental damage it did. Nine species of fish are being given back their spawning grounds.

The story is the same in California where three dams on Butte Creek were deconstructed. In two years salmon had returned in a run of 20,000 where none had been before.

Relicensing of dams (a function of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) whose owners' fail to meet mitigation requirements forces them to consider the economic value of the structure. Should it be retrofitted with expensive fish ladders or other methods for spawning fish to safely pass through, or is it time to call the bulldozers?

When put to such a test, there are many dams that cannot be justified.

Catch 22

Dam building still goes on, creating odd-ball situations reminiscent of communities that develop around airports then complain about the airplane noise. In Thousand Oaks, CA, a subdivision known as Lang Ranch was built in a flood vulnerable area. Now, to protect the community, a dam and debris basin are needed.

The State Department of Fish and Game is blocking construction because the dam would impede movement of wildlife and the environmental impact report for the project is inadequate in scope.

The city's mayor opposes the project because it would destroy some of the city's ancient and eponymous trees.

A group of Lang Ranch residents opposes the dam because, as planned, it would ruin their view.

It seems clear that the sole reason for the dam's proposed existence is the location of the subdivision—in a flood prone area—and the expectation that the residents' houses should be protected from the inevitable rising waters.

Are We Nuts?

It would appear that Americans are certifiably crazy. We court disaster when we build our homes:

• in flood plains and expect the water to be held back
• on or beneath cliffs and expect the earth which fell away to create the cliff to never again drop
• on the beach in hopes the ocean will spare us
• in the path of debris flows and are surprised when rocks, wood and earth bury our homes.

Fixing It

Of the huge number of dams in America, many may be unnecessary and of limited effectiveness. Thousands of small, old dams have silted up and do little more than destroy fish spawns and hold back sand that should be allowed to migrate naturally downstream to replenish beaches. Ventura County's Matilija Dam is one such structure—a 200-foot high obstruction that has few defenders.

While there is general agreement that the dam ought to be torn down, the estimated cost ranges as high as $75 million.

Perhaps removing some of the dams they built is the kind of competition for dollars that would interest the Bureau of Reclamation and the Army Corps of Engineers.

AM120
Gets revegetation going... FAST!

• Endomycorrhizal Soil Inoculant
• Accelerates soil's natural microbial action
• Restores fumigated topsoils
• Builds up exposed subsoils
• Resists diseases
• Contains natural growth stimulators

Call Albright Seed Company 1-(805) 684-0436
Or order using the online shopping cart.

Download the Albright Seed Catalog as an Acrobat PDF file now
pdf catalog download (55K) (requires Acrobat Reader)