One dilemma facing both environmentalist groups and policymakers alike is what to do with old and aging hydroelectric dams. As dams approach the end of their life cycle maintenance costs and failure rates skyrocket. Dams are also detrimental to local wildlife populations, providing further incentive for their removal. Furthermore, the economic benefits of dam removal usually outweigh the consequences. As a result, I firmly believe that it is far more beneficial, both economically and environmentally speaking, to remove dams.The decommissioning of dams is a fairly recent, but quickly growing, phenomenon. Of the nine-hundred dams removed from American rivers, roughly half have been removed in the last ten years . Naturally, the biggest push to remove dams comes from environmentalists seeking to restore fish habitats and breeding grounds.
Such was the case in Port Angeles, Washington in 2007, when the decision was made to demolish the Elwha Dam in the hopes of restoring wildlife habitat and fish populations. The demolition will also more readily provide water for agricultural uses, as well as recovering lands inundated by water the dam is holding back. Although the dam is not slated for demolition until 2012, the action has inspired the push to remove dams in other states: the Snake River Dams in Washington are just one such example.
Still, there will always be those who object. Most of the opposition to the practice of dam removal is aimed at the potential economic damages caused by lost jobs . However, this could not be further from the truth. The removal of four dams along the Klamath River in Oregon is actually being supported for the economic stimulation it would provide: aside from revitalizing the local salmon population, the destruction of the dams would provide numerous jobs and boost agricultural development, as well. In Klamath County alone, the plan is projected to add $40 million in revenue as well as 707 jobs. These estimates are conservative, and the benefits are actually expected to be much higher.
Dam removals are on the rise, and rightly so. By revitalizing local wildlife populations and providing numerous economic benefits, dam removal asserts itself as a practice that is both environmentally and economically worthwhile.
I agree that dam removal is necessary for almost all dams in the US. Not only are they damaging to the environment, but they are a drain on resources that could be invested elsewhere. Dams do provide electricity, but the money used for their upkeep could be used to fund other, more renewable, energy sources. Of course, whenever environmental action is taken, people worry about the economy, but removing dams would offer so many more avenues for new jobs than before. Also, areas where salmon could run would benefit from tourism and having a strong fishing industry. Hopefully people will understand that removing dams is necessary and beneficial.
ReplyDeleteI honestly have never really thought about the end of a dam's life cycle, but considering the environmental and economic benefits, I completely agree on the necessity of their removal. Is this all about hydroelectric dams? Because if a dam that provides hydroelectricity is removed, and these people then have to convert to another energy source, such as coal, I wouldn't look as favorable upon the removal of dams. I think this may have to be done on a case by case basis. If dam removal led to more use of alternative energy, or maybe even nuclear energy, I'd be all for it; conversely, if more people were to utilize electricity derived from coal sources, the negative effects on human health and environmental vitality would outweigh the positive consequences of dam removal.
ReplyDelete