Controversial Aspects of Decommissioning the Edwards Dam

3.5 million miles of water run throughout the United States; and since the country’s conception, over 80,000 dams have impounded 600,000 miles of these waters [1]. Dams were originally constructed to provide water to towns and establishes energy sources for mills and later hydroelectric plants. Because these dams were constructed decades ago, they’re reaching a critical point of obsoleteness where they cause more harm than good. Dam removal is increasingly popular across the country to address the ecological problems including habitat loss and sedimentation, despite potential for downstream harm, removing dams is more environmentally and economically cost effective than upgrading them. The Marmot, Glines Canyon, and Elwha river dam removal projects each highlight different challenges of dam removal, but overall

The construction of major dams and development areas has shrunk the area that the sandhill cranes used to roost while on their migration. Krapu et al. (2014) completed a ten year study to determine the major stopovers, migration routes, and migration timeline of the sandhill cranes. The team of researchers determined that management of the trees along the Platte River has positively impacted the sandhill cranes. Since the dams have been built in the river, the natural flooding of the river has ceased. The flooding stripped cottonwood trees from the river banks. The sandhill cranes prefer to roost in open aquatic areas. The damming of the Platte River has stopped the floods; therefore, stopping the stripping of the cottonwoods (Landry et al., 2014). In areas when conservationists have cut the trees back, the sandhill cranes have returned to

Earlier this year the Havasupai Tribe and a coalition of conservation groups sued the United States Forest Service for allowing Energy Fuel Resources Inc. to operate a mine under a 1986 federal environmental review without tribal consultation. The Canyon mine was previously in non-operational status due to low uranium stock prices in 1992. Opponents of the uranium mining operation want the federal environmental review updated and

BPA, a power marketing agency of the United States Department of Energy (DOE), supplies roughly half of the electricity used in the Pacific Northwest. The power that BPA markets comes primarily from 31 Federal hydroelectric projects (known collectively as the Federal Columbia River Power System, or FCRPS), and one non-federal nuclear plant. BPA is a co-manager of the Federal hydroelectric projects, but it does not own or operate them. Such responsibilities belong to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau). For the purpose of this case study, Bureau of Reclamation owns and operates the dams and the Army Corps of Engineers builds and maintains the dams.

“The dam and reservoir required the purchase of about 22,000 acres of land” 1-1 . This is the number that lies at the heart of a wound and a controversy that is deeply rooted in Eastern Tennessee. While the number is large and significant, it is not the amount of land that was lost to the Tellico Dam project that caused the people of that area such grief. Rather, it was the meaning of the land that once intertwined irreplaceable history, livelihoods, sport and the like of a community for centuries. At a time in the nation's history where just the pitch for job growth and intercommunication between urban and countryside peaked the interest of hurting rural communities, TVA was met with harsh opposition from

The Grand Coulee Dam, located in Eastern Washington, was one of controversy, risk, and a point of no return. While the water captured made the desert area blossom in agriculture and it powered some large cities, it created a sense of accomplishment, that humans can control Mother Nature. While many people were very excited for this new construction – which gives power and resources - at the time, some thought it should not be allowed, they are not proud of containing the Columbia River. In this analysis, I am going to focus on the economic and social effects that the Grand Coulee Dam created in its build.

There are two types of orca’s in the Salish sea, the Transients and the Residents. Transient Killer Whales are mammal eating killer whales. They look almost the exact same as resident orca’s, who eat fish. The main difference between the two is the food supply. World wide, Transient killer whales are more heavily populated then the Resident Orcas. This is because they have a bigger food supply. They eat anything from seals to sealions to turtles. While the resident’s food supply is much more limited to mainly Chinook Salmon. The local orcas are struggling greatly to get enough food to survive due to the low number of chinook salmon in recent years. This is because the salmons run up stream in the Snake river has been interrupted by four dams along the Snake River. The Snake River has four different types of salmon and “All four Snake River salmon and steelhead runs are listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act”(see “Vital Connections” under works cited). The salmon numbers have not been bouncing back either after millions of dollars of work has been put into trying to bring back the salmon population in the Snake River. Many whale researchers are pushing to have the removal of four dams along the snake river that are helping kill off the salmon. Many whale researchers believe that the problem with the dam’s include “The dams have been killing upwards of a million salmon and steelhead annually for 40 years.The dams impede passage of salmon and steelhead between their spawning and rearing habitat and the Pacific Ocean.The dams have inundated Snake River fall Chinook salmon spawning habitat. The dams have disrupted the free flowing Snake River and turned it into a series of slack water reservoirs.Snake River slackwater reservoirs are deadly to salmon and steelhead” (see “Vital Connections:” in works cited). The cons to the dams

This source is useful because it gives detail at the time the Buford dam was created, the 2009 ruling, and the 11th Circuit Appeal. Compared to the other sources, this source details out the specifics of the purpose of the dam and how

Beside these arguments, there is also a more quantitative side to the debate. The ecological detriments of the Glen Canyon Dam have been well-documented. Extensive changes were brought about in the Colorado River ecosystem by the construction of the Glen Canyon Dam. Most of these alterations negatively affected the functioning of the system and the native aquatic species of the river. The reduced supply and transport of

There was some basis for holding the State of WV responsible for the Buffalo Creek Disaster (BCD) since a WV statute prohibits the construction of any dam or other obstruction over 15 feet in height across any stream or watercourse without a prior determination by the State that it is safe. The State of WV had never agreed that Dam 3 (which was 60 feet high) was safe. The State was at fault for not enforcing its own laws. But Arch Moore, the Governor of WV blamed the trouble on the media, the “irresponsible” media that publicized these attacks. Governor Moore qualified the mediatization “an even greater tragedy than the accident itself”.

In 1923-1947 Arkansas Power and Light (AP&L) constructed several dams on two Arkansas lakes, Hamilton and Catherine. AP & L obtained “flood easements” on property adjoining the lakes. AP&L sold lake side property and kept the easement in force. These flood easements permitted AP&L to “clear of trees, brush, and other obstruction and to submerge by

But overfishing - combined with a loss of habitat and the construction of dams in tributaries, which prevented spawning – has nearly exterminated the species, leading non-profit and government agencies to coordinate programs in hopes of restoring the numbers.

The effects of pollution and non-native species imbalance can be seen in various ways, whether it be the extended pollution of the Chesapeake Bay or specific areas of the river that are deemed impairment zones. An impairment zone is an area that environmental authorities claim to be at dangerous ecosystem loss or alteration. No recreational activities can be carried out in these areas and increased study and protection is required. Four miles of the Susquehanna in Pennsylvania were labeled an impairment zone this year, between Enola and Capital City (Allen, 2016). This is harmful to the economy because of a halt to recreational activity and surrounding wildlife that live off of these parts of the river. For years, Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection has focused its aquatic studies on small mouthed bass in the river (2014 Proposed Susquehanna River Sampling Plan, 2014). Though it is hard to pinpoint a direct cause, many issues in the fishes’ health have become prevalent; populations have decreased, lesions and mutations have become more common as well as a remarkable decrease in egg quality (Shull & Pulket, 2015). Above all else, the pollution of the river reaching the bay is a serious concern.

Illinois is where the dam would be built if approved, but Illinois state legislature is refusing to build the dam. Their concern is the alteration of the water flow and access to the river. They feel that the dam would decrease overall revenue in Illinois and surrounding states and that the flow of water would be altered, resulting in damage to surrounding ecosystems and economies. Michigan and Minnesota state governments have been pressuring Illinois to build the dam in hopes of halting the spread of the carp. Kim Fleming also stated that, “When looking at these types of issues, it always comes down to money… When you’re a governor or you’re a state representative… you are looking at [the ecological] issues in part, but the main thing is money. If you change… access to water, you start to change a lot. [There] are things like industry that depend on that water, or shipping. When you start to block stuff off… you start to affect the midwestern states’ access to that water.” (Fleming

The Oahe Dam was constructed to provide flood control, electric power and irrigation benefits along the Missouri River in central South Dakota. Tour guide, Kris Cleveland, made it very clear that the number one priority of the dam was to control water levels on the Missouri River, with an additional benefit being the generation of electricity for much of the north-central United States. The dam opened in 1962 and was upgraded in the 1980’s to a higher capacity.