# Do all Dams suck?



## Mut (Dec 2, 2004)

Do all dams suck?

Before you blast me for asking a silly question, consider it.

I was having a friendly discussion with a fine gentlemen on this forum and the topic arose.

I like that dams are used for renewable energy. I like that some dams release water in such a manner that I can schedule kayaking. 

I don't like that dams block the natural flow of rivers, or the migration of fish. I don't like Dams that are set in sandstone in the desert. I don't like that Dams flood wildlife habitat. 

I can come up with more reasons to dislike Dams.

What good are they?


----------



## xkayaker13 (Sep 30, 2006)

not this one

http://www.americanwhitewater.org/photos/archive/medium/12097.jpg


----------



## hobie (Nov 3, 2003)

Some swallow. Depends who you ask I guess.


----------



## caverdan (Aug 27, 2004)

Without them................the world would be a different place to live in.


----------



## caspermike (Mar 9, 2007)

both good and bad. they help mantian a constant flow so water is around year round compare to a river raising everyspring up to un heard of hieghts and than dryer than a bone in the fall. 

dams are bad though in some cases because they allow people to build where life wouldn't be supported without them and 2 because it flat out can ruin a run for good and the water could be diverted miles down river underground for power(which is very nessesary to use this computer).

they are both right and wrong depending on its own application. the Poudre is a smaller river compared to some of them and a reservoir in that location would be a really stupid idea.


----------



## &d (Apr 28, 2006)

Unfortunately, all dams and diversion projects have direct ecological impacts, and I find that very objectable. In the act of storing floodwater for agriculture, a direct ecological impact is the stated intention of the project. I have a hard time reconciling my shared need for water and storage projects with my personal imperative to see all rivers run wild and free. Projects that provide me with offseason boating are somehow much less objectable than wasteful projects that serve to only evaporate the boating opportunities.

I offer we build no more in channel storage or direct diversions, rip down the wasteful ones and re-engineer our water storage systems to stand out of channel and store only a percentage of storage flow to preserve proper ecological proportion at the rivers various stages. Hydropower projects should be pumped back only up short sections of front range roadside mank, all winter long too, and heated.


----------



## &d (Apr 28, 2006)

I don't think you really understood me, I am trying to suggest improvements to current storage not the removal of any except as I specified, the "wasteful," 60% evaporation loss kind of ones.


----------



## DanOrion (Jun 8, 2004)

All ecological, sociologic and economic impacts aside, without dams, the Colorado boating season would be a lot shorter.


----------



## phlyingfish (Nov 15, 2006)

*Bladder Baby*

This one doesn't suck either (when there's enough flow to crest it at least)


----------



## caspermike (Mar 9, 2007)

FUCKING SWEET


----------



## striker (Aug 22, 2007)

I see no positive aspects to dams. They are ecologically devisativing. Dams force rivers to stop fowing and deposit all there setiment. Then, when the river is released the water is clear, cold, and hungery for sediment, causing greater errosion of the downstream environment. I am sure you are all aware of the many other ecologically devistating effects of damming rivers such as habitat loss and temperature variations. Dams are also not a sustainable form of energy production. The longer a dam is in place the more the river ecosystem in damaged. Over time sediment will build up along the dam and eventully the dam will need to be removed, or the ecosystem will be damaged beyond repair. This is not a sustaibable system. As far as a shorter boating season, I would much rather have healthy rivers. I would also suggest that while the season is longer and more consistent, many people would enjoy true spring run off on wild rivers instead of moderate flows on tamed, dammed river. Many people may argue that dams are nessisary for human populations to thrive, but I do not beleive they are. Dams allow people to live in greater numbers then the carrying capacity of many arid regons shoud allow. Since the dams are not sustainable they will eventually fail, leaving people in these over crowded desert regoins with out water . I would site Las Vegas and Phoenix as examples of large citys in desert regons that should not support human populations of that scale, and will be left vonerable to drought when unsustainable dams fail. Wild and Free rivers are truly nessisary.


----------



## caspermike (Mar 9, 2007)

striker said:


> I see no positive aspects to dams. They are ecologically devisativing. Dams force rivers to stop fowing and deposit all there setiment. Then, when the river is released the water is clear, cold, and hungery for sediment, causing greater errosion of the downstream environment. I am sure you are all aware of the many other ecologically devistating effects of damming rivers such as habitat loss and temperature variations. Dams are also not a sustainable form of energy production. The longer a dam is in place the more the river ecosystem in damaged. Over time sediment will build up along the dam and eventully the dam will need to be removed, or the ecosystem will be damaged beyond repair. This is not a sustaibable system. As far as a shorter boating season, I would much rather have healthy rivers. I would also suggest that while the season is longer and more consistent, many people would enjoy true spring run off on wild rivers instead of moderate flows on tamed, dammed river. Many people may argue that dams are nessisary for human populations to thrive, but I do not beleive they are. Dams allow people to live in greater numbers then the carrying capacity of many arid regons shoud allow. Since the dams are not sustainable they will eventually fail, leaving people in these over crowded desert regoins with out water . I would site Las Vegas and Phoenix as examples of large citys in desert regons that should not support human
> populations of that scale, and will be left vonerable to drought when unsustainable dams fail. Wild and Free rivers are truly nessisary.


I think its positive i have water to drink and take showers with in the winter and fall. 
what do you propose from steam boat to do about the people already living in those areas they shouldn't. we can't cut them off. lets hear what you have to say if all dams are bad? you don't have a wide veiw obviously. it may not be positive to you but to the hundreds of thousands of people that the arkansas and colorado rivers feed every day...... haha you are completely blind.


----------



## striker (Aug 22, 2007)

I do not sugest cutting peple off, but I do sugest learning from the mistakes of the past and not repeating them by creating more large daming progects. I also sugest looking for long term solutions to the increaced over population problem of arid western regions created by damming rivers and overusing the water resource. There comes a point were the natural carrying capacity of an ecosystem will simply not allow further population growth, and we need to live with in that range or eventually the population will crash. I am also not blind.


----------



## raftus (Jul 20, 2005)

striker said:


> I see no positive aspects to dams.


What about flood control that saves lives every year in different places?

Or do you believe that people who live in flood plains, and there are hundreds of million of people globally who do, should either move or risk death and significant property damage?


----------



## kevintee (May 7, 2007)

striker said:


> I do not sugest cutting peple off, but I do sugest learning from the mistakes of the past and not repeating them by creating more large daming progects. I also sugest looking for long term solutions to the increaced over population problem of arid western regions created by damming rivers and overusing the water resource. There comes a point were the natural carrying capacity of an ecosystem will simply not allow further population growth, and we need to live with in that range or eventually the population will crash. I am also not blind.


 
Please learn to spell! You’ve set a record for misspelled words in your last 2 posts here is a list: devastating, flowing, sediment, hungry, erosion, devastating, eventually, sustainable, necessary, believe, regions, should, regions, cities, regions, vulnerable, necessary, suggest, people, suggest, damming, projects, suggest, increased.

You also are extremely blind to the issues of dams in the real world. Your fantastic little idea of having every river in the world run wild is not only impossible at this point but in most cases just plain silly. Damming projects allow us to provide electricity to people, to maintain a stable water supply, prevent deadly flooding on many rivers, and just generally support human life in regions it wouldn’t be possible in before. I am not saying every damming project that has been carried out is justifiable, but some are. Here is an analogy. You live in a house/apartment/something other than a Teepee, you have thus altered the environment to build that place, causing detrimental effects to that area, in order for you to have a place to sustain your life. Think about it, it may not be a perfect analogy but it makes sense. 

As far as the sediment building up and causing the premature failure of dams you, obviously have never worked with a large organization before. They will not simply stand by idly while their dam is destroyed, I would bet that most already have a plan for the removal of excess sediment in order to keep the dam open. They have engineers who’s job it is solely to work on this stuff and trust me they are far smarter than you, and me too for that matter. 

You need to calm down and not be so one-sided and realize that there are huge benefits to damming projects. 

To others reading I am sorry as that was very harsh. Ignorant people just rub me the wrong way.


----------



## DanOrion (Jun 8, 2004)

I hate to agree with Caspar...but yeah! The ancient Puebloans of Mesa Verde had reservoirs, and so did many other ancient peoples. Without reservoirs, people would need to live a nomadic existence in arid areas, following the rains and herds. _We caught a rattlesnake, now we got something for dinner! We got it, we got it!_

Local Wright Water Engineers have done a bunch of work on ancient water works. There's some great papers and reports at the following link:
Wright Paleohydrological Institute

_Don't leave me stranded here I can't get used to this lifestyle :mrgreen:_

Sorry, got some Byrne on the mind.


----------



## rg5hole (May 24, 2007)

Here in Durango they are building on a project to pump the water from the Animas River to a remote location up a hill. I believe the plan is to re-generate the electricity used for the initial pumping when the water spills back into the Animas. I do not know if they have plans to heat it though???

lol!


----------



## Nathan (Aug 7, 2004)

A lot of dams in the past were not constructed with the impacts that we know about now in mind. They were not concerned about killing a valley to store water to support LA and Las Vegas because that's where the money was. Times have changed though, environmental and social aspects are considered now before a new dam can be built. Dams are a necessary evil, 35% of the worlds food comes from the 18% of land that is irrigated. Even though most people do not like dams, myself included, we are better off having some. That said I wouldn't mind a lot of dams being gone.


----------



## Badazws6 (Mar 4, 2007)

The real problem is people in these arid locations insist on having green grass. If your short on water, don't give it to the Grass dumb asses.


----------



## TakemetotheRiver (Oct 4, 2007)

*"A-LP defies gravity and logic"*

This is of course the project I've had in mind since this thread started. Almost every post here makes a valid point. There are valid reasons to preserve free flowing rivers. There are valid reasons to dam them. 

If there are "engineers who’s job it is solely to work on this stuff [who] are far smarter than you and me" then we should have far fewer ridiculous dam building projects. It's not about who is smart enough to assess the impact and make the best decision for all those affected- it's about money and "rights". 

The Animas/La Plata project was debated for 30 years before finally passing in a watered-down (no pun intended) version. Regardless, the plan is going through. They are going to pump water over a mountain and into a reservoir that will benefit a fraction of the people it serves now. Already millions of dollars over budget, the reservoir will not be full until 2012, if ever. 

SWCA, the environmental agency that oversaw the excavation of the reservoir found over 60 archaeological sites and were only allowed to excavate a portion before the engineers told them enough, they were moving forward. At least one of these sites contained brand new controversial information regarding the civilizations that use to inhabit the area.

The pump site is already an ugly, gaping sore on the side of the river.

I don't have the answers, nor do I pretend to know that much about building dams, but it feels like there has been very little accountability for this project at least. 




rg5hole said:


> Here in Durango they are building on a project to pump the water from the Animas River to a remote location up a hill. I believe the plan is to re-generate the electricity used for the initial pumping when the water spills back into the Animas. I do not know if they have plans to heat it though???
> 
> lol!


----------



## striker (Aug 22, 2007)

I feel that this quote issustrates my point. Dams provide people with a false security that they can overpopulate areas that generally do not support human life with no consiqunces. This is not the case. Kevin, you also have too much faith in large organizations and engineers. They allowed the levees to fail in New Orlean, do you really think the are immune to letting a large dam fail. Humans have never build dams on the scale they are today, so the therefore have no practical expriance in how these dams will age. I recomend reading John Mcafees, "The Control of Nature" were he illustrates many examples of mans failed attepts to control nature. There are situations were dams are nessisary, but we are currenlty over building dams, as well as abusing the water and ellectrical resourses they provide. The Colorado river no longer flows to the ocean, and water rights battles are fought in courts through out the west, but then when you visit Las Vegas there are green lawns, lavish fountains, and more light wasting electricty than one can imagine. I do not feel that the damming of the colorado river, and the distruction that caused, is nessisary if the resources it provides are going to be used so wastefully. With environmental advances such as the reuse of gray water on a larger scale, sustainable small sacle agriculture practices, and generall resource conservation the majority of daming projects could be avoided. I understand that there are often nessisary evils, and am not sugesting the removal of dams that currently protect lives and property, but I do suggest that we as humans are an intrigal part of the ecosystem on this planet, and if that ecosystem fails we will go down with it. Therefore we must activly look for alternatives to dams and other infastructure that damages our natural resouces, and not simply accept them and move on.


----------



## kevintee (May 7, 2007)

striker said:


> I feel that this quote issustrates my point. Dams provide people with a false security that they can overpopulate areas that generally do not support human life with no consiqunces. This is not the case. Kevin, you also have too much faith in large organizations and engineers. They allowed the levees to fail in New Orlean, do you really think the are immune to letting a large dam fail. Humans have never build dams on the scale they are today, so the therefore have no practical expriance in how these dams will age. I recomend reading John Mcafees, "The Control of Nature" were he illustrates many examples of mans failed attepts to control nature. There are situations were dams are nessisary, but we are currenlty over building dams, as well as abusing the water and ellectrical resourses they provide. The Colorado river no longer flows to the ocean, and water rights battles are fought in courts through out the west, but then when you visit Las Vegas there are green lawns, lavish fountains, and more light wasting electricty than one can imagine. I do not feel that the damming of the colorado river, and the distruction that caused, is nessisary if the resources it provides are going to be used so wastefully. With environmental advances such as the reuse of gray water on a larger scale, sustainable small sacle agriculture practices, and generall resource conservation the majority of daming projects could be avoided. I understand that there are often nessisary evils, and am not sugesting the removal of dams that currently protect lives and property, but I do suggest that we as humans are an intrigal part of the ecosystem on this planet, and if that ecosystem fails we will go down with it. Therefore we must activly look for alternatives to dams and other infastructure that damages our natural resouces, and not simply accept them and move on.


Just so you know, the Army Corps of Engineers already had a plan to rebuild the levies in NO. Unfortunately their funding got redirected to Iraq. As to the rest of your post I agree with most of it, and thank you for changing your position to accept that dams can have useful purpose instead of dismissing them as you said earlier, "I see no positive aspects to dams."


----------



## yourrealdad (May 25, 2004)

Actually, there was a report on the Army engineers down in NO and it basically said that it doesn't matter how much money or time the engineers had the levees in themselves were the problem because it allowed for the disintegration of the Louisiana coast itself. This brought the ocean and its devastating hurricanes even closer and allowed for them to move over the land to the populated areas, instead of petering out (no offense to Losta). It was either in TIME or Newsweek. Sorry I can't remember which one. The real solution would be to some how replace the miles of coastal NATURAL barrier that used to remain. SH%$%^&&*%^&^^&%&%^&t (watch The Wire, best show that was ever on TV) even the Dutch are having problems with their levee and dikes and small boys' thumbs.

That being said I love my Fort Collins water that comes from a reservoir and dams while environmentally bad are necessary.

I think the best kind of dam is a dental dam as, while it traps the natural flow of saliva does in turn help keep its users safe and herpes free.


----------



## freexbiker (Jul 18, 2005)

Interesting topic 
Ive thought about this a lot. I'm sure that Casper is powered half by the many hydroelectric plants and the other by fossil fuels. (not sure what type) 
Another thing is we have a awesome run about 40 minutes from Casper dropped to 75 cfs year round even though the rest of the river is running about 2000-3000 in the summer and the rest going through a tunnel. 
Kind of depressing but you have to think about what you would lose if you didn't have all of those dams around. 
Definitely something to think about.


----------



## rivermanryan (Oct 30, 2003)

TakemetotheRiver said:


> If there are "engineers who’s job it is solely to work on this stuff [who] are far smarter than you and me" then we should have far fewer ridiculous dam building projects.
> 
> The Animas/La Plata project was debated for 30 years before finally passing in a watered-down (no pun intended) version. Regardless, the plan is going through. They are going to pump water over a mountain and into a reservoir that will benefit a fraction of the people it serves now. Already millions of dollars over budget, the reservoir will not be full until 2012, if ever.
> 
> ...


1. I don't know of any (working) engineers who make the decisions on whether we build a project or not. The engineer's job is to design and contruct the project to serve the authorized (congress) purpose of the project and in as much of a environmentally sound manner as possible.

2. The ALP-light as finally approved required removing any plans for electric generation. Could have easily been done, but was removed so the project would get approved. Kind of stupid and inefficient.

3. Water will be pumped 550 feet (hardly a mountain) into Ridges Basin.

4. "will benefit a fraction of the people it serves now". I don't think so. It will benefit everyone who (a) lives in Durango (b) is a Ute or Navajo tribal member (c) lives on the dry side (d) lives in San Juan County, NM and a few others.

5. Not over budget - once they discovered the mistake a contractor made in the estimate, it has been on budget since construction began.

6. It will fill in two years once the pumps begin, give or take a few months depending on Animas flows. It has started to fill now with natural runoff.

7. Engineers did not stop the cultural resources survey

8. Judge the looks of the pumping plant once the landscaping is complete not while under construction.

Besides those inaccuracies, the project may or not make much sense, but it was required to fulfill the Ute Indian water rights. I just spend the last week looking at the EIS and all the alternatives. It is my opinion that this was the best option to fulfill the Ute Settlement Act and the authorized purposes of the project. All the evironmental and cultural resources were handled well and to the best of our abilities.

Given all of the non-binding uses of the water, it is my opinion very little storage will be taken from the reservoir, therefore, less water will need to be pumped once the reservoir is filled.

Sorry for taking up so much space talking about a single project, but there are many inaccuracies that float around that need to be corrected. I am neither for or against the project, but I have done everything within my ability to make sure it has been well built and in a responsible manner.


----------



## COUNT (Jul 5, 2005)

Fucking Engineers.


----------



## rivermanryan (Oct 30, 2003)

... as your Brad Ludden quote says...but some of us have to do something to pay the bills!


----------



## IkayakNboard (May 12, 2005)

I don't like dams:

"The accelerating deterioration of the world's river ecosystems has been largely ignored, while other global environmental problems, such as the destruction of the world's forests and the depletion of ocean fisheries, have been the subject of much concern and debate. But the declining health of almost all the world's major river ecosystems is a key factor in many of the most important symptoms of the global environmental crisis, from the collapse of coastal fisheries to the spread of waterborne diseases; from steadily worsening flood disasters to the deterioration in drinking water supply; from eroding shorelines to the loss of wetlands; from the extinction of river dolphins to the pollution of estuaries. 

The integrity of our rivers has, indeed, been so neglected that we have little data on the scale and speed of their deterioration. In 1992 the United States National Academy of Sciences' report _The Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems_ was unable to find any systematic analysis of the extent of the destruction of river systems in the United States. The first coherent survey of the global impact of human intervention was only published in 1994. In a paper in _Science_ that year, authors Dynesius and Nilsson showed that 77 per cent of the large river systems in the northern third of the world had been severely or moderately affected by hydrologic alterations. 


*The impact of large dams
​*
River ecosystems can be degraded by many human interventions, including pollution, watershed destruction and channelization. But it is the impact of large dams that is now having the most immediate and far reaching effects. They cause huge changes in flows, transforming the character of such major rivers as the Nile or the Indus. 
Over the years, scientists have observed the impacts of dams and levees on the ecology of rivers, riverbanks and estuaries. They have learned that major alterations in flows affect most other aspects of the physical system on which both wildlife and humans depend, including river morphology, water quality, nutrient transport and estuarine hydrodynamics. These changes also affect bank erosion, groundwater levels, shoreline erosion, flood peaks, soil salinity and water temperature: the list of known impacts multiplies with every year. Though dam building is an ancient technique, it is only in the last 100 years - primarily in the last 50 - that technology has enabled humanity to create the truly massive structures that have such deadly impacts on our rivers. The first country to embark on big dam building - and the first to experience the resulting problems - was the United States: today it has few rivers left to dam. The most publicized result of the love affair with big dams and associated river works has been the drastic decline in salmon populations. River engineering is also the main cause of destruction of the river ecosystems: changes to the physical habitat, river channels and banks, for example, are implicated in 93 per cent of freshwater fauna declines in North America. 
Projects like damming the Columbia, draining the Everglades and embanking the Lower Mississippi were at best simplistic, flawed solutions. Their economic costs, caused by environmental damage, were unforeseen or discounted. Their economic benefits were realized only by a few at the expense of the nation as a whole. Large-scale water projects have lost much of their popular support because of their huge cost and the growing realization of their escalating long-term ecological effects. Correcting past mistakes is now the main activity of those responsible for America's rivers: among current multi-million projects funded by the United States taxpayer are the restoration of the Columbia River's salmon run, the dechannelization of Florida's Kissimee River and the effort to find non-structural ways of managing floods on the Mississippi. 
These lessons have not yet been learned elsewhere in the world. Beguiled by a false association between big water projects and economic development, many developing countries continue to import obsolete river engineering technology. The pace of construction of big dam projects proceeds unabated even as the number of suitable sites diminishes. About 1,200 dams higher than 15 metres are started worldwide every year. Current major river engineering projects planned or under construction include: 
- A programme to build a staircase of six major hydroelectric dams on the Mekong, a river whose biodiversity is considered second only to the Amazon and whose fishery and floodplains support much of the population of Cambodia. 
- A plan to build a 3,400 kilometres shipping channel, the Hidrovia, up the Paraguay and Parana Rivers into the 200,000 square kilometres Pantanal, one of the world's largest tropical wetlands. - The construction of the Three Gorges Dam, the world's largest hydro project, across the Yangtze River, displacing more than 1.2 million people and irrevocably changing the river system.​These projects, and many others, will have devastating long-term impacts on river ecosystems - impacts with direct economic and social costs - but proponents have ignored them or brushed them aside. An internal survey of recent World Bank hydroelectric dam projects showed that 58 per cent were planned and built without even the most rudimentary consideration of downstream impacts - even when these could be predicted to cause massive coast erosion and pollution. Within a few decades, if policies do not change quickly, every major river system - including the Amur, the Yangtze, the Mekong, the Salween and the Amazon - will be as degraded and impoverished as the Colorado, the Nile, the Columbia, the Indus and the Parana have become in the last 50 years. 
Why does this onslaught on fresh, free-flowing water - one of the most important processes supporting the global ecosystem - continue? The answer is due, in large part, to the political dynamics created when unaccountable development institutions promote and fund large infrastructure projects as a sure fire way of achieving rapid economic growth. This has been supported by a powerful international water project construction lobby and has usually benefited economic and political elites at the expense of rural populations. As understanding of the impacts of human interventions on river systems broadens, and realization of the long-term costs grows, the beneficiaries and promoters of large water projects have an increasing interest in ignorance, deception and secrecy. Ending secrecy, providing honest analysis of all future impacts, insisting on open scientific review and making sure that affected communities have a voice in decisions, are the keys to establishing sound decision-making that protects river ecosystems. 
People's livelihoods and culture depend, in much of the world, on maintaining a healthy river ecosystem as a common resource. Fortunately many have organized within the last decade to prevent the expropriation of their rivers and the destruction of their way of life by dam projects. People affected by projects in the Narmada Valley in India, in villages along the Pak Mun River in Thailand, in the Mei Nung Valley in Taiwan, along the San Francisco River in Brazil or in the long houses of the Rajang River in Sarawak, have all become part of a coalescing international movement. By stopping dams and water projects, these people are having a greater effect in protecting global river ecosystems than countless expert reports and prestigious United Nations conference resolutions. In challenging the outmoded ideology of river engineering development, the people of the valleys are leading the way for introducing new ideas for managing their rivers that will preserve these ecosystems for future generations. 
_Dr. Philip B. Williams is President of the International Rivers Network._ "


"Furthermore, recent studies have begun to demonstrate that while hydroelectric projects are often promoted as “clean” and “green” energy sources, the resulting impounded reservoirs above the dams are likely to be large contributors of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Thus, hydroelectric dams may actually increase global warming." 

Money From Water: Foreign Investment Turns Foreign Destruction (1)

Dammed to destruction​


----------



## Jensjustduckie (Jun 29, 2007)

yeah COUNT, f-ing engineers anyway!

But really, dams are good and bad and have been used for many eons by native peoples- look at the Hohokam who built channels by hand thru the desert to water their crops such as cotton, corn etc.

What absolutely kills me is the wasted use of dammed water, specifically by desert inhabitants. For example 10 years ago I visited a botanical garden in Philadelphia PA and the fountains were empty because of a water shortage caused by drought, here in CO we water our lawns on a schedule to help conserve water. 

However when I moved to AZ for a couple of years I was appalled to see that most people in Phoenix have LAWNS!! Not only do they have lawns but they water their lawns TWICE A DAY EVERY DAY in the summer - but in CO where the water for their lawns originates (in part) it is illegal to water everyday much less twice a day.

Also I saw more outdoor fountains in Phoenix than I have ever seen in Colorado. This is poor planning and a lack of water control, no wonder Powell is dropping!

Well planned dams are far less destructive than wanton use of water in a desert community.


----------



## caspermike (Mar 9, 2007)

Jensjustduckie said:


> yeah COUNT, f-ing engineers anyway!
> 
> But really, dams are good and bad and have been used for many eons by native peoples- look at the Hohokam who built channels by hand thru the desert to water their crops such as cotton, corn etc.
> 
> ...


 
you figured it out. people are the problem, the damn dams are the solution. just not to many than they become evaporation problems


----------



## COUNT (Jul 5, 2005)

I don't understand. I mean, doesn't it just make sense to build megacities in the desert. Why would you do it anywhere else? Wait, I can think of at least one good reason: it's even better to build them below sea-level. It's almost as good as buildings without fire exits and high clearance vehicles for the city.

But no, really, there's some great discussion going on here. Unfortunately we have reached the point where dams are a necessary evil and all we can do is try to utilize them when and where they make sense in the most efficient ways possible.

COUNT


----------



## IkayakNboard (May 12, 2005)

caspermike said:


> dams are the solution


 
As someone who should love and support rivers, you should be ashamed of yourself. Dams are not necessary. Do some research. Without water reserves, people will move. Nature takes care of itself. Floods are good. Why do you think so many people move to flood plains? The nutrient rich soil available only because of flooding rivers. Dams DESTROY us, they help nothing. Shore line erosion increases, New Orleans type events occur, the fragile and most beneficial ecology in the world is destroyed, never to return. It is our fault. It is your fault. Build damns in the name of "clean electricity"? Wasteful. Energy solutions already exist. Financial gain is just now beginning to appear, as Oil begins to disappear. $3.40 per gallon too much? Just wait. 5 - 10 years...$50 per gallon. $75 per gallon. Oil doesn't need to run out to see that happen, it just needs to "peak"...and it is peaking now. Build more dams to offset oil costs? Destroy the very ecology that has enable humans to migrate inland, from land to land, continent to continent, the very ecosystem that has enabled the greatest civilizations in history? Without river ecosystems WE would not be HERE. Water doesn't go away, it just moves. Without dams, we would (and did) do the same. See more of this in our backyard, hopefully soon:


----------



## caspermike (Mar 9, 2007)

IkayakNboard said:


> As someone who should love and support rivers, you should be ashamed of yourself. Dams are not necessary. Do some research. Without water reserves, people will move. Nature takes care of itself. Floods are good. Why do you think so many people move to flood plains? The nutrient rich soil available only because of flooding rivers. Dams DESTROY us, they help nothing. Shore line erosion increases, New Orleans type events occur, the fragile and most beneficial ecology in the world is destroyed, never to return. It is our fault. It is your fault. Build damns in the name of "clean electricity"? Wasteful. Energy solutions already exist. Financial gain is just now beginning to appear, as Oil begins to disappear. $3.40 per gallon too much? Just wait. 5 - 10 years...$50 per gallon. $75 per gallon. Oil doesn't need to run out to see that happen, it just needs to "peak"...and it is peaking now. Build more dams to offset oil costs? Destroy the very ecology that has enable humans to migrate inland, from land to land, continent to continent, the very ecosystem that has enabled the greatest civilizations in history? Without river ecosystems WE would not be HERE. Water doesn't go away, it just moves. Without dams, we would (and did) do the same. See more of this in our backyard, hopefully soon:


you forgot i said "people are the problem". do not take my words out of context asshole. the damns were the solution to there and our problem and when was new orleans a dam? new orleans was built in a horrible spot in a swamp not in the high plains.


----------



## Nathan (Aug 7, 2004)

IkayakNboard said:


> As someone who should love and support rivers, you should be ashamed of yourself. Dams are not necessary. Do some research. Without water reserves, people will move. Nature takes care of itself. Floods are good. Why do you think so many people move to flood plains? The nutrient rich soil available only because of flooding rivers. Dams DESTROY us, they help nothing. Shore line erosion increases, New Orleans type events occur, the fragile and most beneficial ecology in the world is destroyed, never to return. It is our fault. It is your fault. Build damns in the name of "clean electricity"? Wasteful. Energy solutions already exist. Financial gain is just now beginning to appear, as Oil begins to disappear. $3.40 per gallon too much? Just wait. 5 - 10 years...$50 per gallon. $75 per gallon. Oil doesn't need to run out to see that happen, it just needs to "peak"...and it is peaking now. Build more dams to offset oil costs? Destroy the very ecology that has enable humans to migrate inland, from land to land, continent to continent, the very ecosystem that has enabled the greatest civilizations in history? Without river ecosystems WE would not be HERE. Water doesn't go away, it just moves. Without dams, we would (and did) do the same. See more of this in our backyard, hopefully soon:



You should be one of the first to leave then. The more that don't think dams are necessary can leave this area and move where there is more water, then there will not be the demand to have to bring so much water to the front range from the west slope.


----------



## Randaddy (Jun 8, 2007)

National Geographic News Photo Gallery: Giant Catfish Faces Dam Risk in Asia


----------



## caspermike (Mar 9, 2007)

Nathan said:


> You should be one of the first to leave then. The more that don't think dams are necessary can leave this area and move where there is more water, then there will not be the demand to have to bring so much water to the front range from the west slope.


good call. i think ronald should leave.he can go find some fresh water somewhere in the flood plains when we don't have dams

living on the front range i think you wouldve understood. how much of the south platte is controlled?


----------



## Randaddy (Jun 8, 2007)

PUR: Give PUR Water - National Geographic


----------



## IkayakNboard (May 12, 2005)

I totally agree with you Mikey. People are the problem. Especially illiterate arrogant people like yourself, who spit streams of shit out of their mouths everytime they open them in regards to something they know absolutely nothing about.

Nathan...reread my first post..."In a paper in _Science_ that year, authors Dynesius and Nilsson showed that 77 per cent of the large river systems in the northern third of the world had been severely or moderately affected by hydrologic alterations. "

There is nowhere to go in the US. Without a "need" to move, people won't. We were nomads. Now we are lazy.

FLAME ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Randaddy (Jun 8, 2007)

Dams, Dams, Dams...

Good post Mut.

I do hate dams. Well, after reading posts and thinking more deeply about it, I hate most dams. Sometimes I hate the dam, sometimes I hate that we have to have the dam. They certainly need to exist in lots of places, as existing populations rely on them. That big one in China scares the poop out of me though....

The Glen Canyon dam makes me want to cry. Anyone else?


----------



## caspermike (Mar 9, 2007)

IkayakNboard said:


> I totally agree with you Mikey. People are the problem. Especially illiterate arrogant people like yourself, who spit streams of shit out of their mouths everytime they open them in regards to something they know absolutely nothing about.
> 
> Nathan...reread my first post..."In a paper in _Science_ that year, authors Dynesius and Nilsson showed that 77 per cent of the large river systems in the northern third of the world had been severely or moderately affected by hydrologic alterations. "
> 
> ...


what are you saying we should all be nomads again? 77 percent of what rivers in what 3rd of the world have been affected? please explain genius.

by the way there's 6 dam between the colorado border and casper and i would rather surf 3000cfs all summer than 24,000cfs for a week. you seem to be the arrogant one.

name one country who has benefited from not having reservoirs, as you propose.


----------



## Jensjustduckie (Jun 29, 2007)

I agree about Glen Canyon, makes me want to cry too. Then again so do a lot of things like snowmobiling in Yellowstone or the cattle on Hwy 34 in RMNP during the summer.

I used to get really upset about what "people" are doing to the earth, ultimately we will either pollute/bomb ourselves into oblivion or figure a way out of this mess. As Carl Sagan would say we are still in our quarantine period. I have serious doubts we will make it out alive so I might as well enjoy what is left of nature and do my best not to make it worse than it already is.


----------



## Nathan (Aug 7, 2004)

I don't think that it is just that we are lazy, there are just too many people on the planet to be nomadic. We have destroyed a lot of environment with dams, without them maybe we wouldn't be over populating the earth. I think the one thing everyone who is open minded can agree on is dams are a necessary evil. The only reason more rivers aren't impacted outside the top third of the planet is most third world countries don't have the resources for big dams. If they did there would be a lot more dams.

The dam in China is scary to think about, they didn't care what the society thought about it. They are destroying a ton of ancient civilizations. I don't think they weighed the costs vs. benefits before starting that project or they just thought having that water supply was worth it. One cool point to that dam though is it will generate 15.6 Gw of power which is about 60% of what the US generates in hydro power. I would think with all the attention the Olympics are getting over Tibet this would be a big issue as well since the audience is there.


----------



## caspermike (Mar 9, 2007)

ronald what happens when the rest of the creeks running into denver dry up and you need that water saved up in elevenmile? if it wasn't there denver would have never been the size it is and chance are you wouldn't even be a specle in your dad's eye.


----------



## Jensjustduckie (Jun 29, 2007)

China is scary to think about


Nathan, I think that the short quote of yours above sums up everything about China. Rivers bubbling and running red because of chemicals, not to mention what is NOT reported. Everything about China is scary, the public mentality, government programs for population control, etc.


----------



## rivermanryan (Oct 30, 2003)

FYI - Three Gorges in China is not about water supply. It is about flood control and power generation. Still no good excuse and a bad idea with too many consequences.


----------



## caspermike (Mar 9, 2007)

ive read alot about that project and watched many tv shows about it. i agree its bad for the area period. these people use the river as their main transportion for goods and thats a big problem in its self for the people. their culture is being destroyed and that doesn't sit well with me.


----------



## IkayakNboard (May 12, 2005)

caspermike said:


> when was new orleans a dam? new orleans was built in a horrible spot in a swamp not in the high plains.


 
Mikey, since I don't think you know where New Orleans is, here is a short lesson for you...Click Map of New Orleans, LA by MapQuest The blue line you see going through N.O. is a river. The 2nd largest river in US. The Mississippi River. "Through a natural process known as delta switching the lower Mississippi River has shifted its final course to the ocean every thousand years or so. This occurs because the deposits of silt and sediment begin to clog its channel, raising the river's level and causing it to eventually find a steeper, more direct route to the Gulf of Mexico.
The abandoned distributary diminishes in volume and forms what are known as bayous. This process has, over the past 5,000 years, caused the coastline of south Louisiana to advance toward the Gulf from 15 to 50 mi"

"U.S. government scientists determined in the 1950s that the Mississippi River was starting to switch to the Atchafalaya River channel because of its much steeper path to the Gulf of Mexico. Eventually the Atchafalaya River would capture the Mississippi River and become its main channel to the Gulf of Mexico, leaving New Orleans on a side channel. As a result, the U.S. Congress authorized a project called the Old River Control Structure, which has prevented the Mississippi River from leaving its current channel that drains into the Gulf via New Orleans.
Because of the large scale of high energy water flow through the Old River Control Structure threatening to damage the structure, an auxiliary flow control station was built adjacent to the standing control station. This US$300 million project was completed in 1986 by the U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers."

Although, I was primarily referring to a point Yourrealdad brought up about the levees causing more harm than good, because they took away the natural protection offered by sediment deposits, and increased shoreline erosion, where historically the coastline in that area would grow. I do not, however, dispute your statement of it being a bad location for a large city.
"Over the years, scientists have observed the impacts of dams and levees on the ecology of rivers, riverbanks and estuaries. They have learned that major alterations in flows affect most other aspects of the physical system on which both wildlife and humans depend, including river morphology, water quality, nutrient transport and estuarine hydrodynamics. These changes also affect bank erosion, groundwater levels, shoreline erosion, flood peaks, soil salinity and water temperature: the list of known impacts multiplies with every year. Though dam building is an ancient technique, it is only in the last 100 years - primarily in the last 50 - that technology has enabled humanity to create the truly massive structures that have such deadly impacts on our rivers. The first country to embark on big dam building - and the first to experience the resulting problems - was the United States: today it has few rivers left to dam."


"ronald what happens when the rest of the creeks running into denver dry up and you need that water saved up in elevenmile? if it wasn't there denver would have never been the size it is and chance are you wouldn't even be a specle in your dad's eye." - If that had happened, someone else would be here to give you crap :mrgreen: and I guess I wouldn't be around to care about rivers or dams...but the energy that spawned me would still live on, in some form or another.

Anyway, this was fun, but I'm done.


----------



## DanOrion (Jun 8, 2004)

Has anyone seen the 3 Gorges EIS? Someone told me that the no-action alternative was to build 15.6 Gw of coal fired power plants.

_ I dream of cherry pies, candy bars, and chocolate chip cookies,,,(God Damn that song!)_


----------



## caspermike (Mar 9, 2007)

dam holds back a reservoir.

a levee is an embankment designed to prevent the flooding of a river.

thats the main difference between the 2 you might want to know that next time aswell.

and as i remember a hurricane can put down alot of water that could flood a region that is already prone to flooding which new orleans is.

by the way new orleans was no correlation with water projects in the mountain states. peace ronald stay away from all that chemical food you have been eating, its not making you any smarter


----------



## IkayakNboard (May 12, 2005)

DanOrion said:


> Has anyone seen the 3 Gorges EIS? Someone told me that the no-action alternative was to build 15.6 Gw of coal fired power plants.


There is always a "valid" reason to erect a dam, go to war, spit on your neighbor, etc. Everything is "justifyiable" in at least one pair of eyes (usually the pair seeing $$). In truth there were many options, it was just a matter of which would be the cheapest initial investment with the greatest initial returns.

"A 2006 report by MIT, that took into account the use of Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS), concluded that it would be affordable to generate 100 GWe (gigawatts of electricity) or more...in the United States alone, for a maximum investment of 1 billion US dollars in research and development over 15 years.[11]
The MIT report calculated the world's total EGS resources to be over 13,000 ZJ. Of these, over 200 ZJ would be extractable, with the potential to increase this to over 2,000 ZJ with technology improvements - sufficient to provide all the world's energy needs for several millennia."

In my opinion, we need to spend our time and resources solving problems rather than creating new ones.


Mikey...it's not your fault. I understand you were born in a 3rd world state without access to an education.


This time I'm really leaving.


----------



## xkayaker13 (Sep 30, 2006)

The fact that you can snowmobile in Yellowstone but not kayak, is absolutely ridiculous. The black canyon of the Yellowstone looks like an amazing run.


----------



## kevintee (May 7, 2007)

IkayakNboard said:


> "A 2006 report by MIT, that took into account the use of Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS), concluded that it would be affordable to generate 100 GWe (gigawatts of electricity) or more...in the United States alone, for a maximum investment of 1 billion US dollars in research and development over 15 years.[11]
> The MIT report calculated the world's total EGS resources to be over 13,000 ZJ. Of these, over 200 ZJ would be extractable, with the potential to increase this to over 2,000 ZJ with technology improvements - sufficient to provide all the world's energy needs for several millennia."


Get your power from wherever you want but we still need resevoirs. Solar will be cheap enough in the next decade but you will still see the dams out there. Currently Solar technology can produce 1 KWh (kilowatt hour) of electricity for about 12cents, compared to coal which is about 3-4 cents. Give them some time and they will come up with a more efficient design and our woes will be gone as far as energy is concerned.


----------



## yakrafter (Aug 7, 2006)

*Plenty of space in the USA. Water is just concentrated in other areas.*



IkayakNboard said:


> There is nowhere to go in the US.


There are plenty of places to go in the US that have more than enough water, perhaps not for all of us at our current consumption, but that can decrease (and will).

I only assume my stay in CO is temporary, mainly due to water issues. Once I have to start fighting the rest of you for a drink, I will leave and go where resources are plenty.

Send me a PM, I have plenty of land in the US you can buy, drill (or hand dig) a well and pump water all you want - legally. 

Not trying to agitate - just remember the SW and it's water issues are local, the country is pretty dam big. Plenty of places to go...

Dams are good and bad just like most things in this world. Good for the ability to drink, get power, water crops, schedule boating, naming bars/eateries and keeping the masses at peace. Bad for the envronmental impacts, the lack of overall equilibrium and the false sense of security that leads to overuse/overpopulating. I think we all really know this. 

Much more I would love to respond to, but I had trouble hearing all of it due to those high horses.

Folks that really, really hate dams can protest by growing all their own food using natural precipitation, by never boating a damed river again and (most of all) by not having children. Otherwise, just focus on good micro decisions in life, keep moving forward and keep debating with open minds.

Drink up...Paddle hard...while you can....


----------



## riverrat (Jan 20, 2007)

From a purely selfish standpoint and ignoring the larger global issues, I can think of a couple good things that I get from dams. 1. All summer boating. (My hometown is in Pagosa Springs. The San Juan's a fun river, but it goes just about dry by late June, early July on a good year. I'm glad it's not damed, but that is a drawback.) 2. M-wave (doubt anything close to it would be possible in a natural river.) I'm all for the whole sustainability thing and not wasting water, but there are a billion different aspects to daming so I figure I might as well enjoy paddling wherever there's water, which is usually under a dam. But hey, as long as we're ranting about everyone else who wastes water...it's kinda tough to realize that, on average, golf courses use 300,000 gallons a day. I think colorado has about 250-300 courses. I would try to do the math for that, but it scares me too much--the math and the wasted water. I guess some golfer will argue it's not wasted and blah, blah, blah, but still..


----------



## Jay H (May 20, 2005)

*Poudre #3 threatened river per AR*

Interesting bit I just heard this on the drive in this AM--American Rivers just named the Poudre as the #3 threatened river in the US due to the Glade Reservoir proposal:

American Rivers: 2008 Most Endangered Rivers

America's Most Endangered Rivers


----------



## caspermike (Mar 9, 2007)

xkayaker13 said:


> The fact that you can snowmobile in Yellowstone but not kayak, is absolutely ridiculous. The black canyon of the Yellowstone looks like an amazing run.


 
people still run the black even though it is illegal


----------

