When I began considering dam removal, the Elwha River quickly
emerged at the top of my list. The river flows through the heart of
Olympic National Park. It once hosted the most prolific salmon runs in
the Northwest. And the tiny amount of electricity from the dams could
easily be replaced from other sources.
I went to the Olympic Peninsula to take a look. Sure enough, it
seemed the perfect place to begin. The two dams down near the mouth of
the river appeared completely out of place in the splendor of the great
old-growth forests. I convened a press conference to announce a new era
of dam removal, beginning here at the Elwha River.
And then all hell broke loose. Washington State’s senior senator
angrily condemned the idea, vowing, as ranking member of the Department
of Interior Appropriations Committee, to put an end to such nonsense.
Other members of the congressional delegation chimed in, in opposition.
Newspaper editorials ridiculed the plan.
A few weeks later President Clinton took me aside, looking somewhat
bemused, and asked, “Bruce, what is all this stuff about tearing down
dams?”
His innocent-sounding question was really a cautionary admonition.
Our administration was already caught up in a bitter and politically
costly controversy over the spotted owl and logging of old-growth
forests in the Northwest. Friends reminded me that cabinet secretaries
who stir up too much controversy can and do lose their jobs. The Elwha
project would have to go on the back burner for a while.
That public opinion was flooding in against us was hardly surprising.
Back then, tearing down dams to restore rivers seemed a capricious idea
dreamed up by another meddling bureaucrat. Why tear down perfectly good
dams?
We quietly set about rebuilding our case. Within the Department of
the Interior we began preparing an environmental impact statement loaded
with cost estimates, hydrologic computations, sediment studies, fish
mortality statistics and regional economic impacts. However, of all the
arguments thrown up against dam removal, the most effective was simply,
“It won’t work. The salmon have been gone for a hundred years. What
makes you think they’ll return?”
Somehow, somewhere, we had to demonstrate that fish do come back. We
needed to show and tell – with a small dam, built within recent memory,
surrounded by a friendly community that actually remembered the fish
runs and their importance to the community.
And finally we found a candidate, at the other end of the country on a
little-known river on the Atlantic Coast of North Carolina.
It turned out that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was already
quietly at work on the Neuse River where a small diversion dam built in
1952 near the mouth had killed off one of the most prolific spawning
runs of American shad, herring and stripers on the Atlantic Coast. A
power company had built the Quaker Neck Dam to draw water for cooling,
and it was perfectly feasible to design an alternate intake method.
On a clear winter day in 1997, we assembled on the river bank. I took
a few swings at the concrete with a sledgehammer, and a wrecking ball
finished the job. By springtime, fish were swarming up the river,
passing through Raleigh 70 miles upstream.
The success at Quaker Neck brought national press and began to turn
public opinion. Across the country local communities came up with
proposals, and dams began to come down – at Kennebec in Maine, along the
Baraboo River in Wisconsin, the Rogue River in Oregon, and the Butte
and Clear Creeks in California.
With public opinion now moving our way, nationally and in the
Northwest, we ratcheted up our efforts in Congress to finish off the
Elwha dams. Slowly, at what seemed a glacial pace, funding started to
flow, finally coming to fruition in the Obama administration.
In the space of two decades, dam removal has evolved from a novelty
to an accepted means of river restoration. Most importantly, the concept
has taken root in hundreds of local communities as residents rediscover
their rivers, their history, and the potential not only to restore
natural systems, but, in the process, to renew their communities as
well.
I am asked, “After Elwha, what is your next priority?” That’s like
asking, “What is my favorite national park?” My answer tends to vary
depending on what I have been reading and where I have been hiking most
recently. But my nomination would be the four dams – Ice Harbor, Lower
Monumental, Little Goose and Lower Granite – that have transformed the
great Snake River in eastern Washington into a slack-water barge
channel, destroying thousands of miles of salmon habitat in the Rocky
Mountains and driving four salmon species to the brink of extinction.
Others will have their own compelling priorities – and there are still 75,000 dams for consideration.
About the Author
Bruce Babbitt served as governor of Arizona from 1978 to 1987 and as
secretary of the interior from 1993 to 2001. He is presently working on
watershed conservation in the Amazon headwaters of Brazil and Peru.
Also check out the trailer for the upcoming film Damnation.
" The Patagonia-sponsored documentary film DamNation
chronicles dam removal efforts across the United States as told through
impassioned interviews and spirited stories about the people entrenched
on both sides of this divisive issue. It presents a dynamic perspective
on our nation’s attempt to harness the power of water at the expense of
nature by examining the history and controversy behind dam removal
projects. Dam removal is no longer the work of a fictional Monkey Wrench
Gang. Call it a movement or call it a generational shift in values, but
momentum is building behind large-scale river restoration. Watch the
trailer, at www.damnationfilm.org."
No comments:
Post a Comment