The article below, by biologist Nate Winkler, of Interlochen, speaks for many of us who feel cheated by the creation of quiet waters behind dams on our wild and free-flowing streams.  The loss of scenery and the diverse river environments, teeming with aquatic life, are extremely valuable to society in many ways. 

As our nation moves toward a diversification of America’s energy portfolio we must keep in mind that the benefit/cost calculation for dams includes more than power output versus costs of construction and maintenance.  When we do our figuring, we have to consider tourism, recreation, aesthetics and the value of this river resource to all future generations.  It is often difficult to put dollar figures on these intangibles but Mr. Winkler’s article, which appeared in the February 24, 2009 issue of The Traverse City Record Eagle, helps readers to understand the calculation.  Dennis Fijalkowski, MWC Executive Director.

Forum: Dams are elephant in the room - By Nate Winkler

“Dam (the Tuolumne River in) Hetch Hetchy (valley)!  As well dam for water-tanks the peoples cathedrals and churches, for no holier temple has ever been consecrated by the heart of man”  

-- John Muir

While that may seem heavy, there is no other way to describe the ultimate effect dams have on rivers.  Dams are the elephant in the room, the focus of working groups, advocacy groups, property rights arguments, renewable energy discussions and green energy facilities.  They give fishery managers fits and bring out contradictions in conservationists.  

The bottom line, though, is they make slack water out of moving water, in many cases quieting and warming water that should be loud and cold.  

Until the most recent energy crisis, there was a somewhat unquestioned movement to remove dams and restore rivers to their natural state.  Just like we don’t use lead pipes in our plumbing anymore, we don’t dam our rivers, and we should be removing the ones that are at the very least not producing any economic benefit.  

But now that there’s an urgent call to diversify the nation’s energy portfolio, hydroelectric is being touted as a component of that portfolio.  Therein lies the real crux of the issue, the cost/benefit analysis in terms of cash money, not ecology.  

River advocates at either a professionally trained level or a laymen’s level can die of old age arguing the merits of free-flowing river system functioning in a natural manner over the habitat benefits of a reservoir in an area abounding with lakes.  

Here in Michigan’s Lower Peninsula, cold rivers fed by relatively stable groundwater sources make the region somewhat unique in the nation (and world, for that matter).  

The fact that this region includes countless warm-and cool-water lakes is an added benefit, but does a cold-river need to remain dammed to maintain another such lake if the economics of hydroelectricity do not make sense?  Is the public trust not compromised when a few riparian landowners on a river impoundment demand that the waterfront property be subsidized by taxpayers?  

Over the years, some of the most dramatic sections of rivers have been inundated.  The O’Shaughnessy Dam turned the Hetch Hetchy Valley in California into a reservoir when it stopped up the flow of the Tuolumne River.  The Hetch Hetchy was said to rival in beauty its better-known neighbor, the Yosemite Valley.  

The economic value of dramatic vistas and “new” stretches of live water to float and fish in should be an enormous factor in any discussion about dam retention and removal.  Countless livelihoods are maintained in northwest Lower Michigan by the marketing of our rivers and native landscapes, negating the sophomoric “fish over people” argument, which should be left on the playground where it belongs.  

John Muir could have been talking about a thousand other valleys now lying at the bottom of reservoirs.  He could have been describing the area now lying under Brown Bridge Pond, Boardman Pond and Sabin Pond.  

I say we find out.

[Return to Newsletter Index]