Comments about ‘Dam-building era may not be over in West’

Hydroelectric is a great source of pollution free and inexpensive power. Like all sources of power it has its drawbacks. However in this era where we are worried about global warming, hydorelectric is a welcome part of the mix.

Damn!

These costal states should concentrate in converting sea water to useable water. It is more abundent than river water that is always subject to snowfall and runoff. The Colorado river dams are already at the brink of shudown from over use. The colorado has been so overused it doesn't even make it to the ocean anymore. Is this what should happen to all rivers? Coastal cities have a far greater resource in the oceans than what the rivers can provide that are limited by seasonal flows. We should be pumping purified ocean waters to the interior cities instead of taking rivers and destroying habital land and cities with dams that block river flow.

Nice and informative article, however Fort Peck Dam in Montana was built and is managed by the Army Corps of Engineers--not the Bureau of Reclamation as stated in the article. Not a big deal except that the Corp opperates dams using a very different set of guidelines (enviromenal, recreational and so on) than BuRec.

I'd like to stop dumping so much water on lawns. Utah isn't Kentucky, although we want Kentucky Blue Grass. In the desert we need to learn to stop wasting water, and re-using available resources. Our sewage treatment plants produce water cleaner than some original sources flowing to drinking water treatment facilities. The gross-out factor makes us unwilling to use it as a source for drinking, which is fine, but we could use it for agriculture. And before anyone says "yuck" remember that it's cleaner than untreated irrigation water. We have enough water, but we're unwilling to demand better water management in this nation.

Desalinization is a great theory and would undoubtedly solve much of our water crisis, but some of the reasons it doesn't work are some of the reasons you are advocating it. It costs roughly 10 times the price to deslinate 1 gallon of water as it does to draw it from ground or surface water. The other major obstacle is how do you pipe the water over the Sierra and across the Great Basin with out adding to the already exorbinant prices? Now I'm not against the existing dams by any means. The pros of dams outweigh any negatives (despite what our friends at Sierra Club and other environmental groups tell you) unless of course you are willing to contemplate nuclear power. The true answer lies in water conservation. Look to Las Vegas and Tucson as examples. Reduce the percentage of grass in your yard. The Rocky Mtn states are particularly heavy on lawns. According to studies most Americans actually prefer landscaping with only 30% grass. Try xeriscaping. It will work wonders for your water bill and save water too!

Where is Mr. George W. Hayduke when we need him?

I'm for hydro-electric generating dams, especially when the alternatives are taken into consideration, especially the waste produced by nuclear power (which I still believe needs to also be expanded and moved forward energy self-sufficiency).

However, there is one factor that needs to be carefully considered when dealing with dams... when they're appropriate to the ecology and ability to produce electricity and when they're not.

Out here in the Uinta Basin/South Slope of the Uintas, we have numerous dams, none that produce electricity, and many of dubious purpose. In fact, the Forest Service will be dismantling and taking down a number of these dams over the next 5 years, of which the Upper Sillwater dam, an unmitigated disaster, will be at the top of the list.

We do need more hydro-electric generating dams, but with todays technology and better understanding of the ecology, they need to take all these factors into considered before they're built, while they're being built and after they're built.

And one thing that shouldn't happen is to take out historic archelogical sites like the Lake Powell did before the site has been thoroughly culled, documented and if possible preserved.

There are of course trades offs.

The purpose of most environmentalists is to hinder capitalism, not save the environment. Thus nuclear power is discouraged even if it solves most eco concerns.

Environmentalists want clean power generation, and rightly so. However, they seem to oppose most every effort to create more clean power generation, including building and operating dams and exploration for more supplies of natural gas. Just one more reason liberal people like myself do not support environmentalists. I can't support extremists on either side of an issue.

Yes Salinization is a great theory. While the cost is substantially more like you stated. If the costs could be reduced, which as technology improves it undoubtedly will, if the costal cities receive desalinized water there would be as much of a need to pipe it into the Great Basin and Mountain West States. The supply of water could simply be shifted. Water from Powell and Mead could be used in those states because it would no longer be used in California.

I do agree though that conservation is a key to the future of the west. Lawn is nice, but I really think that it needs to be limited. Several area of the Wasatch are starting to use reclaimed water for non drinking purposes such as yards. One other option that is currently illegal in the state or used to be was the use of Greywater systems in homes.

I get so tired of people harping on the fact that Lakes Powell and Mead are "only" half full. What would the situation be like if these reservoirs did not exist? It is hard to imagine how we would have survived in this arid region over the last 10 years of drought if we did not have such storage capacity.

And now as it looks like we are moving back into another wet cycle, these and other dams will help reduce or even prevent destructive floods.

We certainly need to sensitive to LEGITIMATE environmental issues in where dams and built and how water flows are managed. But we must have adequate water and storage during dry cycles is critical. Ever feasible dam site needs to be carefully evaluated.

I wonder how much water a golf cource uses????

I accept your invitation to think about what things would be like without Lake Powell and Lake Mead. Let's see, many of the wonders of the natural world would not be under water and hundreds of feet of sediment, we would have priceless archaelogical evidence that was flooded. Oh, don't forget there would have been much more sensible development of Southern Utah, Las Vegas, portions of Arizona and Southern California. Man, wouldn't that be nice.

Other posters may claim I'm a tree-hugger. Try again. I come from generations of ranching stock in Southern Utah and Idaho.

The fact that Powell and Mead are half-full is proof that their existence is needed. If they weren't there, where would we have gotten all that water to sustain us during this drought. And with this years snowpack, Powell will probably go UP about 50 feet. The

Dams are built for five major purposes:
1) To store water for use at later times and at different locations.
2) To control and reduce flooding.
3) To produce hydroelectric power.
4) To provide recreation.
5) To profit in the construction and management of the dam.

While large dam projects can provide the multiple benefits of water storage, flood control, hydro electric power, and recreation on the resulting lake, severe environmental costs have in some cases resulted from creation of large reservoirs. Consider just three examples, the immersion of Glen Canyon ecological, scenic, geological, and archeological sites; detrimental impacts on salmon migration througout the Columbia Basin; and immersion of 1000's of acres of productive farmlands in the Tennessee Valley. Similar and additional problems have resulted at 100's of dam locations around the world.
For hydropower, consider instream generation where no dam reservoir is used. Just let the current flow through the river channel to provide electricity. Significant benefit. Low environmental or societal costs.

I find it hilarious that environmentalists would prefer this over dams! How do you go about removing salt from sea water?
You burn fossil fuels!

Washington is honestly planning on less snow/more rain due to climate change? Is global warming speeding up? Good grief! There is a lot of junk science in liberal governments these days!

Dams provide benefits and have costs. Dams can store water, provide hydroelectricy, allow recreation, control flooding, and provide major financial gains for their builders.
But dams can cover archeological, ecological, scenic, and geological wonders as in Glen Canyon. Dams disrupt habitat and migration as in destruction of salmon runs on the Columbia River. Dams destroy 1000's of acres of good farmland as in Tennesee Valley. And big dams cost millions of billions.
For water storage big dams are needed. But to provide hydropower, instream hydropower can in some cases provide power with much less environmental and fiscal costs. Let the river flow through the pipe without a dam. Get power with much less damage to environment, and much less fiscal costs.

Re: Half Full is right. Powell and Mead only create the illusion that there is water enough to be used for developing all of these desert metropolises. Vegas is such a huge waste of water and energy it makes me sick to think what we gave up to make that place grow. Less golf courses in the middle of the desert will do a whole lot more than building more dams.

In response to Eco-conservative's post, the Upper Stillwater Dam is one element of the Central Utah Project, which diverts Colorado River Basin water to the Wasatch Front through a series of tunnels and reservoirs. You can be sure that the Upper Stillwater Dam, a fairly large, concrete structure, is not going anywhere. Not only that, but several phases of repair work costing millions of dollars have just been completed.

I assume the removal of dams you refer to are the high mountain lakes in the Uinta Wilderness Area. These dams are small structures constructed in the early 1900s for irrigation and flood control. With the completion of the Big Sand Wash Reservoir enlargement a few years ago, it became possible to do away with these dams and return the natural lakes to their original condition. This is a win-win situation for almost everyone, as water users get increased storage capacity in a previously existing reservoir (Big Sand Wash), and the lakes can be returned to a state where they are not regulated for storage.

I think that folks arguing both sides of this issue hurt their causes by not presenting readily available, accurate information.