Deseret News | Dam-building era may not be over in West

Reader comments
Dam-building era may not be over in West

Hydroelectric rocks | 12:43 a.m. March 3, 2008

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.

Sagebrush Willy | 1:08 a.m. March 3, 2008

Damn!

Bob G | 5:02 a.m. March 3, 2008

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.

Comments continue below

Anonymous | 5:55 a.m. March 3, 2008

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.

conservation boy | 6:49 a.m. March 3, 2008

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.

Re: Bob G | 7:59 a.m. March 3, 2008

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!

Hatuletoh | 8:46 a.m. March 3, 2008

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

Eco-conservative | 9:18 a.m. March 3, 2008

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.

eco watch | 9:40 a.m. March 3, 2008

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.

Environmental Extremists | 9:47 a.m. March 3, 2008

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.

Future | 9:56 a.m. March 3, 2008

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.

Half Full? | 9:51 a.m. March 3, 2008

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.

handlebar | 11:21 a.m. March 3, 2008

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

Re: Half Full | 11:22 a.m. March 3, 2008

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.

Agree with Half Full | 11:30 a.m. March 3, 2008

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

Anonymous | 11:39 a.m. March 3, 2008

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.

Desalinization | 11:43 a.m. March 3, 2008

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!

randnf | 11:55 a.m. March 3, 2008

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.

Disagree with half full | 12:00 p.m. March 3, 2008

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.

Eco Con: not quite right | 12:08 p.m. March 3, 2008

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.

Rexburg Rob | 12:18 p.m. March 3, 2008

The Teton Dam failed largely because it was built on highly fractured rhyolite tuff that let water through to erode the north side of the dam. No dam could be built there or up-canyon -- the fractures are impossible to grout (seal) because they are an endless honeycomb. I don't think this idea is seriously considered by anyone in position to do anything about it.

Lane Meyer | 12:42 p.m. March 3, 2008

Re: Eco Con: Not quite right

Very well put! Unqualified opinions can be a powerful and destructive force if left unchallenged and thus successfully sold. Questions aimed at uncovering the root motivations behind the formulation of overall detrimental positions need to be asked over and over until those positions are weakened and those selling them become ineffective.

JT Easewood | 12:49 p.m. March 3, 2008

Building MORE dams is environmental suicide.
Its the ecological equivalent of declaring war on the fragile disappearing western landscape and ecosystem.

We'll all hang our heads in shame one day for this.

Instead we should be putting concentrated solar farms on already distrubed land and opening up the utility stranglehold by allowing net metering on distributed local generation.

St. George | 12:55 p.m. March 3, 2008

We could have the great NAWAPA (North American Water and Power Alliance) built to provide clean hydro electric power and life giving and sustaining water to most of the USA.

PLEASE WRITE YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES ï¿½ TELL THEM THIS IS WHAT WE WANT AND DEMAND ï¿½ TELL THEM IS THEY DO NOT SPONSOR OR VOTE FOR SUCH LEGISLATION THEY WILL BE REPLACED!!!!

LETS MAKE THE 2008 ELECTION ABOUT THE ENDS NOT THE MEANS, AND LETS MAKE IT ABOUT GOALS NOT PARTY LOYALTY. BOTH PARTIES HAVE FAILED THE CITIZENRY (YOU AND I), SO LETS ONLY VOTE FOR THOSE WHO PLEDGE TO GIVE US BACK OUR FREEDOM AND OUR GREATNESS.

VOTE ONLY FOR CANDIDATES THAT SUPPORT THE ABOVE!!!!! WRITE THOSE WHO ARE SEEKING ELECTION TODAY, AND LET THEM KNOW THERE IS A NEW SET OF RULES!!!!!!

Steamed | 1:03 p.m. March 3, 2008

Nuclear powerplants along the California coast would kill two birds with one stone. Besides providing abundant, non-polluting power, they would desalinize ocean water in their cooling towers.

Confused | 1:58 p.m. March 3, 2008

Why not limit desert growth? Why do these dummies think they are deserts, because they are blessed with plentiful water? Wrong. Force growth where their is natural resources, and get away from this desert climate mentality. Don't issue the building permits, only on a small percentage only. Why is this so hard to figure out? People can survive in other locations with no adverse effects, and alot of the geographic problems would be resolved. Why fight mother nature? People are spoiled rotten as to their choices of where they can build. This mentality needs to stop NOW.

Mike R. | 2:07 p.m. March 3, 2008

To the EnviroNazis: Just what are you going to drink if we drain Lake Powell?

Lake Powell has generated it's own ecosystem that is not only diverse but spectacular. I enjoy going to Lake Powell and the sights. I for one appreciate that I only have to hike a mile or less to Rainbow Bridge and not 6 or 7 from the river bed. I love Escalante and it's beauty including Cathedral in the desert. I love climbing to the cliff dwellings.

All of these large river dams (TVA, Grand Coulee, Glen Canyon, Hoover, etc) have more than paid for themselves. They are one of the few government projects that no longer cost taxpayers anything.

Build more.

green mormon architect | 2:19 p.m. March 3, 2008

Everyone seems to be justifying the building of new dams, but the article said:
"There are lots of OTHER ideas for increasing water supplies in the West. They include conservation...Most of those ideas are MUCH MORE POPULAR than big new dams."

Instead of jumping all over our right to build enormous dams where ever we want and destroy ecosystems, shouldn't we first look at conservation, especially if we live in a desert?! This has nothing to do with politics or extremists; it has everything to do with being responsible stewards of the land.

The desert cannot support unlimited (and still growing) millions of people, no matter how many rivers are dammed. The reality is that every major river in the US has already been dammed. For people interested in an amazing book about dams, please read 'Cadillac Desert' by Marc Reisner.

Reason | 3:24 p.m. March 3, 2008

Their locations need to be carefully chosen, but dams are a great thing for mankind. Environmentalists sometimes complain that dams change the ï¿½ecologyï¿½ of the area. However, that change isnï¿½t necessarily a good or a bad thing. If, instead of a dam, a NATURAL structure happened to form the same barrier, then no one would complain, but because itï¿½s created by man, then itï¿½s somehow ï¿½bad.ï¿½ This reminds me of the silly idea of ï¿½If a forest fire is started by lightning, then let it burn, because itï¿½s ï¿½natural.ï¿½ï¿½

Clint K | 5:29 p.m. March 3, 2008

This is a diffucult choice for anyone to make. I know we need to do have more or else Califorina, Nevada, along with southern Utah and Arizonia are going to run out of water eventually even if conservation goes through the roof and at this time we don't have the resources to distill seawater and come out economically the goverment would end up footing the bill and wateing more tax dollars. So the item remains that we need dams but their locations need to be choosen carefully and more smaller dams higher up and along the river system is more a better idea unless there is a salmon run in the area. Smaller rivers higher up are the answer one state that sould help and was not mentioned in the article is Wyoming we could dam without as much issue on the Green river, Newfork river, and the Upper snake river holding nearly as much water there as we could with another major dam elsewhere. The eletrical issue is the only one with an easy answer we need smaller more localized power plants to quit wasteing the 87% of the power produced to the resitance in the powerlines.

Randy | 6:42 p.m. March 3, 2008

With the earths population increasing by 250,000 Homo sapeins per day, the availability of fresh water is a symptom, not the problem.

Ignorance is bliss | 9:18 p.m. March 3, 2008

The most fertile land on our planet are flood plains. The annual flooding replenished this land by adding silt and by removing salts.

Dams along the coast have increased coastal erosion. The winter cycle of bringing depositional material to the sea created beaches. Beaches are natural defenses against the damage caused by winter storms. Dams have coastal coastal communities billions.

The salmon and steelhead fisheries have been decimated by dams destroying the economies of coastal towns.

Something like 3,000,000 acre feet of water from the Colorado River are lost to evaporation. Add to this, both Lake Powell and Lake Mead have less storage capacity each each because of silt loading behind dams.
Dream on!

Re: Re: Half Full | 9:28 p.m. March 3, 2008

I think you need to think a little harder about no Lake Powell. Most, if not all of the ruins are only covered when the lake is full. They were cliff dwellers! The lake actually makes it more easy to access most ruins. Then consider the benefits for ranchers, farmers, and all the people that use the electricity. It is also clean power! How many fish, etc. die each year due to acid rain? You don't have that with dams! You have no toxic emissions at all! I believe that "Global Warming" was caused by the sun, and poor measurements, such as putting a measurement station right where it picks up the radiators from the cars that park in front of it, and exhaust from building air conditioners. If you believe it is caused by CO2, then you should also be happy that dams don't put out any CO2.

Rich | 9:59 p.m. March 3, 2008

Most of the domesticated water in the West does not go to increasing populations -- it is used to irrigate cropland. We have enough cropland in the West. However, we need the hydroelectric power produced by dams. If we don't use hydro or nuclear power, the alternative to produce needed power is coal. Yes, we can supply some of our demand with wind and solar power, but these cannot keep up with demand. So you have a choice -- hydro, nuclear or coal. Take your pick. Those are your choices. Conservation might slow the need for additional power, but there's no way we can avoid making a choice among these three alternatives in the foreseeable future. Go ahead and dream, but this is reality. It's time to face reality.

Dear Eco-Con Not Quite RIght | 10:05 p.m. March 3, 2008

I said I have it on very good authority that the Upper Stillwater IS coming down. Why? Because for all the water you claimed that is diverted off to the Wasatch Front, even after all the millions of dollars of repairs and refurbishments, it has been considered unstable!

I'm not going to divulge the source of my information, except to say that the Forest service itself has listed this as one of the most dangerous structures, not even allowing any people on the view access on the right facing side of the dam.

I personally knew one of the Ute Indian engineers who worked on the project with the construction crews. He said it was not properly constructed for the topography, and that the dam was based on an unproven engineering model. Numerous times he tried to talk to the construction engineers about the flaws, only to ignored because he was just, "One of those Indians!"

Looks like he's being vindicated.

Before putting someone down based on official lines, get your facts right by getting your information from the horse's mouth first before contradicting someone and claiming your facts are the final facts. Sheesh! Get a life!

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.