Anti-Fracking Activist Sandra Steingraber's Pursuit of a Healthy Environment
Sandra Steingraber PhD, the acclaimed author and ecologist, is determined to stop natural gas companies from ever conducting hydraulic fracturing in her upstate New York community. She was raised in a family whose members did not close their eyes to the horrors around them.
Steingraber, who was adopted as an infant, said part of the game plan of those who carry out atrocities is to make them seem unstoppable and inevitable. In her role as a public health biologist, she is witnessing atrocities being committed against air, food and water by the natural gas industry and other industrial sectors. “It seems to me that we are in the middle of an ecological holocaust, to speak really bluntly,” Steingraber said in an interview.
Steingraber’s adoptive father had to go off and fight Adolf Hitler as an 18-year-old. During much of World War II, the German Wehrmacht seemed unstoppable. But ultimately Nazi Germany was defeated. Steingraber’s father and the millions of others battling Hitler’s military machine remained steadfast in part because they believed they were fighting a good fight.
The vast majority of Germans either participated in or overlooked the atrocities of Nazi Germany and later denied personal moral responsibility for what occurred around them. After the war, the rest of the world did not judge these people kindly. Because of the syndrome known as the “Good Germans,” the evil of Nazism was allowed to spread widely, Steingraber said.
Growing up in Illinois, the lesson she was taught by her parents and extended family was never act like a Good German. “You don’t judge the probability of success when you do the right thing,” she said. “You just do the right thing. And you do it with your whole heart.”
Today, Steingraber is inspired by the commitment of the individuals and grassroots groups who are working against the use of hydraulic fracturing, an industrial practice used for the extraction of natural gas. “I believe fracking in New York is stoppable,” she said. “It has to be stopped and therefore we can stop it.”
Steingraber is not an armchair activist. On April 17, a New York judge sentenced Sandra Steingraber, Melissa Chipman and Michael Dineen to 15 days in jail for their resistance to the heavy industrialization of their community in upstate New York.
A month earlier, Steingraber and 10 fellow residents of the Seneca Lake region, in a peaceful act of civil disobedience, blockaded the gate of a gas compressor station run by Missouri-based Inergy LLP. They were protesting their opposition to Inergy’s planned heavy industrialization of the Finger Lakes region.
While resistance to the natural gas industry is growing, not everyone is on board. As with the Good Germans of the 1930s and 1940s, there are many Americans living in fracking zones who are pretending that everything is normal and fine. Steingraber finds this type of mindset extremely troubling, especially among residents in New York where state officials are still considering whether to allow fracking.
“The biggest obstacle in our way, not to diminish the power of the oil and gas industry, which I fully acknowledge is the wealthiest and most powerful industry on the planet, but it’s really the advanced resignation of the people that they are about to run over that is my biggest problem right now,” Steingraber said.
Too many people believe it is not realistic to fight for the abolition of fracking. They opt instead to lobby lawmakers for stricter regulations. “That’s really a form of fatalism that’s treacherous,” Steingraber said. “There’s no science that shows regulations are actually protective. If we go the regulatory route, we are laying time bombs underneath New York.”
Resistance Is Never Futile
In her latest book, Raising Elijah: Protecting Our Children in an Age of Environmental Crisis, Steingraber cites a newspaper article in which an energy company official is quoted as saying, “The shale army has arrived. Resistance is futile.”
The U.S. natural gas industry indeed views the places where it sets up operations as a battlefield, especially in areas of the country where the industry has held little influence and lacked visibility. When it explores and drills for natural gas in Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana, there is relatively little public opposition to its activities. But as advances were made in hydraulic fracturing technology and extracting natural gas from shale rock became more economical, gas companies jumped at the opportunity to move into new areas where local politicians had yet to be paid off by the industry.
Legislators and regulators in the states situated above the Marcellus Shale, though, were easy targets. Public officials in Pennsylvania, for example, rolled over without any hesitation when the gas industry dangled large amounts of money before their eyes. The shale gas army moved into the state, known affectionately by drilling enthusiasts as the “Saudi Arabia of natural gas,” with the full blessing of state and local officials, even though studies had not been conducted to ensure gas drilling and its associated activities would not have adverse effects on local communities.
Unlike the paid-off politicians, many Pennsylvania residents viewed the gas industry with suspicion. The previous extractive industry to invade Pennsylvania—coal—also promised riches for everyone. But what the coal barons ultimately oversaw was the permanent scarring of a state, leaving behind destroyed ecosystems and countless cases of black lung. Recognizing a higher level of distrust than it faced in friendlier regions of the U.S., the gas industry knew it had a public relations battle on its hands.
The industry started pouring millions of dollars into advertising campaigns and building highly disciplined PR operations. Gas companies believed they were fighting an insurgency. As a result, they hired former U.S. military psychological operations, or psy-ops, experts comfortable in dealing with localized issues and local governments. “Having that understanding of psy-ops in the Army and in the Middle East has applied very helpfully here for us in Pennsylvania,” a gas company official said about his company’s decision to hire former military psy-ops experts.
In Raising Elijah, Steingraber acknowledges the shale gas army has arrived in the Marcellus Shale and has set its sights on her community in New York. But when the health of children and the future of the planet are at stake, resistance is never futile—“unless you believe sitting at a segregated lunch counter or standing before a line of tanks in Tiananmen Square is just a waste of time,” she writes in the book.
“If everyone who had quiet anxiety and concerns about fracking acted upon their values, we could stop it,” Steingraber said in an interview. “But it’s this advanced fatalism that I find most frustrating. It’s harder for me to deal with than the arguments of the oil and gas industry. I’m happy to debate the oil and gas industry anytime, anywhere. And if we’re having a fair and honest debate on the evidence, I always feel like I’ve won the argument.”
Working to Get Everyone on Board
Steingraber is particularly troubled by the so-called realism when it is practiced by the big environmental groups who then provide political cover for the natural gas industry. For example, Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune revealed in a February 2012 interview with Time magazine that from 2007 to 2010 the Sierra Club had accepted $26 million from Chesapeake Energy Chairman and CEO Aubrey McClendon and other people associated with the natural gas producer.
Steingraber wrote a letter denouncing the Sierra Club for its decision to accept millions of dollars from the gas industry. In the letter, posted on the Orion Magazine website on March 23, 2012, Steingraber said she would be removing the Sierra Club’s endorsement—the group in 1999 called her “the new Rachel Carson”—from her website.
The Sierra Club’s response to her letter failed to placate Steingraber. “There has been no acknowledgement that in the years in which they were doing the bidding of the oil and gas industry that they provided political cover, including hoodwinking people like me,” she said in an interview.
Steingraber lives in Tompkins County, New York, where 40 percent of the land has been leased to natural gas drillers. She is angry at how the leasing was conducted in a hush-hush manner at a time when the big green groups were actively endorsing natural gas production. “How did I not know that?” she asks about the leasing activity. “To get to all the people who own 40 percent of the land and to get them to sign contracts, all kinds of house visits and phone calls had to happen when the Sierra Club was on the payroll.”
The messaging that people were hearing from the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council and Environmental Defense Fund was that natural gas is cleaner-burning than coal and would serve as the perfect bridge fuel to a sustainable energy future. At the time, when landmen were working overtime buying up leases across New York, the Sierra Club and the other big green groups failed to warn people about the dangers of the extraction process and the related activities that go along with natural gas drilling.
After Brune told Time magazine about the payments from the natural gas industry, Steingraber said she wanted to wait and see how the organization would react to the disclosure. Would they clean house and reorganize? After six weeks of waiting, she realized the organization would not be making any substantive changes. That’s when she decided to write her letter blasting the group.
“Any board member who had anything to do with it should resign,” Steingraber said. “Then there are reparations that need to happen. The Sierra Club helped to put the wheels of fracking in motion. And now people are hurt. People have poisoned water.”
Given the gas industry’s toxic track record and the fact the industry is gearing up to begin extracting natural gas in her community, Steingraber decided to devote a chapter of Raising Elijah to fracking and how it negatively impacts public health and the environment.
“The proposal to shatter the shale bedrock of our rural county and extract from it natural gas reveals the abandonment” of the precautionary principle, she writes in the book.
“I felt like I had to include a chapter on fracking in the book. It became the capstone final chapter, which I hope encapsulates all of the previous problems that I wrote about in the first nine chapters,” Steingraber said, adding that she is currently working on a book devoted entirely to fracking.
Refusing to Remain Silent
When she began researching and writing Raising Elijah four years ago, Steingraber said she did not aim to write about fracking. It was her intention to summarize for parents the state of the evidence on environmental health threats to pediatric development, from point of conception through and including puberty.
However, gradually she began to see fracking as the largest threat to children in the region of New York where she lives with her husband, Jeff de Castro, and her two children, Faith and Elijah. The younger of the two, Elijah, was named after Elijah Lovejoy, an abolitionist writer from Alton, Illinois, just down the river from where Steingraber grew up.
In her research, Steingraber learned that Lovejoy remained calm in his published writings about slave owners and their supporters. Lovejoy saved his fierce language for the citizens of Illinois who sought to remain above the fray, ignoring the evils of slavery. Lovejoy’s fellow residents in Alton volunteered to sign a resolution asking him to cease publication and leave town but would not sign a resolution that urged protection against mob rule. These people were “the ones who believed themselves upstandingly moral but who chose to remain silent about the great moral crisis of the day,” she said.
In November 1837, Lovejoy, 35, was killed by a mob, shot to death over his anti-slavery views. If his fellow citizens who opposed slavery had stood up to defend him and speak out against slavery, Lovejoy almost certainly would not have been killed. And if all of the Americans who chose to remain silent for so many years had decided to fight for what was right, slavery would have ended much earlier.
The same is true for protecting public health and the environment. Because of the significance of what is at stake, Steingraber views the anti-fracking movement as part of a long, noble history. But for the movement to be successful, people need to recognize that silence is complicity.
Steingraber, who earned a doctorate in biology from the University of Michigan, has studied the practice of hydraulic fracturing and its impact on humans and the environment. At a public health conference, she explained that fracking is a form of fossil fuel extraction that turns the earth inside out. It buries a surface resource that is vital to life—fresh water—and brings to the surface subterranean substances—hydrocarbons, radioactive materials, heavy metals, brine—that were once locked away in deep geological strata and now require permanent containment, she said.
“Before it is sent down the borehole, the fresh water used to fracture bedrock is mixed with inherently toxic materials. These include known and suspected carcinogens, neurological toxicants, and chemicals linked to pregnancy loss,” she explained. “At least one thousand truck trips are required to frack a single well. These trucks—along with earth-moving equipment, compressors, and condensers—release or create soot, volatile organic compounds, and ozone. Exposure to this kind of air pollution has demonstrable links to asthma, stroke, heart attack, cancers and preterm birth.”
Not only are natural gas producers using highly toxic substances to pull the methane out of shale gas formations deep below the earth’s surface, the gas getting extracted is being used as a feedstock for highly toxic chemicals. The widespread use of fracking is creating an abundant and cheaper feedstock to create these toxic chemicals. For many years, Steingraber worked for chemical reform and changing the nation’s laws that govern the production, use and disposal of toxic chemicals. But with fracking, she believes a new approach is needed.
“It really makes no sense for me to keep talking about how we need chemical reform when we keep blasting out of the ground more and more of the feedstock that makes that stuff,” she said.
One Battle at a Time
Steingraber, who also authored the acclaimed book Living Downstream: An Ecologist’s Personal Investigation of Cancer and the Environment and is featured in a 2010 documentary of the same title, understands first-hand what is at stake for public health in the fracking wars. She is a cancer survivor. She was diagnosed with bladder cancer more than three decades ago, at the age of 20. It is the most expensive kind of cancer because people can live a long life with it, but it tends to recur in the majority of patients. “It’s the cancer most likely to recur of all human cancers,” Steingraber said. “That means you live a really highly medical life forever and I’m also considered at high risk for other kinds of cancers. The medical surveillance that I’m under is intense.”
Steingraber isn’t the only cancer survivor in her immediate family. Her mother was diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer when Steingraber was 15 years old. Her mother, who was told at the time that she had only months to live, is still alive and at 82 has outlived most of her doctors. “Her main message to me is don’t let them bury you until you are dead,” she said.
Looking back at World War II and her father’s fight against Nazi Germany, Steingraber recites a portion of the speech given by British Prime Minister Winston Churchill before the House of Commons and how it informs her battle with cancer and applies to the anti-fracking movement. “We shall defend our island whatever the cost may be; we shall fight on beaches, landing grounds, in fields, in streets and on the hills. We shall never surrender,” Churchill said in the June 1940 speech.
“You just take it one battle at a time,” Steingraber said. “You bring the sort of Churchillian determination to every biopsy and you keep fighting.”
To aid in the fight against fracking, Steingraber made the decision to donate a significant portion of the $100,000 she received as a winner of the Heinz Award to help prevent fracking in New York.
Established by Teresa Heinz in 1993 to honor the memory of her late husband, U.S. Senator John Heinz, the awards recognize outstanding individuals for their contributions in the areas of the environment, arts and humanities, human condition, public policy, and technology, the economy and employment.
The Heinz Family Foundation selected Steingraber for the award for successfully bringing a human rights approach to the environmental crisis. “Dr. Steingraber urges governments to adopt policies that safeguard the healthy development of children and the abiding ecological systems on which their lives depend,” the Heinz Family Foundation said in its profile of the award recipients. “Dr. Steingraber has deployed her rare combination of abilities as a lyrical writer, disciplined scientist and passionate advocate to the pursuit of a healthier world for us all, saying, ‘What we love we must protect.’”
Steingraber said the timing of the award announcement influenced the outcome of her decision to use the money to fight fracking. When she received the telephone call from Teresa Heinz letting her know that she had won the award, Steingraber was on a research trip in the western U.S. studying the impact of fracking.
“I was in Salt Lake City when I got the phone call and it just happened that Tim DeChristopher, the activist who successfully disrupted the leasing of public land in southern Utah for the oil and gas industry, was being sentenced,” she said. “I was shocked that he got two years in prison. I was shocked that he was led away in chains.”
Resistance and Moral Obligations
Steingraber said DeChristopher’s speech at his sentencing hearing deeply moved her. “He looked at the judge and said, ‘This is what love looks like,’” she said. “The rest of his speech was all about our moral obligation at this moment in history to do whatever we can to the best of our ability to stop forms of resource extraction that are eliminating the future for young people. Here he was a young man going to prison acknowledging that this is taking away his future plans, but the point was he had no future anyway because of the oil and gas industry.”
So when she received the phone call from Teresa Heinz and realized she had a cash prize of $100,000 with no restrictions, Steingraber said “it seemed that I was called by Tim DeChristopher himself and his message to do everything I could to stop, to resist fracking.”
“I didn’t want to use the money to study fracking. I wanted to use it to stop fracking,” she said. DeChristopher is scheduled to exit federal incarceration on April 21.
In early 2012, Steingraber announced she would be providing the seed money for the formation of a statewide coalition called New Yorkers Against Fracking. Joining Steingraber as honorary advisory committee members were Niagara native, former Love Canal resident and founder of Center for Health, Environment and Justice Lois Gibbs and anti-fracking advocate and upstate resident and actor Mark Ruffalo.
Steingraber said her decision to donate a significant portion of the Heinz Award represents the reverse of what the oil and gas industry does. Oil and gas companies “come in and cut checks that they give to people in exchange for their compliance and silence,” she said. “I’m going to write a big check and push that into the community in exchange for resistance and speech.”
The $100,000 donation to New Yorkers Against Fracking represents less than what the oil and gas industry pays for a single television advertisement. “It’s nothing to them. It’s everything to me,” she said. “But because it’s everything to me, the gesture might have the power to inspire and embolden others to join this fight.”
After publicly announcing that she would give the money to fight fracking, Steingraber delivered a speech to a group of residents in upstate New York who were beginning the process of investigating ways to impose a moratorium or ban on fracking in their community. The man who was leading the effort told Steingraber that her decision to donate her money to the anti-fracking movement inspired him to take action.
“That’s exactly as I had hoped. It would be something that would counteract this resistance-is-futile message that they are getting from the oil and gas industry,” she said.
Experienced political strategists and coalition builders will run the group, but New Yorkers Against Fracking will not be an attempt to orchestrate the anti-fracking movement. “It’s going to serve as a megaphone and spotlight for the movement so that it makes the messaging more visible,” she said.
According to Steingraber, the environmental problems caused by fracking are first and foremost creating a crisis of family life because they prevent parents from protecting their children against things that are harmful. Her job as a parent has been “sabotaged” by a government that has failed to provide the necessary protection to allow for healthy child development, she said.
Steingraber emphasized that she and her family live a modest life in a small town in update New York. They live in a 1,000-square-foot house. Her 10-year-old son, Elijah, shares a bedroom with Steingraber and her husband. He really needs his own room at this point in his life, she said.
The $100,000 cash award could have gone toward upgrading her home or helping to pay her medical bills as a cancer survivor. “But am I really going to use the money to put an addition on my house when they’re about to blow the bedrock up underneath?” Steingraber asked. “It seemed to me that the best investment I could make with this money was to devote it to protecting the air, food and water of my little family.”
This article has been updated from a Press Action post from April 2012.
Visit EcoWatch’s FRACKING page for more related news on this topic.
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
The record-breaking heat in the Arctic saw temperatures soar above 100 degrees for the first time in recorded history. Now, a new analysis has put to rest any notion that the heat was caused by natural temperature fluctuations.
- A Siberian Town Just Hit 100 F Degrees - EcoWatch ›
- Wildfires Are Burning 5 Million Acres in Siberia and Eastern Russia ... ›
- Siberian Forest Fires Increase Fivefold in Week Since Record High ... ›
- The Arctic Is on Fire and Warming Twice as Fast as the Rest of the ... ›
By Taison Bell
"Hospital Capacity Crosses Tipping Point in U.S. Coronavirus Hot Spots" – Wall Street Journal
This is a headline I hoped to not see again after the number of coronavirus infections had finally started to decline in the Northeast and Pacific Northwest. However, the pandemic has now shifted to the South and the West – with Arizona, Florida, California and Texas as hot spots.
Hard-Hit States Quickly Learned Value of Masks<p>As a respiratory virus, SARS-CoV-2 is transmitted mainly through droplets that leave the mouth and nose as a person talks, sneezes, coughs or exhales. It thrives in environments where there are lots of people in enclosed spaces – <a href="https://theconversation.com/aerosols-are-a-bigger-coronavirus-threat-than-who-guidelines-suggest-heres-what-you-need-to-know-142233" target="_blank">especially if they are laughing, talking, singing</a> or otherwise coming into close contact. It thrives physically in the same settings where we thrive socially.</p><p>This is why the early hard-hit areas were able to crush the curve by closing businesses and implementing stay-at-home orders. Without significant close human interaction, the coronavirus couldn't spread.</p><p>While other states are now seeing hospitals fill with COVID-19 patients, most of the Northeast is maintaining control of community spread as its economies reopen. The difference reflects, at least in part, each state's behavior expectations and the willingness of residents to keep up safety precautions like wearing masks, avoiding large crowds, maintaining social distance of at least six feet and staying isolated when they are ill or may have been exposed to the virus.</p>
How Rhode Island's Daily COVID-19 Case Numbers Fell<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzQ2MTAwOS9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyNDE1MDUxMH0.Ce8r6qCwhkJm8D8vUnTl5CblhFPXj_eBIlYqJ5yobqE/img.png?width=980" id="32ce3" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="f15da39d4dab6393216510dbed678840" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" /><p>Northeastern states now <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/26/politics/maskwearing-coronavirus-analysis/index.html" target="_blank">lead the nation</a> in mask-wearing and adherence to other best practices. An <a href="https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/06/26/which-part-of-the-u-s-leads-the-country-in-mask-wearing/" target="_blank">Axios/Ipsos poll</a> showed that in states with high mask use, virus circulation is at <a href="https://www.inquirer.com/health/coronavirus/covid-19-coronavirus-face-masks-infection-rates-20200624.html" target="_blank">lower levels compared to states with less mask use</a>. Studies on the <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-020-0908-8" target="_blank">effects of how quickly coronavirus restrictions have been lifted</a> around the world have found that slow, careful strategies have led to fewer illnesses and deaths during reopening.</p><p>In many parts of the Northeast, the months of illnesses, deaths and the struggle to turn the COVID-19 tide are still <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/06/23/most-americans-say-they-regularly-wore-a-mask-in-stores-in-the-past-month-fewer-see-others-doing-it/" target="_blank">fresh in people's minds</a>. The progress isn't uniform, however. <a href="https://gothamist.com/news/coronavirus-cases-among-20-somethings-nyc-rise-prompting-de-blasio-issue-new-mask-guidance" target="_blank">New York City's mayor has expressed concern</a> about an uptick in positive cases among people in their 20s.</p>
The Problems of a Political Divide<p>Elsewhere in the country, the current surge in COVID-19 cases <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-surges-of-the-coronavirus-across-the-nation-could-force-more-shutdowns/2020/06/12/e6985b94-acd9-11ea-a9d9-a81c1a491c52_story.html" target="_blank">began to pick up after Memorial Day weekend</a>, when people in several states that hadn't seen the same toll from the pandemic let their guard down. <a href="https://theconversation.com/covid-19-messes-with-texas-what-went-wrong-and-what-other-states-can-learn-as-younger-people-get-sick-141563" target="_blank">Video and pictures</a> showed parties, barbecues, crowded beaches and political rallies – all with very little social distancing or mask-wearing – giving more fuel for the coronavirus to spread.</p><p>Despite the overwhelming evidence for what we should be doing, following the advice of public health experts has also, sadly, become politicized. Depending on the news sources people listen to, they might hear warnings from health officials being taken seriously or being dismissed by pundits and politicians.</p><p>A <a href="https://www.axios.com/axios-ipsos-poll-coronavirus-index-15-weeks-e4eb53cc-9bc8-4cac-8285-07e5e5ef6b2b.html" target="_blank">recent national poll</a> shows that Democrats report consistently wearing a mask 68% of the time, while Republicans reported doing the same only 34% of the time. The national conversation has devolved into a false dichotomy: Either you're on the side of prioritizing safety or you're on the side of personal freedom and opening the economy.</p><p>In reality, the two should be partners, as these preventative measures are the best tools we have to reach our common goals of reopening businesses and schools safely. It's the same reason we stop at stoplights and go through metal detectors at the airport – we make a small sacrifice for the greater public good.</p><p>For the foreseeable future, Americans will have to collectively agree to live life a little differently. Until we can all agree on this, the coronavirus will continue to have the upper hand, and our health and wealth will suffer.</p>
- Environmental Groups Balk as Trump Proposes Major Rollback of ›
- 'Another Blow to the Black Community': Trump Waives ... ›
- Trump to Exclude Climate Crisis Impacts From Infrastructure Planning ›
- Environmental Racism in Action: The Trump Administration's Plans ... ›
By Zahida Sherman
Cooking has always intimidated me. As a child, I would anxiously peer into the kitchen as my mother prepared Christmas dinner for our family.
Falling in Love With Food All Over Again<p>Slowly, through my most intimate relationships with friends and partners, I began to see the beauty — and rewards — of cooking.</p><p>I got tired of giving in to defeat and always bringing chips or paper products to social gatherings. I started asking my mom to send me her Christmas and Thanksgiving recipes. I even volunteered to host Thanksgiving dinner at my place.</p><p>Each time I heard my loved ones sing the praises of the foods I prepared for them, I felt a tinge more confident that I could carry out our traditions my way.</p><p>In reaching out to other relatives for their favorite recipes, I learned that they had a little help of their own. They didn't rely solely on their ancestral cooking instincts. They turned to Black chefs for guidance.</p><p>These 7 cookbooks by Black chefs have inspired my family and fed us in nutrients, joy, and spiritual sustenance. They're also helping me overcome my personal fears of cooking.</p>
Get CookingWhether you're in recovery from cooking fears like me, or are just looking to expand your culinary confidence with dishes honoring Black heritage, these Black chefs are here to support you on your journey.Turn on some music, give yourself permission to make mistakes, and throw down for yourself or your loved ones. Glorious flavors await you.
- 18 Cookbooks for Building a Diverse and Just Food System ... ›
- 19 Individuals and Groups Building Stronger Black Communities ... ›
- 8 Cookbooks We're Reading This Fall - EcoWatch ›
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has expanded its list of potentially toxic hand sanitizers to avoid because they could be contaminated with methanol.
- Here's How to Clean Your Groceries During the COVID-19 Outbreak ... ›
- Why Hand-Washing Really Is as Important as Doctors Say - EcoWatch ›
- If You're Worried About the New Coronavirus, Here's How to Protect ... ›
- Vodka Won't Protect You From Coronavirus, and 4 Other Things to ... ›
By Tara Lohan
The conclusion to decades of work to remove a dam on the Middle Fork Nooksack River east of Bellingham, Washington began with a bang yesterday as crews breached the dam with a carefully planned detonation. This explosive denouement is also a beginning.
The History<p>The Middle Fork Nooksack drains glacier-fed headwater streams that run off the icy summit of 10,778-foot Mt. Baker. The Middle Fork joins the North Fork and then the mainstem of the Nooksack River, which travels to Bellingham Bay and Puget Sound. The entire Nooksack watershed stretches 830 square miles across Washington and into British Columbia.</p>
A Plan Comes Together<p>The Middle Fork dam is not a pool dam built for water storage. Much of the time, water flows over the top until dam operators drop a floodgate to divert water to new locations. That water travels about 14 miles through tunnel and pipeline to Mirror Lake, then Anderson Creek, and to Lake Whatcom before finally being delivered to residents' taps.</p><p>Before removing the dam, engineers had to move the water intake 700 feet upstream and situate it at an elevation that still enabled city water withdrawals throughout the year, regardless of flow conditions.</p><p>They also needed to make sure that the rushing water didn't sweep up fish and accidentally send them through the water-supply system.</p><p>"The solution required a fairly complex design in the intake structure, including a fish exit pipe out of that structure to put fish back into the river in a way that meets current environmental permit standards," explains LaCroix.</p>
Project layout for the removal of the Middle Fork Nooksack diversion dam and rebuilding of water intake. City of Bellingham<p>Despite the cost and the work, she says, being able to continue to meet their municipal water obligations while opening up habitat for threatened species has been a win-win.</p><p>"I think there's a lot of benefits to having a dam removal versus fish passage — the main one being that you get a free-flowing river that can be a dynamic ecosystem and change over time," she says. "A static fish ladder just can't provide that same level of ecosystem benefit."</p>
Restoration Success<p>Despite local authorities' championing dam removal on the Middle Fork, the project has largely flown under the radar, overshadowed in the Pacific Northwest by heated discussions about a much larger potential project — removing <a href="https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/feds-reject-removal-of-4-snake-river-dams-in-key-report/" target="_blank">four federal hydroelectric dams on the lower Snake River</a>, a major tributary of the Columbia River.</p><p>Proponents of dam removal there see it as the best chance for recovering threatened salmon populations, including Chinook, which could help starving Southern Resident killer whales. Those dams also provide irrigation water, barge navigation and hydropower, so there's been more pushback against removal efforts.</p><p>Previous dam removals around the country, however, have proved successful at aiding fish recovery and river restoration.</p><p>Most notably the 1999 demolition of <a href="https://therevelator.org/edwards-dam-removal/" target="_blank">Edwards Dam on Maine's Kennebec River</a> restored the annual run of alewives, a type of herring essential to the food web. The fish run has gone from zero to 5 million in the two decades since dam removal. Blueback herring, striped bass, sturgeon and shad have also extended their reach. And the resurgence has brought back osprey, bald eagles and other wildlife, too.</p><p>The overwhelming success of river restoration on the Kennebec helped to spur a nationwide dam removal movement that's now seen 1,200 dams come down since 1999. Last year a record <a href="https://www.americanrivers.org/conservation-resource/a-record-26-states-removed-dams-in-2019/" target="_blank">90 dams</a> were removed in 26 states, including <a href="https://therevelator.org/cleveland-forest-dam-removal/" target="_blank">20 dams in California's Cleveland National Forest</a>.</p>
Spider excavators remove on dam on San Juan Creek in California's Cleveland National Forest. Julie Donnell, USFS<p>The results have been seen in the Pacific Northwest, as well, which boasts the largest dam removal thus far in the country. In 2011 and 2014, the demolition of <a href="https://therevelator.org/elwha-dam-removal/" target="_blank">two dams</a> on Elwha River, which runs through Washington's Olympic National Park, opened up 70 miles of habitat that had been blocked for a century. Scientists have started seeing all five species of salmon native to the river coming back, particularly Chinook and coho. Bull trout, they've observed, have increased in size since the dams were removal.</p>
Benefits on the Middle Fork Nooksack<p>McEwan hopes to see a similar outcome on the Middle Fork.</p><p>Like the Elwha the Middle Fork Nooksack is a relatively pristine river with little development, and dam removal is expected to provide a big boost to fish. The additional miles of spawning habitat are important, but so is the temperature of that water.</p><p>The dam removal will open access to cold upstream waters, which are ideal for salmon and getting harder to come by as climate change warms waters and reduces mountain runoff.</p><p>"This is really great for the climate change resiliency for these species," says McEwan.</p><p>Steelhead will get back 45% of their historic habitat in the river, and scientists expect Chinook populations to increase in abundance by 31%.</p><p>That <em>could</em> help Southern Resident killer whales.</p><p>"When you get to the ocean, it's a little bit of a black box in terms of what you can model and say definitively is going to help, but more fish is better for orcas," McEwan says.</p><p>Upstream habitat will see benefits, too.</p><p>Oceangoing fish like salmon enrich their bodies with carbon and nitrogen while at sea. When they return to their natal rivers to spawn and die, the marine-derived nutrients they carry back upriver become important food and fertilizer for both riverine and terrestrial ecosystems — aiding everything from trees to birds to bears.</p><p>"Once the fish start making their way back, it will start changing the whole ecological system," says Delgado.</p><p><span></span>But any ecological benefit from salmon restoration, either in the ocean or the upper watershed, won't be immediate.<br></p><p>"The population of salmon on the Middle Fork is so low that we expect it's going to take quite a while to rebound," she says. "But the big picture is that what's good for salmon is good for the region — our history and our destiny are intricately intertwined."</p><p>After decades of work, that process of restoration has finally begun.</p>
- 4 Exciting Dam-Removal Projects to Watch - EcoWatch ›
- Jump-Starting the Dam Removal Movement in the U.S. - EcoWatch ›
- Boom: Removing 81 Dams Is Transforming This California Watershed ›
- Sea Level Rise Is Speeding up Along Most of the U.S. Coast ... ›
- Protecting Mangroves Can Prevent Billions of Dollars in Global ... ›
- Flooding Risk for U.S. Homes: Millions More Are Vulnerable Than ... ›
- 300 Million People Worldwide Could Suffer Yearly Flooding by 2050 ... ›
- Sea Level Rise Could Put 2.4 Million U.S. Coastal Homes at Risk ... ›