Jump-Starting the Dam Removal Movement in the U.S.
By Katy Neusteter
New eras often start with a bang. That was the case in September when explosives blasted a hole in a concrete dam that had barricaded Maryland's Patapsco River for more than 110 years.
Like so many defunct and outdated dams in the United States, Bloede Dam's impact on the Patapsco far outweighed its usefulness. Bloede produced electricity for less than 20 years. By then, so much sand and rock clogged its turbines that the dam became impossibly expensive to maintain. Instead, the power company shut it down. But for more than 100 years, Bloede stood as a monolith, blocking migrating fish, costing taxpayers millions in upkeep and drowning at least 10 people who couldn't escape the underwater whirlpool at its foot.
Excavators are currently removing Bloede's last vestiges. Soon, native shad, alewives and herring will migrate from the Chesapeake Bay to the shoals where their ancestors have spawned for millennia. Boaters and swimmers will reconnect with their local river. The Patapsco River will come alive and boost the entire Chesapeake Bay ecosystem.
Removing unused dams, like Bloede, is one of the most important things we can do for rivers and the ecosystems they support.
"Think of rivers as the veins and arteries of our country," said Bob Irvin, president and CEO of American Rivers, a national river conservation organization, which also employs this writer. "Just like in our bodies, our veins and arteries work best when they are free and clear of obstructions."
A free-flowing river supports abundant fish and wildlife and provides intangible benefits, such as a place to rest and reflect. Rivers also supply two-thirds of Americans' drinking water. While dams can provide benefits in the form of hydroelectricity and water storage, they can also be ecologically disastrous. In addition to blocking fish migrations, human-made structures can destroy seasonal pulses of water that keep ecosystems working properly. Some dams—especially those used for power—can withdraw all the water from streams, leaving entire stretches of river bone dry.
But here's the thing: Dams aren't built to last forever. Most have a lifespan of just 50 years (by 2020, 70 percent of our nation's dams will be over 50 years old). The cost of repairing and maintaining these obsolete structures can be significant—even more expensive than removing the dams altogether. In cases like Bloede's, removal can be the preferred option for a dam owner burdened with a crumbling structure.
"Dams are not like the pyramids of Egypt that stand for eternity," said former Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, in 1998. "They are instruments that should be judged by the health of the rivers to which they belong."
Babbitt himself was at the riverside celebration 20 years ago, when Maine's Kennebec River ran free for the first time in 162 years with the removal of Edwards Dam. It was the first time the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission—which licenses dams—ordered a dam to be removed because the environmental costs outweighed the economic benefits. This decision was the result of years of advocacy by conservation and environmental organizations. We at American Rivers pushed the agency to use an existing law that requires equal consideration of power and non-power values—and it worked. Today, the Kennebec River has the largest run of alewives and river herring on the eastern seaboard.
Freeing the Kennebec jump-started a dam removal movement in the U.S. Since then, American Rivers has undertaken hundreds of dam removals, and is working with partners to strengthen and advance the river restoration movement.
"Lawmakers and conservationists used to see removal as a radical, pie-in-the-sky idea," said American Rivers' Director of River Restoration Serena McClain, who has assisted in the removal of dozens of dams. "We've proven that it's a viable, cost-effective solution that can bring significant benefits to the environment, community and economy."
The dam removal movement continues to grow stronger, seeing a record year in 2017: Communities, nonprofits and government agencies tore down 86 dams out of rivers nationwide, bringing the total number of dams removed from U.S. rivers to approximately 1,500. More than 85 percent of these came down in the past 30 years. There is also a growing call for more dams to be removed internationally.
"Our vision is to have rivers full of fish," said Herman Wanningen of the World Fish Migration Foundation, an organization based in the Netherlands that works to protect fish populations and free-flowing rivers. "There are great examples around the world where the environment is healthier because rivers were set free. We want to share these inspiring stories and show that dam removal is a viable option."
Looking ahead, the biggest dam removal in Europe's history will restore more than 2,050 miles of free-flowing rivers in Estonia. In the U.S., plans are underway to tear down four dams on the Klamath River in Oregon and California. Demolition could begin as soon as 2020 and will restore 300 miles of habitat for salmon. In Washington State, American Rivers and partners are working to remove a dam on the Middle Fork Nooksack River that, once removed, will boost salmon populations and benefit the entire web of life, including imperiled orca whales, in Puget Sound.
"With dam removal, it's not about what we're taking away," McClain said. "It's what we're gaining. This is about getting people to embrace the power and potential of a natural river. Free-flowing rivers will give us so much if we just give them the chance."
For advocates of healthy rivers, there is much more work to do. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers estimates that at least 90,000 dams block U.S. rivers and streams. Many are obsolete or unsafe. Moreover, each dam removal project requires costly and time-consuming studies, engineering, permits and planning. River advocates also continue to have to fight new dams proposed for hydropower and water supply. American Rivers and its partners recently stopped dam proposals on Washington State's South Fork Skykomish and Colorado's Maroon and Castle creeks, for instance.
"Not every dam will be removed," Irvin said. "But the old mindset that the best use of a river is to shackle and harness it, to control it, is over. Now we understand the many benefits of healthy, free-flowing rivers. It's a simple but radical idea that the best use of a river could be to let it flow freely."
"In most cases, a dam is no longer the best solution for power, water or flood protection," Irvin added. "Today, there are better, more reliable, more cost-effective alternatives."
For example, restoring the low-lying areas—or floodplains—around rivers gives our waterways room to spread out. Healthy floodplains provide vital habitat for fish and wildlife, help rivers accommodate floodwaters caused by more frequent and intense storms, and—in concert with limiting development in areas prone to flooding—help shore up some communities' resilience in the era of climate change.
As we celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Edwards Dam removal in 2019, the nation's river conservation movement is thriving and growing every day.
Citizens can help. Become informed about which dams in your area serve their intended purpose and which ones don't. Get involved in river conservation by connecting with your local river group. Make your voice heard in input sessions about proposals to build new dams and relicense existing dams. Spend time getting to know your local river or stream. Lastly, take heart: No dam is built to last forever. But rivers will endure.
Katy Neusteter is the senior writer at American Rivers. Her writing has appeared in Outside, Wired and The Denver Post.
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
As protests are taking place across our nation in response to the killing of George Floyd, we want to acknowledge the importance of this protest and the Black Lives Matter movement. Over the years, we've aimed to be sensitive and prioritize stories that highlight the intersection between racial and environmental injustice. From our years of covering the environment, we know that too often marginalized communities around the world are disproportionately affected by environmental crises.
- Lead Poisoning Reveals Environmental Racism in the US - EcoWatch ›
- First-of-Its-Kind Study Finds Racial Gap Between Who Causes Air ... ›
- Pollution, Race and the Search for Justice - EcoWatch ›
By Peter Beech
Using waste food to farm insects as fish food and high-tech real-time water quality monitoring: innovations that could help change global aquaculture, were showcased at the World Economic Forum's Virtual Ocean Dialogues 2020.
Fly fishing. nextProtein
BiOceanOr's AquaREAL system. BiOceanOr
- Environmental Innovation Will Transform Business as Usual ... ›
- How an Army of Ocean Farmers Is Starting an Economic Revolution ... ›
The big three broadcast channels failed to cover the disproportionate impacts of extreme weather on low-income communities or communities of color during their primetime coverage of seven hurricanes and one tropical storm over three years, a Media Matters for America analysis revealed.
Researchers at the pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly announced yesterday that it will start a trial on a new drug designed specifically for COVID-19, a milestone in the race to stop the infectious disease, according to STAT News.
- Dogs Can Smell COVID-19 - EcoWatch ›
- Drugs Touted by Trump for COVID-19 Increase Heart Risks, Studies ... ›
- Coronavirus Vaccine Candidate Shows Promise in Mice - EcoWatch ›
The sixth mass extinction is here, and it's speeding up.
Terrestrial vertebrates on the brink (i.e., with 1,000 or fewer individuals) include species such as (A) Sumatran rhino (Dicerorhinus sumatrensis; image credit: Rhett A. Butler [photographer]), (B) Clarion island wren (Troglodytes tanneri; image credit: Claudio Contreras Koob [photographer]), (C) Española Giant Tortoise (Chelonoidis hoodensis; image credit: G.C.), and (D) Harlequin frog (Atelopus varius; the population size of the species is unknown but it is estimated at less than 1,000; image credit: G.C.).
- Humanity 'Sleepwalking Towards the Edge of a Cliff': 60% of Earth's ... ›
- New Border Wall Construction Threatens 8 Species With Extinction ... ›
- The Insect Apocalypse Is Coming: Here Are 5 Lessons We Must Learn ›
By Cathy Cassata
With more than 1.7 million confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the United States and more than 100,000 deaths from the virus, physicians face unprecedented challenges in their efforts to keep Americans safe.
They also encounter what some call an "infodemic," an outbreak of misinformation that's making it more difficult to treat patients.
When Leaders and Doctors Spread Misinformation<p>When people in charge of towns, cities, states, and countries spread misinformation, the potential for belief in misinformation to result in policies can have harmful effects.</p><p><a href="https://www.northwell.edu/find-care/find-a-doctor?q=Bruce+E.+Hirsch%2C+MD&insurance=&location=&query_type=provider&physician_partners=false&default_view=list&gender=&language=&sort=relevancy" target="_blank">Dr. Bruce E. Hirsch</a>, attending physician and assistant professor in the infectious disease division of Northwell Health in Manhasset, New York, says an example of this is when President Trump informed the public he was taking hydroxychloroquine as a preventive measure.</p><p>"To approach this enormous challenge, we need some intellectual honesty and clarity, and to disregard expertise and to make decisions and model decisions based on hunches is inviting us to handle challenges on the basis of rumor and uninformed opinion. The magnitude of that error is epic," Hirsch told Healthline.</p><p>Stukus agrees, noting that the harm of this proclamation is documented.</p><p>"Early on when the president touted the benefits of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, people started to hoard this medicine, and state boards had to shut it down because they were getting so many prescriptions for this unproven therapy that it was not available for those who truly needed it, such as those who have lupus and autoimmune conditions," Stukus said.</p><p>He adds that calls to poison control centers increased after the president suggested using disinfectant to prevent contracting the new coronavirus.</p>
Listen to Science, Even When it Changes<p>When recommendations change or evidence flip-flops, skepticism may arise. However, Stukus says change is the beauty of science.</p><p>"That shows us that we can evolve, and if the evidence shows that our prior thoughts were incorrect, we need to be able to change our recommendations and advice based upon the best quality of evidence at the time," he said.</p><p>Pierre agrees.</p><p>"Science is an iterative process, whereby we arrive at facts and truth through repeated and controlled observations. That means that it's inherently self-correcting as we revise conclusions based on ongoing research. Scientific facts aren't immutable dogma chiseled on a tablet. They change based on the best available evidence we have at a given point in time," he said.</p><p>Because research of COVID-19 has only been underway for 6 months, information is evolving rapidly, and new information may contradict old.</p><p>"There's still much we don't know about exactly how [COVID-19] spreads, what effects it has on the body, or how to best treat it. That means that the best available evidence is preliminary, but that doesn't mean that we should ignore it or turn to other sources of information or opinion as if they're just as valid," Pierre said.</p><p>He explains that conspiracy theories based on mistrust lead to vulnerability to misinformation.</p><p>If people mistrust science because it sometimes "changes its mind," Pierre said, "that shouldn't be used to embrace other opinions based on no evidence at all, which are typically selected based on confirmation bias: what we want to believe rather than what the objective evidence supports."</p>
Where to Find the Best Information<p>Stukus says to start with the <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nCoV/index.html" target="_blank">CDC</a> and <a href="https://www.nih.gov/health-information/coronavirus" target="_blank">NIH</a>. Then check with your local health officials, because COVID-19 guidelines may vary depending on where you live.</p><p>If you can't find information you need or have questions specifically related to you, call your primary care doctor.</p><p>"Your personal doctor should always be a resource for individual specific questions because they know best how to apply all the nuances retaining to your health, and how to incorporate all the other general [COVID-19] recommendations," Stukus said.</p><p><a href="https://www.eehealth.org/find-a-doctor/b/boyd-laura-b/" target="_blank">Dr. Laura Boyd</a>, primary care physician at Edward-Elmhurst Health Center in Elmhurst, Illinois, says her clinic receives a lot of calls about COVID-19.</p><p>"Most doctors' offices are receiving calls and answering questions, and doing phone or video visits to help clarify and/or order testing over the phone based on patients' symptoms. It is always best to call your doctor's office first instead of worrying about symptoms and waiting too long to seek treatment," she told Healthline.</p><p>If your primary care doctor has limited testing, she suggests looking on your state's public health website for available testing sites.</p><p>With a lot of unknowns related to this virus and disease, Boyd says many patients are feeling overwhelmed and anxious for a treatment.</p><p>"Unfortunately, there is no specific medication recommended for COVID for outpatient. There are a lot of ongoing studies with various drugs going on within the hospital setting. Patients should always contact their doctors about their specific symptoms as they can treat the symptoms that go along with COVID, but there is no cure," Boyd said.</p><p>While we wait for treatment and a vaccine, Hirsch, who treats patients hospitalized for COVID-19 complications on a daily basis, says everyone can do their part by washing hands, wearing a mask, and staying 6 feet apart.</p><p>"As an infectious disease doctor working in the hospital, I see the damage of the pandemic and the worst cases of what's happening. We are trying to get the best possible outcome and confronting this overwhelming biologic reality of this terrible epidemic the best we can," Hirsch said.</p><p>Everyone at home can help in the fight too, he adds.</p><p>"Follow information that is science- and evidence-based, and avoid that which is not," he said.</p>
- WHO Declares Global Health Emergency as Coronavirus Cases ... ›
- Here's What We Know About Ibuprofen and COVID-19 - EcoWatch ›
- Trump's Budget Plan: A Push for Even Greater Environmental ... ›
- Trump Pushed for Mining Project That Could Destroy Alaska Salmon ... ›