Climate change has a lot of people talking about "alternative" energy and water resources. Fine, say some people, let's built more dams for hydroelectric power and impound more surface water. But that's not what environmentalists have in mind at all.
It's a conundrum, and it's one I deal with in a story on dam removal that appears in Planning magazine's special edition on water. (Sorry, the story is available only to American Planning Association members.)
What I learned in reporting my story is that 273 dams have been removed in the United States since 1999. In general, these were small structures that were obsolete or unsafe. We recently reported in CP&DR on the removal of two of these dams from Alameda Creek near Fremont.
But what to do about larger dams that generate a decent amount of electricity and provide water for farms and cities? The dams might be bad for the health of the river's ecosystem, but we need the carbon-free electricity and the water, right?
This is a question that's bound to arise as California develops ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and as the state wrestles with a water shortage that seems to grow more acute every week.
I feel safe predicting that we won't build the Auburn Dam on the American River. It's a proposal that's too expensive ($3 billion? $6 billion?), too politically unpopular (the dam would flood a recreation that has more than 3 million visitors a year), and, well, too shaky (the dam would sit atop an earthquake fault).
But proposals to create an "off stream" reservoir in western Colusa County and build a dam on the San Joaquin River above Friant Dam are very much alive. It's possible that climate change concerns could aid the cause of dam advocates, which demonstrates that climate change is far more than a simple environmental cause.
– Paul Shigley
