If We Take Something Away, What Will We Add?

My search for the future role of dams in America led me to read about a wide variety of proposed solutions. While every political stance or scientific organization proposed different interpretations, they usually have good intentions driving them forward. We all want the U.S. to succeed, despite the political rhetoric heard today. The only differences hinge upon the methods used to get there. The devil is in the details, after all.

The last few decades of neglect have led dams to a dangerous crossroad. Our government will have to invest a substantial amount of money whether we repair or remove them. Choosing the correct direction for the country can be difficult to answer once the huge number of variables and people involved in the decision making process are added to the equation. The best method may be to look at the current statistics on dams, and see which path would be more economically favorable over the next century. With that in mind, I intend to make an economic analysis of a U.S. existing with and without dams.

 The National Inventory of Dams (NID) notes that the number of dams in the U.S. has increased  85,000+, but the federal government only regulates ~10,000 of those dams. The rest of the Nation's dam's safety programs falls onto the shoulders of each state. Many states do not have sufficient resources, be it funding or people, to conduct dam safety inspections, take appropriate enforcement actions, or to ensure proper construction.

Let's look at Texas, which only has only 7 engineers and an annual budget of $435,000 to regulate more than 7,400 dams. That means each inspector is responsible for more than 1,050 dams. Worse still, Alabama does not have a dam safety program despite the existence of more than 2,000 dams in the state. Shockingly some states dams are specifically exempted from inspection by state law. The task of designing policies and regulations at the state level is an enormous challenge to overcome. Statistics like this may fit as an over-arching trend, but we cannot fail to acknowledge the many instances where states have implemented clear goals for dam management and follow through with them:

 

While the total number of dams is increasing, the number of high hazard potential dams is also dramatically increasing with more than 3,300 new high hazard potential dams since 2007. Once past a dam's half-century lifespan, they begin to degenerate. Concrete walls degrade, sediment clogs reservoirs, earthworks seep, spillway gates rust and lose tensile strength, all reducing their capacity.

As maintenance and liability costs rise, economic returns drop. Many older dams are obsolete. Many others, including the Elwha and Glines Canyon dams, need upgrades such as fish passage structures that would cause the power they produce to soar above market prices. Because of growing pressure from conservation groups, fishermen, tribal councils, and state and federal agencies, more dams are now being considered for removal in the United States than are being built. Nearly 200 have been torn down in the past six years. Most were small, low or involved a single stretch of waterway. The Elwha project, however, aims to restore an entire river system.  

Where should our money be spent if we keep the dams?

• Develop emergency action plans for every high hazard dam
• Require active state dam safety programs with enough funding and staffing
• Establish a national funding programto help maintain and repair non-federally owned dams
• As a part of the National Flood Insurance Program include dam failure inundation mapping
• Encourage citizens to educate themselves on the location and condition of dams in their area

Elwha Dam aerial view circa popularmechanics.com

Some dams aren't worth the economic value of repairing, but tearing down their infrastructure doesn't come cheap either. The government invests quite a bit of time and energy into the projects they fund. 

Let's look at the Elwha Dam again since it functions as the perfect example. It took two decades of pestering politicians to start the dam removal efforts, but this wasn't due to poor planning by the scientists and experts. The most arduous hurdle for the world's biggest dam removal project was finding the $182.5 million needed to fund the project. They would have been able to start deconstruction within 5 years of the bill passing if the monetary investment had been made up front. 

With big money floating around on either side of the debate, the costs associated with the loss of hydropower and the removal of the dam needed to be compared against the benefits
with the restored salmon runs and the
recreational value of the restored watershed.

With the help of the 1996 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the 2005 Supplemental EIS, I put together these two tables to compare the market-based costs and benefits of the Elwha dam removal. The authors of this report incorporated long-term problems like flood protection for the Klallam Tribal land and water supply intakes to sewage treatment facilities into the overall economic model. I was happy to read their estimations concluded the total benefits over the next century following dam removal are almost two times the costs, grossing a $172.8 million in profit.

Washington State's decision to run market analysis' on different scenarios posed by scientists may be one of the best examples of collaboration I've seen between policy makers and ecologists. The post-dam removal monitoring and data gather will surely inspire this other states to adapt such a strategy when assessing the future of their large dams. The only slice of the puzzle disconcerting to myself would be the future energy costs for those in the Puget Sound. I couldn't find any conclusive data estimating the price of electricity once both dams are removed, but it will be interesting to see where Seattle compensates for the net loss in energy production.

Taking a step back and looking at the importance of hydroelectric power on a national scale, the argument certainly dose lose some steam. Less than 8% of the United States electricity comes from dams; meaning dam removal could become a viable solution long term if renewable energy sources sweep in and pick up the slack.

Dams are symbols of innovation, but their historic grandeur highlights modern America's unwillingness adapt. These two diametrically opposed facets of the American psyche need to be changed, if we want to have future where people consider dam removal a fascinating subject worthy of taking up space in their web of long-term memory neurons.