'The Worst Dam Bill'

In a largely unreported move, Congressman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) introduced H.R. 6247, "The Protecting our Dams and New Hydropower and Jobs Act of 2012" in July of 2012.  This bill, quickly renamed "the worst dam bill" and the "Dangerous Dams Protection Act" by fisherman groups and environmental non-profits, seeks to halt dam removals and, thereby, increase protection for new hydropower and jobs.  Essentially, this bill, if passed, would strip locals of the ability to collaborate to come up with the local solutions to the various problems faced by aging and increasingly expensive dams.

River restoration on the Elwha River after dam removal.
Courtesy of Joel Rogers Photography.

The many dams in Central Washington produce
70% of Washington's hydroelectricity.
Courtesy of Columbia River History

Representative Hastings emphasizes that he introduced the bill in order to stop dam removal "under the guise of salmon recovery" because dams (aka cheap, clean energy) and salmon can co-exist peacefully. He also suggests that recent state and federal regulations have made hydroelectricity more expensive and less desirable.  Hence, Representative Hastings introduced this bill to define hydropower as a renewable source of energy, prevent tax dollars from being used to remove hydroelectric dams, and would ban the use of federal funds by organizations that sue the federal government to force dam removal.  Representative Hastings views this bill as necessary to save all dams from an onslaught of litigation and "extremism" from environmental groups seeking to eliminate dams that are essential to the livelihood of his constituents in Central Washington, which produces 70% of Washington's hydroelectricity.

Relevant to dam removal and salmon, the bill would prohibit federal funding from being used remove, breach or study the removal of dams unless authorized by Congress and also prevent federal funds from being used in river restoration where dams have been removed.  Further, it would prevent organizations that have participated in dam-removal related litigation against the federal government in the last ten years from receiving federal funds.  Finally, it would not allow power producers to let water bypass the turbines under some conditions, which essentially eliminates the ability to let water flow to through spillways to facilitate safe fish passage around dams.

Big hydroelectric project on the Columbia River.
Courtesy of the U.S. Department of Energy

Supporters of the bill claim that it would protect an inexpensive source of energy for millions of Americans, water for irrigation, provide non-federal funding for new hydroelectricity projects, and improve transparency.  Hydroelectricity is part of an all-of-the-above energy plan for America and would provide jobs, help grow the economy, protect the environment, and help curb global warming.  Supporters emphasize the carbon-free nature of hydroelectricity and emphasize that elimination or minimization of this energy source would increase carbon dioxide emissions and the price of electricity.  

Rafting on the now free-flowing White Salmon River
in Washington.
Courtesy of National Geographic.

Opponents argue that the bill would actually destroy jobs, harm the environment, and weaken the economy, especially in communities close to dams and dam removal projects.  In communities where dam removal is occurring, many jobs have been created, especially in the recreation sector.  Preventing dam removal and the opening of these recreational opportunities will kill those living-wage, good jobs that have been pivotal in communities where dams have been removed.  Furthermore, the bill would "harm rivers and wildlife and threaten public safety" because it categorically excludes any dam removal from consideration of federal funds, even when the dam is unsafe and the dam operator and the local community both want to remove it.

The Elwha River Dam is being removed after collaboration
between many stakeholders.
Courtesy of National Geographic.

While dams are often necessary and promote more good than harm, this bill assumes that all dams are good for local communities, the environment, and the country without question.  However, there are some dams that are old, dangerous, in need of renovation, and kill many migratory fish each year.  The bottom line is that this bill would set back collaborative, creative efforts across the nation to balance the water needs of humans and hydroelectricity with the needs of fish, wildlife, and industries (like recreation) that depend on healthy rivers.  This bill unifies the country in preventing community-supported river recreation projects (like the Elwha River dam removals) and locks us into a 20th century model of energy at a time when communities are looking to modernize and manage our natural and energy resources in a "holistic and integrated fashion."

While it works for some aspects of resource management, it seems that this sort of one-size-fits-all management scheme will not work for dam removal.  Every community is different; every dam is different.  Each has its own priorities, situation, and needs, and imposing a blanket moratorium on dam removal is not the way to promote an economically-, environmentally-, and ecologically-sound future in hydroelectricity.

Economics of Dam Removal

"Dam removal is not unambiguously good."  There are certainly situations where dams are providing benefits, such hydroelectric power or storage capacity for irrigation, especially when it is an updated facility and there are effective opportunities for fish passage.  When considering the tradeoffs, economics is one good method to evaluate the positive and negative effects to society of dam removal.

Frequently, dams in the Northwest have been removed because of economic considerations: when operators weighed the costs of maintaining old dams and renovating them to allow for fish passage against the benefits of continued operation, they  found that it was more cost effective to remove the dams.

Benefits of Dam Removal

Steelhead above the removed Condit Dam
on the White Salmon River.
Courtesy of the Oregonian.

There are many benefits associated with dam removal.  There are the environmental benefits of a restored salmon and steelhead fishery, especially when the dams removed open up the entire watershed to spawning fish, as is the case on the Elwha River.  While there is absolutely intrinsic and value-less value to restoring fisheries, there is also an economic benefit in terms of opportunities for fishing, recreation, and tourism and the benefits these industries bring to local communities.

In Idaho, a study found that the economic benefit of restoring the salmon and steelhead fishery with the removal of the four Lower Snake River dams could be as high as $544 million annually.  This estimate includes $196 million of direct expenditures, what anglers spend out of pocket during fishing trips, and $348 million of indirect expenditures (an estimate of the total economic impact of angler spending in a community).  Furthermore, river communities, which are often more rural and have less economic opportunities, would receive $330 million in economic benefit, while the rest of the state would gain $214 million annually.

Increased sediment from the Elwha River will be carried
by tides to replenish Ediz Hook.
Courtesy of washingtonlandscape.blogspot.com

In determining whether or not to remove the dams on the Elwha River, the Department of Interior looked a variety of economic benefits.  Market values were estimated for the benefits commercial harvesting of restored salmon runs, increased sediment downstream to help prevent erosion (Ediz Hook), and increased income to local businesses from an increase in tourism in the area due to the improved quality of the watershed and improved recreational opportunities, such as boating and fishing.  The table below quantifies the market-value of these benefits in millions over 100 years following dam removal:  

Type of Benefit	Benefit
Commercial Fishing (tribal and non-tribal)	36.7
Sportfishing Business	10.3
Ediz Hook	1.0
Recreation / Tourism	317.6
Total*	355.3

Courtesy of Elwha Watershed Information Resource.

Lower Elwha Klallam tribe's creation site,
recently uncovered by release of water
 behind the Elwha River dams.
Courtesy of the Peninsula Daily News.

In addition, they looked at non-market values, including restoring access to important cultural, historical, and religious sites of the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, preserving genetic diversity within the salmon population which allows them to better fight disease and adjust to changes in the environment, and the non-market value of sport and subsistence fishing.  Through a survey of people willing to pay for dam removal and restoring the fishery, a 1996 study indicated that the non-market value of removing the Elwha River dams was between $3 billion and $6 billion in 1994 dollars.

Dam removal has also been shown to have other economic benefits, such as improving water quality, removing dam safety risks and associated liability costs, saving taxpayer dollars in maintenance costs, improving public access to the river, creating "new" land that reservoirs previous covered for parks or private property, and increased recreation and tourism.

Costs of Dam Removal
On the other hand, there are significant, real costs associated with dam removal.  Many dams in the Northwest are used primarily to produce hydroelectric power, which is often an inexpensive and fairly clean source of energy.  In removing dams, we must replace the this lost power production, ideally through conservation, efficient energy use, and renewables.  Other costs include the cost of dam deconstruction, mitigating floods, and monitoring water quality. 
     

Elwha River flooding in a National Park campground.
Courtesy of Olympic National Park.

In the case of the Elwha River, the Department of Interior found a variety of costs.  In addition to the actual costs of deconstructing the dam ($96.5 million), the Department looked at costs associated with flood mitigation and water quality.  The project requires modifications to the existing flood control infrastructure to protect the downstream Lower Elwha Klallam reservation from the increased possibility of flooding when the dam was removed.  Additionally, the project requires modifications to existing water quality infrastructure (including sewage treatment facilities) and monitoring the quality of the groundwater.  The table below summarizes the cost in millions of removing both dams on the Elwha River:

Dam Removal Feature	Cost
Flood Protection and Cultural Resources Mitigation	17.0
Modify Water Quality, Water Supply, and Flood Mitigation	69.0
Direct Dam Removal Costs and Other	96.5
Total	182.5

Courtesy of Elwha Watershed Information Resource.

JC Boyle Dam (hydroelectric) on the Klamath River,
proposed for removal.
Courtesy of Klamath Riverkeeper.

In an assessment of the economic costs and benefits of removing four dams on the Klamath River, Ecotrust found three main categories of costs: dam removal, lost services (including finding an alternative source of power), and external costs (including changes in local economy, jobs, and the environment).  Negative changes in the environment include the possibility for loss of wildlife habitat in and on the shores of reservoirs and the loss of a lake view for property owners on the reservoirs.  Additionally, the dams currently support 19 seasonal and full-time jobs with an annual payroll of approximately $820,000.  The report estimates that all of these jobs would be lost if the dams are removed.  Finally, Pacificorp, the operator of the Klamath dams, pays 3.8% (~$1.1 million) of the property taxes in the county.  The report also details a large array of benefits, economic and non-market, from dam removal.

Before and after removal of the Elwha Dam.
Courtesy of the Seattle Times.

Ultimately, each dam is unique, and the costs and benefits of removal are dependent on the quality of the dam, the benefits of a restored fishery, and the potential economic gains to surrounding communities, among other considerations.  The situation in the Northwest, with the huge potential benefits from restored fisheries and costs of aging dams, has largely bent toward benefits outweighing costs, especially for aging, smaller (i.e. non-Columbia River) dams that produce less hydroelectricity.  Economic analysis can be an effective method to look at the tradeoffs in dam removal; however, there are limitations in that it cannot consider the many non-market values of dam removal, including access to cultural resources and the intrinsic value of watershed, fishery restoration, and recreation in the restored ecosystem.

Salmon Lifecycle and the Effects of Dams

Dams disrupt the life cycle of salmon.  They often block upstream travel by adults and many juvenile salmon are killed as they make their way downstream.  This is why salmon is a strong contributing factor in the removal of dams in the Northwest.

Chinook salmon migration.
Courtesy of Sooke Salmon Enhancement Society.

Salmon are anadromous fish, meaning they spend part of their life in the saltwater of the ocean and part of their life in the freshwater of rivers.  Salmon are born in freshwater as fry, who spend most of their time hiding from predators.  Fry often spend two to three years growing in the rivers, depending on species, before starting to migrate toward the ocean.  Next, salmon must undergo smolting in order to manage the physical effects of changing from a freshwater environment to a saltwater one.  Salmon enter the ocean as juvenile adults and often spend much of their adult life migrating north to Alaska, to feed and reach sexual maturity.  Once salmon reach sexual maturity, their homing instinct kicks in and they head south to return to their home stream or river to spawn and lay their eggs.  Most salmon die within a week of spawning, leaving their decomposing bodies as an important source of nutrients in the stream.

Pacific Salmon Life Cycle
Courtesy of Capital Regional District
 (http://www.crd.bc.ca/watersheds/protection/wildlife-plants/salmon.htm)

Before dams, the odds that salmon would survive to return to their home stream to spawn was small (see picture).  With the arrival of dams in the early to mid-20th century, the challenges salmon faced for survival only increased.

Dams present difficulties for salmon traveling upstream and downstream.  Juveniles migrating downstream must pass through the turbines of the hydroelectric dams if there is not a bypass system. If the juveniles are forced to pass through the turbines, many are killed by the turbine blades.  One solution to this problem is by spilling water over the spillways at dams, which allows the juveniles to avoid going through the turbines.

Grand Coulee Dam Spillway
Courtesy of Bureau of Reclamation.

There are also high mortality rates for juveniles in reservoirs.  Reservoirs slow migration to the ocean to one to two month, where salmon are genetically programmed to migrate over the course of a few weeks.  Furthermore, the longer migration time and the increase of slow-moving or still water behind dams makes the juveniles more vulnerable to predation.

Salmon have amazing jumping abilities!
Courtesy of NOAA Photo Library.

Grand Coulee Dam
Courtesy of Gregg M. Erickson

Additionally, adult salmon traveling upstream to their spawning grounds are impacted by dams.  Before the dams were built, salmon managed to jump up waterfalls, but they simply cannot jump over dams.  Dams have closed off anadromous fish access to one-third of the Columbia River watershed.  Of particular note is the Grand Coulee Dam on the Columbia River in northeastern Washington, which eliminated all of the spawning grounds upstream of the dam.  At the time of construction in 1933, Washington Fisheries decided that fish passage at giant concrete wall was "impossible."  

Even if the dam provides fish passage options, they still pose many challenges for salmon.  They often have hard time finding the opening to the fish ladder because of fast and turbulent water at the base of a dam.  Furthermore, fish ladders can delay the upstream travel if the flow of water in the ladder is too high or if the adults are sucked back over the dam through the turbines.  While delay is not necessarily fatal, most adult salmon do not eat on their upstream journey, so they must their energy efficiently in order to reach the spawning site and lay eggs.

Fish ladder at the John Day Dam.
Courtesy of the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers.

Ultimately, dams provide many challenges to salmon survival, both at the beginning of the life cycle as they migrate downstream to the ocean and as they return upstream to the spawning grounds at the end of their lives.  On the Columbia River, the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission estimates that dams account for the deaths of 70%-96% of juveniles and 40% of upstream-traveling adults.      Currently, many populations of Pacific salmon are listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act, which has increased pressure on dam operators to modify or renovate the dams to allow for better fish passage and survival.  In some cases, such as the Marmot Dam on the Sandy River (OR), the operator decided it made better economic sense to remove the dam than attempt to renovate infrastructure from the early 20th-century.  In this sense, it can be said that salmon are starting to bring down the dams.