Wall Street Journal gets it wrong on dams

Posted on May 30, 2007 | Filed Under Dam Removal, Global Warming, Northwest, River Renewal 

Amy Kober
Northwest Outreach & Communications Director

Iron-Gate-dam2 The Wall Street Journal online is running a misguided opinion piece about dams and global warming that mentions American Rivers.

Here’s the long version of the letter our president Rebecca Wodder is submitting to the paper in response:

To say that all dams are beneficial and should be protected, as Shikha Dalmia maintains (“Dam the Salmon�, May 30, 2007) is as absurd as saying all dams are bad and should be removed.

American Rivers has signed dozens of agreements enabling hydroelectric dams to continue generating thousands of megawatts of electricity on rivers around the country. We have even supported expanding electricity generation at some dams.

But some dams are being removed because they are public safety hazards or they are no longer cost-effective for their owners to operate.

For decades, hydro dams have been subsidized by taxpayer dollars, and are now used to subsidize all sorts of private interests.

Are the readers of the Wall Street Journal supposed to be horrified when an outmoded 100 year-old factory closes its doors? Of course not.

But that’s exactly the sort of irrational economic logic Ms. Dalmia proposes should protect all hydro dams into the infinite future.

On the Klamath River, the California Energy Commission found that with the money PacifiCorp would spend to modernize the dams, the company could replace the entire Klamath project generation with a 170 megawatt wind plant, a 100 megawatt solar plant, or it could make efficiency upgrades to its distribution system.

In short, removing the Klamath dams can be done without increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

This is not about people vs. the environment, no matter how hard Ms. Dalmia tries to make it so. Communities up and down the Pacific Coast depend upon restoring rivers like the Klamath.

When the commercial fishery had to be shut down last year because of poor salmon returns, it caused more than $100 million in damage to local economies. Four different tribes depend on the Klamath salmon for their subsistence and identity.

Unfortunately, Ms. Dalmia seems less interested in reducing global warming pollution than in throwing out baseless and tired claims about conservationists.

Rebecca Wodder
President, American Rivers

For more on rivers and global warming, read our factsheet (PDF)

About this Post
Permalink | Trackback | | Print This Article |
Like it?   digg | hugg | del.icio.us | furl | reddit


Comments

6 Responses to “Wall Street Journal gets it wrong on dams”

  1. Joel Kawahara on May 31st, 2007 12:09 am

    “The other dams on the hit list include the O’Shaughnessy Dam in Yosemite’s Hetch Hetchy Valley that services San Francisco, Elwha River dam in Washington and the Matilija Dam in Southern California.”

    I am surprised that Ms. Dalmia included the Elwah dams in this list. Unless I am mistaken, Elwah dams are history. That she makes this error, including Elwah as a “target” rather than a justified removal, weakens her stand. If she can not get the facts right, how can she come to a “reasonable” conclusion?

  2. amy on May 31st, 2007 8:22 am

    That’s true, Joel…and it’s also worth pointing out that Matilija Dam doesn’t produce any power, and is full of sand.

  3. The Volokh Conspiracy on May 31st, 2007 12:52 pm

    Dam Trade-Offs:…

    The Reason Foundation’s Shikha Dalmia challenges environmentalist calls to remove dams from western rivers. Hydroelectric dams may have been wasteful and environmen……

  4. stas peterson on May 31st, 2007 5:00 pm

    Americas River is a parody & satire. Since when does it have the right to sign “…agreements keeping damms…” ? Who appointed them the Pontificate of the Goddess Gaia?

    If I recall the roots of AR was a bunch or wild waterr river cranks who wanted the right to make money running rubes down the rivers, in rubber rafts. In short a special interest group of “poseurs” faking concern about the Environment.

    Not like my true Blue nvironmental organization that demonstrated at the Original Earth Day in Washington DC back in the ’70s.

    The Society for the Prevcention of Albedo Reduction in the US, SPARE US, that warned about the dangers of indiscrimainate use of Solar Energy that could create dangerous climate change, and create deserts.

    That was long before there was any concern about Global Warming and all cognescenti were warning about Global Cooling!

  5. amy on May 31st, 2007 6:48 pm

    President Theodore Roosevelt said, “The public must retain control of the great waterways. It is essential that any permit to obstruct them for reasons and on conditions that seem good at the moment should be subject to revision when changed conditions demand.”

    So, when a dam’s license comes up for renewal, the public (local citizens, conservation groups, Indian tribes, businesses and others) has a chance to reasess whether the continued operation of the dam makes sense. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn’t.

    And I’m proud of the roots of my organization. American Rivers was founded by people dedicated to stopping harmful dams that were huge taxpayer boondoggles, and to protecting our last, wild rivers as “Wild and Scenic” for future generations.

    It’s a history we’re all proud of. We love rivers, we understand their importance to communities, and we love the work we do.

  6. More criticism for Wall Street Journal op-ed : American Rivers Blog on June 1st, 2007 4:02 pm

    [...] For American Rivers’ response to the Wall Street Journal piece, read our letter to the editor. [...]

Leave a Reply