This page has been moved to http://prod.fieldandstream.com/blogs/flytalk
If your browser doesn’t redirect you to the new location, please visit FlyTalk at its new location: http://prod.fieldandstream.com/blogs/flytalk.
Dam Absurdity
Anyone seeking a measure of how far the nation’s environmental awareness has slipped during the Bush Administration need only consider this: Earlier this month sportsmen and other green folk cheered a ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals stating dams were not a part of the natural ecosystem. Read it here.
The court was forced to make that ruling because the Bush Administration was actually making the claim that dams had been around so long on the Columbia River, they should be considered part of the natural environment. And because they are part of the natural system, their impacts couldn’t be considered a reason Columbia basin salmon have been pushed toward extinction. And that, of course, meant dams should not be regulated or removed to help salmon.
It didn’t take long for the clearly astonished three-judge panel to give the administration what the Portland Oregonian rightly described as a unanimous slap-down.
In earlier times (say, six years ago) this would sound like material for The Daily Show, a matter of such absurdity that even uttering it would bring ridicule. After all, no one in their right mind – even their far-right mind – would make the claim that a massive wall of concrete across a free-flowing river should be considered part of a natural ecosystem. If allowed to stand, that logic could be used to undo regulations on power plants that cured acid rain because those plants had been around so long their pollution was now just a natural part of the atmosphere.
One might argue, as many have, that dams are more important than fish, or that cheap, clean hydroelectric power is more important than preventing a race of salmon on the Columbia River from becoming extinct. That would be the principled argument used by many opponents against the push by sportsmen and other environmentalists to address the damage to river systems caused by dams. It’s a point of view worthy of due consideration. Problem is, the public has considered those points, and rejected them. By wide margins, Americans want natural systems restored.
This admittedly leaves policy-makers with a challenge, especially since the pressing issue of global warming means we must get more power from clean sources, like dams. But if we can put men on the moon in less than 10 years from a standing start, surely we can find a way to produce the same amount of clean power without destroying valuable renewable resources.
Yet anyone who has followed this administration is surprised by their recent dams-are-natural gambit. It’s just more of the Alice-in-Wonderland logic it has tried in other environmental issues when the facts put the lie to its desires – which are always to err on the side of industry profits.
At first we were stunned by this tactic. But six years later we are reduced to claiming “a victory” when a court issues a ruling pointing out that dams are not a natural part of the landscape.
Thanks, Dubya.









I agree, that is a pretty stupid argument.
But, an honest question, have any studies been done on the impact that years and years of silt buildup behind the dams would cause the river and the salmon if the dams were demolished? I would think it would make for one very muddy, very uninhabitable river for some time.
Posted by: JC | April 24, 2007 at 03:07 PM
marshall's right. this is nuts. and the precedent it would set would extend to all manner of manmade structures suddenly being designated as "natural." what's next? saying that we shouldn't clean up a river polluted by heavy metals and PCB's for decades because that's now its "natural" state?
could i think sportsmen should be more upset than we are about this.
Posted by: bill | April 25, 2007 at 09:57 AM
In response to JC, major dams that are in existence and are slated to be removed, must have an environmental impact statement as to what the removal will do to the stream. This includes the sediment build up behind the dam. So in the case of the Columbia River, a lot of that material will be removed (some of it used for gravel), some will be left, in many cases there are build ups of toxic materials that have to be dealt with. Rest assured that those dams won't simply be blown up leaving the debris to wash downstream. It will cost the taxpayer plenty, but in the end there will be a better river.
Posted by: dk | April 25, 2007 at 03:49 PM
I forgot to mention that the majority of money spent on the clean up is directly returned to the local economies as job salaries.
Posted by: dk | April 25, 2007 at 04:46 PM
Nothing unusual. God, I can't wait until Jan 09. If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention!
Posted by: Paul | April 25, 2007 at 08:11 PM