4 ms·

If removing dams is so beneficial, would elimination of natural waterfalls (e.g. Niagara) be beneficial as well? If not why?

by chr1 7y ago

cowsandmilk 7y ago
Waterfalls don't change the rate of flow of water. When 1,000 cfs is flowing into the waterfall, 1,000 cfs is flowing out. Rain events result in rises in flow and droughts result in low flows, these are important in a fish's life cycle. Many dams fill up their reservoirs during a rainy season and then slowly release during the dry season. Waterfalls don't do that.
excitom 7y ago
Dams represent man-made changes to the environment that often had unforeseen negative impacts. In the case of Niagra Falls, its presence isolates the Great Lakes ecosystem from the Atlantic Ocean. During many millennia a unique ecosystem developed. When the canal was built to allow ship traffic from the ocean into the Great Lakes, it caused a sequence of ecological disasters due to invasive species. The lesson: Don't screw around with mother nature (adding or subtracting)
- hammock 7y ago
  Serious question, what is unique about the Great Lakes ecosystem, that is not found in, for example the PNW or inland Maine?
  - ghaff 7y ago
    It's a massive interconnected freshwater lakes system. Much different from even the relatively small lakes in Maine much less the generally very small lakes in the PNW. And it's in a very different area of the country so different ecosystem in any case.
    - hammock 7y ago
      I know where they are located and the size of the lakes. Anything specific and unique you can offer about the biological ecosystem, e.g. flora, fauna?
ajross 7y ago
The point isn't the benefit, it's the reduction of impact. There was a pre-existing ecosystem that the dam disrupted, and we find value there (and did, even in the 1830's, though clearly we didn't recognize the science). It turns out, you can bulldoze the dam and get back (at the cost of one ancient and tiny hydro generator) a bunch of the ecosystem. That's good, by pretty much everyone's measure. So you propose blowing a big hole around the niagra rock shelf. What effect will that have? It's not going to restore any ecosystems that we value, obviously, as those never existed. It would also flood a bunch of exurban/suburban Buffalo and Toronto, which (Bills fans notwithstanding) we do value. I vote no, obviously. I genuinely don't understand why you think this is an interesting question.
- icebraining 7y ago
  > It's not going to restore any ecosystems that we value, obviously, as those never existed But wouldn't new ones be created? I think that's what the parent poster is getting at - teasing out if this isn't just a common case of reactionary environmentalism and anti-human bias, where the criteria for finding that a certain construction is harmful is not applied to natural features, revealing the whole reasoning to be hypocritical, and not the real reason why it's the argument is being made.
  - ajross 7y ago
    > But wouldn't new ones be created? Of course. Do anything and you create new ecosystems. Building the Maine dam in the first place created new ecosystems. They just aren't (1) beneficial to us in any meaningful way and (2) represent notable loss of a pre-existing ecosystem we value and want to preserve. I don't see the hypocrisy there. You're trying to treat this as an absolutist thing (e.g. "riparian environments must be maximized at all costs") and color it as "reactionary environmentalism", when the truth is that it's a value judgement with specific evidence (e.g. "we fucked up the Kennebec river and we should fix that shit"[1]). [1] More properly, given the article that no one here seems actually interested in reading: "We fixed that shit 20 years ago and, wow! It's fixed even better than we hoped!"
bdamm 7y ago
From the perspective of providing more habitat to salmon, yes elimination of waterfalls would boost salmon habitat. But that might also come with unintended consequences, such as attracting eagles and bears upstream. "The ecosystem" is something that evolves and builds over long time periods. So when we do major short term damage we're not going to see all of the consequences. That's why something like damming a river may be viewed the same way as blasting out waterfalls; there are long term consequences and many variables at play, and you won't get to find out how the environment responds to it until well after the damage is done.

If removing dams is so beneficial, would elimination of natural waterfalls (e.g. Niagara) be beneficial as well? If not why?

by chr1 7y ago

If removing dams is so beneficial, would elimination of natural waterfalls (e.g. Niagara) be beneficial as well? If not why?

cowsandmilk 7y ago

Waterfalls don't change the rate of flow of water. When 1,000 cfs is flowing into the waterfall, 1,000 cfs is flowing out. Rain events result in rises in flow and droughts result in low flows, these are important in a fish's life cycle. Many dams fill up their reservoirs during a rainy season and then slowly release during the dry season. Waterfalls don't do that.

excitom 7y ago

Dams represent man-made changes to the environment that often had unforeseen negative impacts. In the case of Niagra Falls, its presence isolates the Great Lakes ecosystem from the Atlantic Ocean. During many millennia a unique ecosystem developed. When the canal was built to allow ship traffic from the ocean into the Great Lakes, it caused a sequence of ecological disasters due to invasive species. The lesson: Don't screw around with mother nature (adding or subtracting)

hammock 7y ago
Serious question, what is unique about the Great Lakes ecosystem, that is not found in, for example the PNW or inland Maine?
- ghaff 7y ago
  It's a massive interconnected freshwater lakes system. Much different from even the relatively small lakes in Maine much less the generally very small lakes in the PNW. And it's in a very different area of the country so different ecosystem in any case.
  - hammock 7y ago
    I know where they are located and the size of the lakes. Anything specific and unique you can offer about the biological ecosystem, e.g. flora, fauna?

ajross 7y ago

The point isn't the benefit, it's the reduction of impact. There was a pre-existing ecosystem that the dam disrupted, and we find value there (and did, even in the 1830's, though clearly we didn't recognize the science). It turns out, you can bulldoze the dam and get back (at the cost of one ancient and tiny hydro generator) a bunch of the ecosystem. That's good, by pretty much everyone's measure. So you propose blowing a big hole around the niagra rock shelf. What effect will that have? It's not going to restore any ecosystems that we value, obviously, as those never existed. It would also flood a bunch of exurban/suburban Buffalo and Toronto, which (Bills fans notwithstanding) we do value. I vote no, obviously. I genuinely don't understand why you think this is an interesting question.

icebraining 7y ago
> It's not going to restore any ecosystems that we value, obviously, as those never existed But wouldn't new ones be created? I think that's what the parent poster is getting at - teasing out if this isn't just a common case of reactionary environmentalism and anti-human bias, where the criteria for finding that a certain construction is harmful is not applied to natural features, revealing the whole reasoning to be hypocritical, and not the real reason why it's the argument is being made.
- ajross 7y ago
  > But wouldn't new ones be created? Of course. Do anything and you create new ecosystems. Building the Maine dam in the first place created new ecosystems. They just aren't (1) beneficial to us in any meaningful way and (2) represent notable loss of a pre-existing ecosystem we value and want to preserve. I don't see the hypocrisy there. You're trying to treat this as an absolutist thing (e.g. "riparian environments must be maximized at all costs") and color it as "reactionary environmentalism", when the truth is that it's a value judgement with specific evidence (e.g. "we fucked up the Kennebec river and we should fix that shit"[1]). [1] More properly, given the article that no one here seems actually interested in reading: "We fixed that shit 20 years ago and, wow! It's fixed even better than we hoped!"

bdamm 7y ago

From the perspective of providing more habitat to salmon, yes elimination of waterfalls would boost salmon habitat. But that might also come with unintended consequences, such as attracting eagles and bears upstream. "The ecosystem" is something that evolves and builds over long time periods. So when we do major short term damage we're not going to see all of the consequences. That's why something like damming a river may be viewed the same way as blasting out waterfalls; there are long term consequences and many variables at play, and you won't get to find out how the environment responds to it until well after the damage is done.