White River Before The Dams

[Al Agnew]

As I understand it, the big lakes furnish "extra" power during peak demand periods. If you're sitting underneath Table Rock Dam when the upper end of Taneycomo looks like a very small river, there obviously isn't any electricity being produced there.

One thing about these big dams as power generators compared to coal fired plants...when we finally get off our duffs and figure out how to produce electricity truly cleanly, it will be easy to "retire" the coal plants, but not nearly so easy (in fact impossible due to the other economic factors--want to hear a lot of chamber of commerce types in Branson scream?) to remove the dams.

I fully realize that the lakes provide a lot of economic benefits, and also provide more recreational benefits overall than the White River could. But it would seem to me that four big lakes and a little one in the same small area was poor planning, if nothing else. Seems like one big lake on the lower White might have been better overall, leaving the upper White and James intact. Of course, it couldn't be so big that it backed water up into the Buffalo! Problem with most of these lakes is that they were built in the most convenient spot to put a dam...which is also usually the wildest, most scenic spot.

[tjulianc]

Well, there is no way these dams are going to be removed. In fact there is a greater chance of more dams, rather than less; based off the growing need for a clean water supply. So its a moot point to even discuss removal. However I am surprised that there are some river fisherman that actually rather have the dams than not, on a hypothetical basis.

The fact that the Buffalo river was saved is really amazing, when you consider the forces it went up against. I think Eisenhower vetoed two bills by the congress that authorized it to be damed. The Corp obviously wanted it damed. And local business leaders wanted it damed because of the economic boom it would create. And yet due to a little luck and the hard work of those before me it was saved.

[tjulianc]

And Al, I agree with what you said, even if we were to come up with some wonderful clean energy, the coal plants would go before the dams. I think its mostly self preservation. Too many livelihoods are based around those impoundments. Those of us who enjoy the natural beauty of the world without human involvement are just too few and far between to change that.

[Justin Spencer]

I don't think we can ever think that the dams will be removed, we'd probably be dissapointed with the result if they were removed. I'll just keep daydreaming and thinking how cool it must have once been.

[creekin bassnerd]

I agree tjulianc, too few and far between cared enough when it mattered to afford an effort to preserve the White. Thinking about an undammed white is painful, it hurts my natural state of mind, but all we can do is enjoy and take care of the free flowing rivers/streams we do have and stand up ready to fight for them if they are threatened.

In regards to realistically removing a dam, lets start at crooked creek and get rid of that meaningless rectangular pond in Harrison. Seriously, what is the reason for this?

[Terry Beeson]

I suppose if we were able to have an internet forum for the inhabitants of this continent in the 1500s and later, we would probably be reading similar posts. I suppose that's true of those who lived here prior to the homesteading of this part of the country.

The dams being put in place for land development is a stretch. I personally know that some advantage was taken when the interstate highway system was being developed. Land was purchased by individuals years before the interstate was built, and funny thing is, most of these who became owners of the land where the interstate was built were politicians or political contributors. I'm certain the same thing happened with the dam system. But damming the streams was primarily for flood control with the benefit of bringing electricity to very rural areas. I'd like to go back and find out the statistics TJ quoted for the 40s, 50s, and even the 60s before the population of the area grew.

Another benefit was employment of the locals who got good paying jobs constructing the dams. I'd like to hear from some of them as well. Then there is the continuing boost to the local economy that can be attributed to the dams being in place.

Yes, it's a shame that the White is not what it use to be. Same goes for many streams. I'm so glad that the Buffalo River in Arkansas is designated a NATIONAL river and therefore will (or should) never undergo such a transformation. But at the same time, I think the dams were a good thing when they were built.

I'm glad we still use a source of non-fossil fuel generation of electrical power, even if is a small percentage. As Al put it, "...when we finally get off our duffs and figure out how to produce electricity truly cleanly.." But would you rather see wind farms and solar power farms in SW MO?

[flytyer57]

I suppose if we were able to have an internet forum for the inhabitants of this continent in the 1500s and later, we would probably be reading similar posts. I suppose that's true of those who lived here prior to the homesteading of this part of the country.

The dams being put in place for land development is a stretch. I personally know that some advantage was taken when the interstate highway system was being developed. Land was purchased by individuals years before the interstate was built, and funny thing is, most of these who became owners of the land where the interstate was built were politicians or political contributors. I'm certain the same thing happened with the dam system. But damming the streams was primarily for flood control with the benefit of bringing electricity to very rural areas. I'd like to go back and find out the statistics TJ quoted for the 40s, 50s, and even the 60s before the population of the area grew.

Another benefit was employment of the locals who got good paying jobs constructing the dams. I'd like to hear from some of them as well. Then there is the continuing boost to the local economy that can be attributed to the dams being in place.

Yes, it's a shame that the White is not what it use to be. Same goes for many streams. I'm so glad that the Buffalo River in Arkansas is designated a NATIONAL river and therefore will (or should) never undergo such a transformation. But at the same time, I think the dams were a good thing when they were built.

I'm glad we still use a source of non-fossil fuel generation of electrical power, even if is a small percentage. As Al put it, "...when we finally get off our duffs and figure out how to produce electricity truly cleanly.." But would you rather see wind farms and solar power farms in SW MO?

Honestly, I'd rather see a wind farm over a dam on the Buffalo or any other stream. I'd also rather see a wind farm than some brown smoke pouring into the sky from some coal fired plant.

[Guest]

deleted

[Justin Spencer]

Honestly, I'd rather see a wind farm over a dam on the Buffalo or any other stream. I'd also rather see a wind farm than some brown smoke pouring into the sky from some coal fired plant.

I agree, I'm sure when power poles and lines started going in everyone complained about how ugly they were, substations, power plants, bridges etc., in 50 years people in areas that can support wind power won't give a second look to the windmills, same goes for solar. I personally hate seeing cell towers everywhere but haven't heard many people complaining about better service. Unfortunately I think it will take us running out of coal (or frying from global warming) before we really take clean energy to a new level. In this part of the country we don't visibly see the problems associated with air pollution (smog, etc) and unless we can see a reason to change it is easy to ignore the affects that this pollution has on our planet. Not sure what this has to do with the White River before dams, oh well.

[tjulianc]

I don't think we can ever think that the dams will be removed, we'd probably be dissapointed with the result if they were removed. I'll just keep daydreaming and thinking how cool it must have once been.

I can actually see where you are coming from. Most people take for granted their water source. I like taking showers whenever I want, the ability to water my lawn if I want, wash my clothes and dishes at the same time, etc. If we took Beaver lake out, we would probably have to put up with water rationing. There are few people that would pick water rationing over a free flowing natural water system, I just happen to be one of them. Where I live there is no possibility of flooding, so that doesn't effect me, but it would a lot of people. I am not economically dependent on the existence of Beaver lake, even indirectly. But I know there are people who are. So you are right, most people would be not at all happy with the removal of Beaver Lake.

But I would.