White River Before The Dams

[creekin bassnerd]

I actually think windmills are quite beautiful in their own right

[Wayne SW/MO]

The dams are great examples of how prosperity can make great progress do a ninety degree. The areas flooded had no value, not even close, to the farm lands on the lower White. At the time the dams were authorized there was very little agriculture and little value in the economy for the areas inundated. You could parallel park in downtown Branson, which was Branson at that time and the roads weren't suited for a lot of traffic.

Like them or not, they made the area an economic treasure that supports a lot of people, and has for close to fifty years.

[ozark trout fisher]

Those of us who enjoy the natural beauty of the world without human involvement are just too few and far between to change that.

You are probably right about that. But we can never stop doing what you can to help.

Terry Beeson

I find it comical that you are concerned about the well-being of streams that are opened up to the public through a stream access law, but you're happy with a whole river system being drastically altered (ruined?) by man, and say that it is "a good thing." Nothing that destructive of a natural resource can be anything like a good thing. I know you enjoy catching the trout and probably appreciate the hydropower, but is it really worth it? I don't see how you can call yourself an environmentalist and still say it was.

Heck yes I would rather have wind farms and solar than dams.

[Terry Beeson]

Ah... again, you mis-interpret my meaning. Number one, I did say that it was a shame that the White was altered. However, there was a great benefit to the dams being built and we should at least acknowledge that. Plus, at the time, as I understand it, this was to do away with the need for coal fire plants and other fossil fuel energy sources, but that was axed when the public began to object to damming up the streams (which was probably the best thing to do... well, it WAS in my opinion the best. Especially in hind site.)

And my reference to windmills and solar panels strike me as funny that you guys would all say that you are OK with that. Obviously, you think they would just put them in the middle of the woods. I've seen some really large wind farms in California and they did nothing to enhance the wilderness there and did "destroy" the land where they were erected. Many people complain because it ruins the natural view and ruined the land. But I suppose since it would not hurt the fishing, it would be fine...

Maybe we should just all cut the wires to our homes and park our vehicles... Who's first?

[Al Agnew]

In a bittersweet way I love talking about this subject...

I have a bound volume of old magazines from the Missouri Conservation Federation back in the years when they first began up into the 1950s. Some are missing, but it's one of my treasured possessions...I found it in a yard sale. In reading them the first time, I was quite surprised to see that the Conservation Federation was appalled at the thought of the dams on the White. At that time, the only big reservoirs in MO were Taneycomo and Lake of the Ozarks, with Wappapello in the process of being built, but Bull Shoals and Norfork were being rather hotly debated. CFM wanted no part of them, and CFM, even back then, was the most important conservation organization in MO, having been the real driving force behind the establishment of an MDC that was not controlled by the state legislature. So it's obvious that there were a lot of powerful moneyed interests behind the dams, if they were able to push them through as apparently effortlessly as they did. Up until the great environmental movement of the 1960s, I don't think there were ANY high dams that were ever stopped once they reached the stage where money was being appropriated for them. It was often pure pork-barrel; a politician's success was measured partly by how many big dam projects he brought to his state or district. As much as some denigrate the "environmentalists" these days, the major environmental organizations that gained influence starting in the 60s convinced enough people that natural rivers had irreplaceable value, which brought about the successful battles to stop the dams on the Buffalo, Current, and Meramec, and finally the end of the big dam building era. The history is interesting, but it was newly elected President Jimmy Carter's "hit list" of dams that he wanted de-authorized, including the Meramec Dam, that brought about the final battle and the end of the Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation as dam builders.

There were also some individuals that were especially instrumental in stopping the dams that were finally stopped. Leonard Hall was a columnist for St. Louis newspapers and occasional outdoor writer (I have an old Outdoor Life, or maybe it's Field and Stream, from the 1950s that has an article by him on fishing the North Fork). Then he got involved in the battles to save Current River, and wrote the book "Stars Upstream", which was probably the single most powerful instrument in convincing people that the Current should become a National Scenic Riverway instead of being dammed. But the Current was actually the easiest fight, because a LOT of people just couldn't take the thought of the Current's huge springs being buried.

Then came the Buffalo fight, and a doctor from Fayetteville named Neil Compton. Compton started The Ozark Society to Save the Buffalo River, later shortened to just the Ozark Society, and the battles between his group and the Buffalo River Improvement Association, a group of businessmen in Marshall, was a fascinating piece of history.

I'm not home yet, so I apologize for a faulty memory and I don't have my sources here with me, but I don't remember the names of the people who were the major figures in the Meramec Dam battle. I've been writing on a book, one chapter of which talks in depth about these three epic conservation struggles in the Ozarks. Maybe I'll finish it one of these days...and then I'll have to find a publisher.

[Ham]

It's hard to argue that there ought to be more dams rather than less. There are far too few rivers of any size that flow free their entire length. BUT, I will say that we are lucky enough to have lots and lots of free flowing streams and rivers to fish in the Ozarks and that the dams on the White did help this area economically. I'd love to fish a free flowing White River, but I'm happy I don't have to try to scratch out a living from a 1930's Ozark hillside.

(and I do dearly love to fish Bull Shoals and the white River below it)

[Justin Spencer]

Maybe we should just all cut the wires to our homes and park our vehicles... Who's first?

I'll be first but I need my bank note paid off to make it work, please send donations. Not sure I could get Amy to buy into the idea and would probably get old after a year or so. Another thing I can daydream about and make sound much more romantic than it would really be. Could I at least put in solar and wind power, and maybe a dam here on the NFoW.

[tjulianc]

What is the evidence that the dams are what brought economic prosperity to the Ozarks? Dams were built post W.W. II and there was an economic boom regardless of dams being built. Most of the evidence is circumstantial, i.e, before the dams the economy was down, after their was a boom. But before the dams, it was the great depression, after was the post war boom. That probably had more to do with it than the dams being built. Sure there are jobs generated while construction is in progress, but where do those jobs go afterwards? Have you ever been to Langley, OK at the Grand Lake Dam site? Its almost a ghost town. Why doesn't it have the same economic success that Branson, Holiday Island, etc has had? Taneycomo was built in 1913, but all the other large impoundments were completed in the 50s and 60s. I live in NWA, and I think that what brought my area economic success is Wal-Mart, J.B. Hunt, and Tysons. I don't know how much Beaver Lake had to do with it. This issue has little to do with generating electrical power. Comparatively little energy is derived from these dams, and we could do without them with very little consequence in regards to energy. Sure, generation is an added benefit, and they might have paid for themselves by now, but we don't need the power generated, and the destruction of a natural ecosystem doesn't make up for a 1-3% decrease of carbon based fuels, especially if it comes from gas or nuclear(non carbon based, but still controversial). My point is, there are other factors other than the dams being built that influenced the economy, and those can't be ignored. I wonder if it wasn't the improving economy that built the dams, rather that the dams that built the improving economy. I know that the dams and lakes are an economic positive, but I don't think that they are the source of the economic turn around. I think it is false to say, without the lakes and dams we would still be living off the hard scrabble land.

On this issue, I think a lot of it is personal taste. For those of us who like and use the lakes, of course we would want them to stay. And we would argue why they should, citing economic gain, energy, recreation, flood control, basically all the reasons in which they were built.

For those of us who don't use them and lament that the river is gone, of course we would argue for them to be removed based on an environmental and ecological rationale. There really isn't any other argument. Leaving things the way they are or turning them back, doesn't really have much appeal outside of environmental arena. I guess you could argue that the removal of the dams would help the economy because of the massive construction project needed to undertake such a project. But that would only be temporary.

[Wayne SW/MO]

What is the evidence that the dams are what brought economic prosperity to the Ozarks?

look at the pictures and remember that Branson was a sleepy town. Do you think that the marinas on the lakes, the boat shops, the summer homes, etc would exist without the lakes? Do you think the White could have supported that kind of an economy as a warm water stream?

Wind farms, do some research about the bird and bat slaughter they produce and then look at a wind farm. If you think a wind farm looks good compared to a Table Rock, you're on the wrong forum.

[flytyer57]

look at the pictures and remember that Branson was a sleepy town. Do you think that the marinas on the lakes, the boat shops, the summer homes, etc would exist without the lakes? Do you think the White could have supported that kind of an economy as a warm water stream?

Wind farms, do some research about the bird and bat slaughter they produce and then look at a wind farm. If you think a wind farm looks good compared to a Table Rock, you're on the wrong forum.

I guess if it's not our land that got stolen by the govenment to be buried under several thousand acres of water, we are ok with it if they dam the river.

As for wind farms, they still look a hell of a lot better than some coal fired plant pouring tons of pollutants into the air every day.

And I'm still not buying the bs about birds being "slaughter"ed by wind turbines.