Hr 6247

[Tim Smith]

hydropower is an excellent energy alternative. Obviously no new dams are going to built. In my 32 years working for the Corps, there has been study after study about adding hydropower to locks and dams on the big rivers and flood control lakes like Carlyle, Rend, etc. Even studies of putting units on the bottom of the Mississippi proper to harness the energy. None of them were ever feasible from a private investor point of view. I have spoken out against subsidies for worthless stuff before, but these potential hydropower additions might be worthy of consideration for a govt subsidy.

I would probably agree that retrofitted hydropower could be a good thing. But if they ever happen, get ready for a rough ride with the fisheries in flood control reservoirs.

During my days on the government dole, I was the lead grad student on a project determining what controlled availability of forage on a flood control reservoir in Illinois. Spring time water levels turned out to be the critical factor for annual productivity and forage availability. I eventually built a model backed by mountains of data that predicted 89% of annual juvenile gizzard shad density (most of the forage in the lake) based on the height and timing of spring floods. It seemed clear that by manipulating lake levels, forage base levels (and predator fish success) could be managed.

But I was told the Corps was already too busy managing floods for about 100 farmers downstream from the dam and handling navigation responsibilities. There was no way they would alter their water management for fisheries. Fortunately, that position softened a bit, and some accommodations seem to have been made. But if you add hydropower to the mix, fisheries will move further to the back of the line and we can expect lake levels and fisheries quality to bounce around even more. Maybe that will be a worthwhile cost in the grander scheme of things but anglers are the ones who are going to pay it.

[Tim Smith]

I haven't had the time to dissect the whole thing, but my two biggest beefs so far are:

Cutting federal funding to even study dam removal- IMO a dam is like any other infrastructure, and can outlive its usefulness. If a dam is no longer generates as much benefit to society as it costs to maintain, I think we should take a hard look at either rehabbing that dam, or demolishing it. I just don't see the value in having the public continuing to pay for maintenance and safety inspections of dams which are no longer economically viable. And to me, measures like this seem like maintaining the status quo, as opposed to actually moving toward some real reforms in efficiency.

Eliminating federal funds for NGOs which have advocated or participated in dam removal seems downright punitive to me. Federal Sportfish Restoration funds are used by lots of state agencies, in conjunction with groups like TU, to do all sorts of projects not related to dam removal- habitat restoration and enhancement, fish stocking, acquiring public fishing accesses, etc. If that funding source were to be eliminated I think a lot of these groups would be much less effective at completing their goals, and providing increased fishing and recreational opportunities for the public. If hydro were the boon some folks believe it is, I would think it could stand on its own- it wouldn't need measures like these as an attempt to silence any opposition.

The anti-dam removal groups do represent some forms of benefit to society...if pontoon boats and water skiing can be seen in that light. It's a matter of who's values and constituency you chose to support.

As for anglers, I don't see where they get the idea that dams are helping fisheries. A few big fish stacked at a dam disappear and they think the fishery is ruined when a dam is removed. If access to that point in the river represents their whole idea of the fishery, we've got other issues of river access and education that need to be addressed.

[LarrySTL]

And sadly, my guess is that with the tax rollback staring Congress in the face right after the elections, no matter how the elections come out, good decisions on things like this will become number 14447 on Congress's collective "things to do" list.