ENSTU 300: Critical Thinking & Communication in Environmental Studies

Dam Infrastructure Policy in Ecosystem Protection

Caitlin teNyenhuis, Environmental Studies Program, California State University Monterey Bay

Image of the Masudagawa Dam, a successful flow-through dam

Dams are thought to be one of the most
dangerous threats to fish and rivers because
of their ability to change a river’s flow and
block fish from migrating (McDonald et al.,
2012). With the installation of dams, a
river’s natural stream is obstructed, and vital
fish such as salmon and trout are unable to
reach spawning areas (Richter, et al., 2010).
Little to no policy exists to keep these
natural ecosystems alive, though there have
been recent advances in infrastructure that
can minimize the problems.
The Masudagawa Dam was built in 2006 on
the Masuda River in Japan. It is known as a
“dry” or “flow-through” dam because it does
not store water, nor does it block the flow of
the river. Because of its design, it also
allows for sediment to be cleared
occasionally as needed (Climate Technology
Centre & Network, n.d.). Similarly, the
Lockington Dam in Piqua, Ohio was built as
a dry flood-control dam. The only time
water is stored is after a large rainfall, but
water is still able to flow naturally through
the river (Miami Conservancy District,
2020). The typical dams, reservoir dams, do place to either deconstruct reservoir dams or
hold large reservoirs of water, which blocks build flow-through dams, fish and rivers
the natural flow of rivers and leads to could have a fighting chance.
sediment buildup. If there was policy in

Policy Options
The three policy options presented below will allow for most dams to remain intact for means of
flood control and electricity while also ensuring that the rivers, fish, and other reliant species can
have a healthy environment to thrive in. The first involves keeping all dams intact while making
modifications as seen fit to maintain the surrounding environment. The second is the one option
that gets rid of all dams to maintain rivers and fish health. The third is an in-between of
demolishing some problematic dams, making modifications to others, and constructing new
dams with a different method meant to help fish populations thrive. The table below shows the
varying strengths of each policy option regarding different criteria involved.

Table 1: Policy Options

Criteria Policy Option 1: Policy Option 2: Policy Option 3:

Adjust & Maintain Complete Modify & Build
Deconstruction Alternatives

Ecosystem +/- +++ +++

Protection

Independent/ +++ --- +/-

Federal Ownership

Developments in +/- --- +++

Infrastructure

Sustainable Energy/Flood +++ --- +++

Control

2
Key: (Strong) +++ (Medium) +/- (Weak) ---

Policy Option 1: Adjust & Maintain

The first policy option is the most conservative option- keep dams as they are, but to make
modifications where possible while not changing the physical infrastructure. For example, this
would mean adjusting the amount of water released and when it is released. Safety inspections
should continue, and any failures should be fixed. This type policy could fall into an already
proposed bill to the 2020 Water Resources Development Act that would increase funding for
dams and infrastructures of flood control (Pugh, 2020). While this option would appease the
energy companies and Organization of Dams completely, it would not so much the
conservationists. Although, adjusting the level of flow released has been shown to be closer to a
natural river stream and help fish populations (Richter and Thomas., 2013). Even so,
conservationists like American Rivers and California Trout would have to be the settlers in this
type of option.

Policy Option 2: Complete Deconstruction

This option is the most extreme of the three options in that it would require the complete removal
of all dams. This option would be costly and time consuming but would make rivers and streams
wild again, allowing fish populations to roam freely. The conservationist stakeholders would
most agree to this option because it returns the rivers and fish to their most natural states.
(Quiñones et al., 2014). However, losing any method of flood control could endanger fish,
animals, and people. The energy companies, government agencies, and dam organizations would
lose their entire purposes. They would be the settlers in this highly unlikely scenario.

Policy Option 3: Modify & Build Alternatives

The third option is the solid middle-ground option but would require some settling from all
stakeholders involved. Failing dams would be demolished to prevent any catastrophic flooding to
surrounding areas. The dams that are still standing strong would be modified as mentioned
before, by adjusting the amount of water released and setting a schedule for the releases. Also,
any new dams to be built would be built as flow-through dams to best allow fish to swim
naturally and to prevent sediment from settling all in one area (Climate Technology Centre &
Network, n.d.). All of this would be instituted while maintaining regular safety and

3
environmental inspections. This option should be smiled on by all stakeholder groups. Energy
companies will continue to have sustainable energy sources, organizations of dams will maintain
their purpose of infrastructure education and development, and conservationists will breathe easy
knowing the rivers and fish can remain mostly wild.

Recommendation
My final recommendation is option three. By demolishing failing dams, modifying still-standing
dams, and building flow-through dams, all positive impacts are held intact. With the
deconstruction of old dams, the risk of complete failure is gone, and the rivers will return to their
natural flows. Modifying current dams to release more water on a consistent schedule will
prevent overflowing of floodplains and allow for a more natural stream for fish. Building flow-
through dams will allow fish and sediment to flow naturally through the river stream. Finally,
having consistent inspections not only of the structure of the dams, but also of the river systems,
will help the overall environment remain in good health.

Though policy option 3 is my choice, the drawbacks should be considered as well. Demolishing
older dams is a lengthy and costly process. In doing so, stakeholders such as PG&E and
PacifCorp would potentially lose some of their hydroelectric systems. While modifying current
dams and changing the design of new dams have similar potential for time-consuming increased
spending, the end results would be much more sustainable. Overall, I believe it is in the best
interest of the stakeholders, fish, and river systems if these alternatives are implemented.

Literature Cited

America’s Water Infrastructure Act of 2020. (2020). Retrieved from

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116thcongress/senatebill/3591/text?q=%7B%22search
%22%3A%5B%22oroville+dam%22%5D%7D&r=1&s=5#toc-
id1493A6AEE8D748B3A270F532892D933F

4
Climate Technology Centre & Network. (2020). Flow-through dam for flood control. Flow-
through dam for flood control Retrieved from https://www.ctc-n.org/technologies/flow-
through-dam-flood-control

McDonald, R. I., Olden, J. D., Opperman, J. J., Miller, W. M., Fargione, J., Revenga, C., Powell,
J. (2012). Energy, water and fish: Biodiversity impacts of energy-sector water demand in
the united states depend on efficiency and policy measures. PLoS One, 7(11) Retrieved
from https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0050219

Miami Conservancy District. (2020). Dams and retarding basins. Retrieved from
https://www.mcdwater.org/flood-protection/retarding-basins-and-levees/

Pugh, Adam. (2020). Support Authorization of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA)
Retrieved from
https://www.naco.org/resources/support-authorization-water-resources-development-act-
wrda

Quiñones, R. M., Grantham, T. E., Harvey, B. N., Kiernan, J. D., Klasson, M., Wintzer, A. P., &
Moyle, P. B. (2015). Dam removal and anadromous salmonid (oncorhynchus spp.)
conservation
in california. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 25(1), 195-215. Retrieved from
https://rdcu.be/ca5D0

Richter, B. D., Postel, S., Revenga, C., Scudder, T., Lehner, B., Churchill, A., & Chow, M.
(2010). Lost in development's shadow: The Downstream Human Consequences of Dams.
Water Alternatives, 3(2), 14-42. Retrieved from
http://www.water-alternatives.org/index.php/volume3/v3issue2/80-a3-2-3/file

Richter, B. D., & Thomas, G. A. (2007). Restoring environmental flows by modifying dam
operations. Ecology and Society, 12(1), 24. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-
com.library2.csumb.edu:2248/docview/220492291?accountid=10355