Ripple Effects:
United States

Seeking Approval for Removal?

Consider this. A dozen carefully chosen individuals gather around a table. Offering solid experience, they come from across the political spectrum of the dams world: some from the construction and hydroelectric industry, others from environmental NGOs and research institutes, the rest from provincial or federal regulatory agencies.

Their 'radical' approach: unite rather than fight against one another; establish criteria and guidelines and a process for consensus-based solutions; take a hard look at what has been done in the past, what works where, and why. The first tense meeting bears fruit. All sides see fresh perspectives, and promise to work together on dams.

Sound familiar?

It should. But this is no World Commission on Dams. It focuses on just one country, and one aspect of dams: In the USA, the most controversial and divisive water development issue involves not dam construction, or dam operation, but dam removal.

From the federal Lower Snake River Dams in the Northwest to the private Edwards hydrodam in Maine, hundreds of dams small and large have been targeted for removal.

But why? What leads to this? What are the impacts of removal? Who benefits? Who pays? Are there obstacles to removal? Is there a better, less disruptive and divisive approach? Are there better options to achieve the larger goal?

To answer these questions, several US organisations set up exploratory meetings in Washington, DC. While they did not stem directly from the WCD, there have been ripple effects back and forth.

Participants included members from the WCD staff, Forum members and financial contributors. And one group, The Aspen Institute's Dialogue on Dams and Rivers appears to be getting traction and backing for a two-year study project closely resembling the WCD.

Other exploratory groups include the Congressional Research Service and the H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment, which proposed a conference and 18 month study of the "Economic, Environmental and Social Impacts of Dam Removal: A Template for Decision Making."

Despite similarities, these organisations came from different backgrounds, took unique approaches to the issue, and were not aware of the others. Which is one indication of the vacuum created by a sudden and unforeseen shift -- in environmental, social and economic policy -- from dam building to dam removal. The consensus approach won quick praise from all sides of the dams debate.

The purpose of the Aspen Dialogue, according to Joan Harn's draft proposal, is "to provide neutral ground to discuss and develop policy recommendations about controversial issues surrounding when dams should be removed. Dams will inevitably be removed, yet dam removal is very controversial and the federal role is not clear."

Project leaders of what may become an informal "US Commission on Dam Removal" have expressed interest in applying the WCD’s ultimate findings, criteria and guidelines to the USA's own dam dilemma.