Random Thoughts IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've been practicing...

070411_zooAtlanta_vmed.grid-4x2.jpg

Bewbs aren't near as large as we were lead to believe.
 
I get the frustration with it, but part of all these lately, I think (and Box, correct me if I'm wrong, you seem to be more of an expert here than I am), is that there's a lot of pressure for communities to get rid of low head dams because they're really useless now...but they are a safety problem. So, the thought is that some of the money will be spent anyway, to get rid of it...so you spend a little to get nothing (other than getting rid of a safety issue), or you spend some more to get 'an attraction'.

Now, that's not to say that I agree with their economic impact numbers, but the politics of it is do we spend $5 to fix the problem and nothing else, or do we spend $10 (or 20, or 50, I don't know the scope of them) to actually get something in return that they can puff their chest out about 'bringing to the community'.

And I'm not arguing Box's point...that whole thing is a mess, but I wanted to clarify that it's not just that communities are saying "hey, let's have whitewater", they're mixing it in while fixing a safety problem.

More info:

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/st.../removing-lowhead-dams-making-parks/22441793/

The safety issue is just an excuse to spend millions rather than a $100k to remove a low head dam. Whitewater courses keep the river impounded unnaturally but that is what people want. It does remove the "drowning machine" effect but at much higher cost than other options. It is the most expensive alternative.

Big high dams reservoir are expensive to remove especially dealing with and managing all of the sediment built up behind them. Low head dam removal is easy peasy but people like to cite the cost of removing dams that are nothing like the small river low head dams as a reason.

Wisconsin DNR was partnering with us to remove dams on the Baraboo River but it started to not make sense with the cost of federal studies so they just removed them themselves, think it was less than $100K each for multiple dams.

Minnesota DNR has done rock fill rapids below some low head dams that removes the drowning hazard and provides fish passage. Nice compromise when there is too much local opposition to full removal.

Bottom line, using the dam safety issue as an excuse to spend millions is just a smoke screen to justify the expense of the most expensive option on the table.

edited to correct multiple spelling errors!
 
Last edited:
watching the parents trying to get the baby swallows to fly is fascinating. Though I question the parents' desire to do so at 9pm.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.