Dams That Never Were

[BrentD]

Chicken or the egg argument. Hard to say for sure who is right.

I’m not aware of many states passing laws preventing people from moving there or preventing them having children. Unless you do that it’s hard create situations where less water is needed

In reality, ignoring the complicating effects of weather and climate, I would argue it is more people that necessitates more water, not more water that necessitates more people however. The latter is not how water planners necessarily do their jobs.

Look around at how development happens. This has a long history. Water be gets more people migrating to the area. c.f. Tucson/Phoenix and CAP water, as just a couple of many examples.

 

[TOGIE]

Look around at how development happens. This has a long history. Water be gets more people migrating to the area. c.f. Tucson/Phoenix and CAP water, as just a couple of many examples.

The opening up of the west in this country's infancy via its Reclamation versus modern development, migration, and regional and national population changes are very different things on some levels when it comes to water resource planning.

But they also have similarities. People were venturing west back then, people and farms need water, ergo water supplies were developed. The people were coming and the country wanted to "reclaim" the land.

Today's story is a bit different, largely because basic demand planning doesn't work the way you postulate. We aren't creating supplies so people can move here. We're creating more supplies because they're moving here. We can only do so much to control the demand. One of the greatest functions of demand we can't control is people. Further, basic tenets of western water law generally prohibit speculative procurement of water rights, i.e. if there is no need you can't develop/procure the supply. You can't procure the supply to create a need.

Conversations of these nature, in the conservation realm, always come back to the same issue: people. We can plan wisely and work to do more with the same, or even less, but in the end the true solutions to said problem are impossibly hard to swallow. Until we have volunteers or extreme solutions that no on will vote for, in some respects, it is what it is, and we must deal with it.

 

[Caseknife]

Then there is the dam that was, then wasn't, then was, for quite a few iterations and if it still was, would have changed western Montana dramatically, Glacial Lake Missoula.

 

[BrentD]

The opening up of the west in this country's infancy via its Reclamation versus modern development, migration, and regional and national population changes are very different things on some levels when it comes to water resource planning.

But they also have similarities. People were venturing west back then, people and farms need water, ergo water supplies were developed. The people were coming and the country wanted to "reclaim" the land.

Today's story is a bit different, largely because basic demand planning doesn't work the way you postulate. We aren't creating supplies so people can move here. We're creating more supplies because they're moving here. We can only do so much to control the demand. One of the greatest functions of demand we can't control is people. Further, basic tenets of western water law generally prohibit speculative procurement of water rights, i.e. if there is no need you can't develop/procure the supply. You can't procure the supply to create a need.

Conversations of these nature, in the conservation realm, always come back to the same issue: people. We can plan wisely and work to do more with the same, or even less, but in the end the true solutions to said problem are impossibly hard to swallow. Until we have volunteers or extreme solutions that no on will vote for, in some respects, it is what it is, and we must deal with it.

I so wish you were right. But you are not. First, I said nothing about the "country's infancy". I said CAP as an example that was circa 1991, as I recall, when it rolled into Tucson. November I believe.

You create water for people to "do their thing," and that includes, among many other things, land developers that build more homes, more strip malls, more golf courses and that bring more people. When you plan, whether you do it explicitly or implicitly, you are planning for growth. And humans have, and always will, continue to increase and expand and "improve" until they can't. Adding more water availability will allow more of that. Again.

Keep in mind, your solutions are really just postponements of the bill coming due, not truly solutions in the long-term. In the meantime, the interest on that bill continues to increase and compound and it becomes ever worse.

 

[TOGIE]

I so wish you were right. But you are not.

it's not as simple as you wish.

water providers and their water resource planners don't have control of the levers you speak of. it's the legislatures, county commissioners, and town councils that have those levers at their finger tips, but they ain't pullin them. they've maybe nudged a couple of those levers a little, none of the pulled though.

the water providers? they just gather up the best data available to them about what is happening and work in response to it. if people don't want more reservoirs, they need their legislators to stymie demand for water.... but of course then we're back to the unpalatable solutions that no one wants to grapple with.

people think the dam is the problem, when in fact it is simply a symptom of the problem. it's easy to "vote away" dams, but it's hard to "vote away" the true cause of the problem, as that usually requires sacrifice from everyone, be it their yard, or their golf course, or their pool, or their very own pleasure of simply living where they live, and that's when everyone shrivels up. voting away the new dam only requires sacrifice from the guy after you.

best to point fingers though

it's always best to treat the cause of the disease, instead just treating the symptoms of the disease; or, as some say, "you need to look upstream"

 

[seeth07]

Thought about this thread this weekend. For the first time in my life, we went and goofed off on Noxon Reservoir, one of a few dam-created lakes on the Clark Fork River. We went with some friends who, unlike me, own a boat – though I am 90% of the way to convincing my wife we need one.

View attachment 284477


With someone with a different take, I had a good long conversation about dams. In particular the Paradise Dam that was never built, but would have turned most of the lower Flathead River into the 3rd largest waterbody in Montana.

In mapping dams that never were, and celebrating free flowing rivers, I kind of wonder if I and others are too biased against dams. I am certainly not advocating for the creation of any new dams, which would be logistical and social nightmares, and I do wonder about the things we are missing, whether it is the stuff we know – like the effect of the Snake River Dams on fish, or what we don’t. but I would not be surprised if many of the dams that never were would be celebrated today if they had come to fruition.

If you polled the residents of Helena about whether they would want the near by dams of the Missouri removed in the name of cottonwood riverbottom and free flowing water, I’d bet most would prefer the lakes. Part of that is that lakes almost seem more, “utilitarian”. Near everything most do on a river you can do on a lake and then some, but another part of it may be that, because lakes and water belong to all Montanans, it literally creates more “access” in both literal acreage, and possibility. Even consider the OP of this thread. Allenspur Dam would’ve buried thousands of acres of elk and deer habitat, and dammed the longest free flowing river in the U.S. – something I am personally glad did not happen. But then again, it would’ve created a big damn lake everyone could enjoy where now sits a hell of a lot of McMansions and Dude Ranches few do.

I suppose the opposing part of the conversation's perspective, which I am kind of sharing here, is not the prevailing wisdom on this site or even in my mind, but there’s a devil needing his due – the lake that the Paradise Dam, for example, would’ve backed up would’ve been an interesting beast – whether it be the goodness of tailwater fishing, flood control and power generation, or the discussion of whether or not lakes >rivers when it comes to economic boosts for rural communities.

I’m not saying I am bummed that many of the dams in this thread didn’t come to fruition, nor am I opposed to the trend of removal of dams in the name of fish and wildlife, just thinking out loud that reservoirs have the ability to provide their own value and are interesting human achievements and that I suppose those things should be a part of the conversation about Dams That Never Were.

Obligatory Hunt Talk sweatshirt and sunset photos. Noxon Reservoir is a pretty place:

View attachment 284475

View attachment 284476

How does one get one of those Hunt Talk Sweatshirts?

 

[Nameless Range]

How does one get one of those Hunt Talk Sweatshirts?

@Big Fin had em for sale a few years ago through a partnership with Hunt2Eat I think? If he ever does something similar again, I'll be getting another. Mine it tattered and smells like campfire and northern pike - basically an olfactory aphrodisiac.

 

[seeth07]

@Big Fin had em for sale a few years ago through a partnership with Hunt2Eat I think? If he ever does something similar again, I'll be getting another. Mine it tattered and smells like campfire and northern pike - basically an olfactory aphrodisiac.

I'm very disappointed that when going to the shop at the top of this webpage I don't find anything at all with "hunt talk" on it. Was thinking maybe you have to "earn" your merch from this place or something! I would much rather support the hunt talk brand than anything else hunting related honestly

 

[Irrelevant]

it's not as simple as you wish.

water providers and their water resource planners don't have control of the levers you speak of. it's the legislatures, county commissioners, and town councils that have those levers at their finger tips, but they ain't pullin them. they've maybe nudged a couple of those levers a little, none of the pulled though.

the water providers? they just gather up the best data available to them about what is happening and work in response to it. if people don't want more reservoirs, they need their legislators to stymie demand for water.... but of course then we're back to the unpalatable solutions that no one wants to grapple with.

people think the dam is the problem, when in fact it is simply a symptom of the problem. it's easy to "vote away" dams, but it's hard to "vote away" the true cause of the problem, as that usually requires sacrifice from everyone, be it their yard, or their golf course, or their pool, or their very own pleasure of simply living where they live, and that's when everyone shrivels up. voting away the new dam only requires sacrifice from the guy after you.

best to point fingers though

it's always best to treat the cause of the disease, instead just treating the symptoms of the disease; or, as some say, "you need to look upstream"

As another water professional, I'll support your comments. Here in the PNW, we are blessed with natural reservoirs in our glaciers. As they continue to recede we will absolutely need summer storage. People don't stop drinking and flushing toilets in the summer. Base groundwater flows can go subsurface. But people are so fundamentally opposed to dams that they refuse to accept that there will come a time when we will either need to go to desalinization and exceptionally long pump/pipe infrastructure, or build surface water storage to capture the Nov floods and the April snowmelt to save it for August and Sept. We actively advise municipal clients on the risk and projections of their water sources, those with storage always have a better outlook.

 

[SAJ-99]

it's always best to treat the cause of the disease, instead just treating the symptoms of the disease; or, as some say, "you need to look upstream"

People don't stop drinking and flushing toilets in the summer.

I have long thought that water rates need to go higher. Unfortunately, politicians control that lever and people don't like paying for stuff.

 

[Irrelevant]

I have long thought that water rates need to go higher. Unfortunately, politicians control that lever and people don't like paying for stuff.

However, utility rates are not societal levels. The rates should be set to fund the infrastructure and plan for the future, not to push some ideal or agenda. People in LA/Vegas/Phoenix should absolutely pay more than Seattle and Portland.

 

[TOGIE]

I have long thought that water rates need to go higher. Unfortunately, politicians control that lever and people don't like paying for stuff.

water providers do have some control over that, but only to an extent. they are quasi governmental agencies and obviously are not for profit. they have to show the need for whatever the rates are to pay the bills and not more. most in colorado have implemented tiered rates which really start to punish those that use the most water. but yeah, in places like colorado, too many people can afford to just water away and don't care.

tiered rates are shown to work though.

 

[SAJ-99]

The rates should be set to fund the infrastructure and plan for the future, not to push some ideal or agenda. People in LA/Vegas/Phoenix should absolutely pay more than Seattle and Portland.

I think people take clean, cheap, easy to access water for granted in this country. But we have to admit the Federal government funded most of those large delivery projects. Costs need to be set to compensate for maintenance and future enhancements to delivery system, but you can use cost to determine usage. That would probably qualify as an "agenda", but if you have seven states and two countries with 40m people using the Colorado river as a water source, it gets way more complicated and has to be rationed. Someone is going to claim it isn't fair, but it is a limited resource. Add in a decade-long drought and it starts to be a real problem. I estimate we eventually end up in a Mad Max scenario with water.

 

[Irrelevant]

I estimate we eventually end up in a Mad Max scenario with water.

Doubt it and that's coming from someone who went into water law and hydrogeology because of the scarcity. 71% of the planet is water. The technology to get it where it "needs to be" is old and relatively cheap. We haven't even started to prioritize drinking water over farming or industry. The shear magnitude of that conversion can be shocking for those who don't crunch #s. I fear much less about actual water availability than I do, over-dramatic pandering from either side. Steady, wise planning will ensure water is available for drinking, farming, at least some crops in some areas is absolutely going to be eliminated. Water "conservation" can save use, it's just what that actually looks like will be different in different places. And large Dams will almost certainly be a part of that wise planning in many locations.

 

[SAJ-99]

Doubt it and that's coming from someone who went into water law and hydrogeology because of the scarcity. 71% of the planet is water. The technology to get it where it "needs to be" is old and relatively cheap. We haven't even started to prioritize drinking water over farming or industry. The shear magnitude of that conversion can be shocking for those who don't crunch #s. I fear much less about actual water availability than I do, over-dramatic pandering from either side. Steady, wise planning will ensure water is available for drinking, farming, at least some crops in some areas is absolutely going to be eliminated. Water "conservation" can save use, it's just what that actually looks like will be different in different places. And large Dams will almost certainly be a part of that wise planning in many locations.

Don't ruin my tin-foil hat scenario with your logic and facts.

It seems the problem is that building to "average" will not be able to able to handle the future. We either see too much or too little to an extreme and for extended periods outside our models. States are finding that even with they have the moisture, capturing it and storing it is not as easy as it seems.

 

[TOGIE]

Steady, wise planning will ensure water is available for drinking, farming, at least some crops in some areas is absolutely going to be eliminated.

and in the massively over appropriated basins of Colorado this is actually one of the very primary and nearly the only mechanism for thirsty cities to acquire more water.

it's just a function of shifting things around. all the water is spoken for and something has to give for cities to keep getting bigger and most of the time, it's going to be the farms. it's just an inevitability, as much as people will scream about it, it actually just an inevitability.

and like you said, toilets flush and showers run in the winter, not just the irrigation season. newly acquired direct flow irrigation rights that yield most during runoff ain't no good unless the city can store them somewhere.

 

[FI460]

water providers do have some control over that, but only to an extent. they are quasi governmental agencies and obviously are not for profit. they have to show the need for whatever the rates are to pay the bills and not more. most in colorado have implemented tiered rates which really start to punish those that use the most water. but yeah, in places like colorado, too many people can afford to just water away and don't care.

tiered rates are shown to work though.

Do your irrigation districts have tiered rates? Municipalities frequently have tiered rates over here, but the irrigation districts I'm familiar with are all flat on a per acre basis. Nobody knows how much water they use.

 

[elkduds]

and in the massively over appropriated basins of Colorado this is actually one of the very primary and nearly the only mechanism for thirsty cities to acquire more water.

it's just a function of shifting things around. all the water is spoken for and something has to give for cities to keep getting bigger and most of the time, it's going to be the farms. it's just an inevitability, as much as people will scream about it, it actually just an inevitability.

and like you said, toilets flush and showers run in the winter, not just the irrigation season. newly acquired direct flow irrigation rights that yield most during runoff ain't no good unless the city can store them somewhere.

Right in our back yard, a massive proposal to divert Gunnison/Colorado river runoff to the Arkansas River for consumption by residents of Colorado's Front Range.

Gunnison River Basin: Union Park Reservoir

Every so often Dave Miller surfaces with his hopes to build Union Park Reservoir high up in the Taylor River watershed in Gunnison County. The plan is to move water out of the Gunnison River Basin …

coyotegulch.blog

 

[Irrelevant]

Pumping Mississippi River water west: solution or dream?

CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa (AP) — Waves of torrential rainfall drenched California into the new year. Snowpacks in the Sierra Nevada Mountains have swelled to more than 200% their normal size, and snowfall across the rest of the Colorado River Basin is trending above average, too.

apnews.com

 

[SAJ-99]

Pumping Mississippi River water west: solution or dream?

CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa (AP) — Waves of torrential rainfall drenched California into the new year. Snowpacks in the Sierra Nevada Mountains have swelled to more than 200% their normal size, and snowfall across the rest of the Colorado River Basin is trending above average, too.

apnews.com

LOL. Legislatures. You would think they could Google “energy to move a gallon of water up 100 ft” before saying something stupid.


the Arizona state legislature passed a measure in 2021 urging Congress to investigate pumping flood water from the Mississippi River to the Colorado River to bolster its flow.