I was pleased to see an article highlighting some of
the great river restoration successes on Fossil Creek
(HCN, 10/01/07). It is unfortunate, however,
that the article also seems intent on creating a dam-removal
controversy where one does not exist. River restoration
practitioners – and the conservation groups that we often work with
– are under no illusions that dam removal is a “panacea,” and we
are well aware that the business of river restoration is, like
nature itself, full of complexity and uncertainty.
Dam
removal is like major surgery: There are always risks and potential
complications associated with the procedure, but there are ways of
minimizing those risks, and we press forward when we are confident
that surgery will improve the patient’s overall health. So far, the
track record for dam removal is excellent, and our ability to avoid
potential risks improves with experience. Dealing with uncertainty,
complexity, and even risk isn’t a “downside.” It’s a necessary part
of doing the job right. This is why river restoration practitioners
and conservation groups alike are vocal advocates for more
scientific research at dam removal sites.
Jim
MacBroom, P.E.
Vice President,
Milone and
MacBroom, Inc.
Cheshire,
Connecticut
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline Risky dam business.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
