I might not align precisely as an environmentalist but you regardless, this is probably the best compilation of footage regarding the removal of the condit dam. Thanks for this quality video!
I watched this more than 10 years ago. Yesterday while vacationing, we went whitewater rafting on the White Salmon River and the guide mentioned that there used to be a dam on the river but they'd taken it out. Much to my surprise when I looked it up later, it was the Condit Dam that had been removed. The lower river is absolutely beautiful, the water is clean and cold, and there's little evidence today other than some stairs leading down from homes on the bluff that stop well above the river that there was ever a dam and silted-up reservoir in that place. It's possible for us to put things right!
As a civil engineering student I wrote a paper on the dangers of sediment build up behind dams my professor thought it unlikely they would ever remove a dam and the sediment was not a problem.
The river breaths once more. Tons of silt that should've been down river years ago now is. In a couple of years you'll never know a dam was there. 😁 Thanks for the video.
This is where knowledge of dams and their effects on surrounding ecosystems changes one's perspective on the removal. Those who understand the negative effects of dams welcome this site. Those who do not understand dams see a "big ass mud hole". This "big ass mud hole" is largely fertile sediment that would have normally flown downstream had it not become caught by the dam, in turn the area will be able to support an incredible amount of new growth and life. Dam removal is a needed process.
Amazing to see. Like watching this beautiful river give birth to itself. The sense of the river longing to flow, to clean and to heal itself, is overwhelming. This is such a powerful step in the healing of our culture and our place.
You have fish downstream of a dam? I am sure that any fish would have been caught (netted) from a stretch of the river vulnerable to silt and relocated. Within days you have a clean and vibrant waterway capable of supporting and sustaining life.
This caused WAY less damage than it looks like, it's a matter of perspective, it looks big because your so small. I assume your the type of person who would get upset if your power bill doubled yes? What you propose comes at a very high cost, my friend who is going to pay for it? Well you are of course! It's not really going to slowly drain unless there was a massive drought. That my friend, is super rich soil, this will promote "eco and biological" growth big time!
I've yet to find a video of this removal that addresses the negative effects of the silt discharge and other hazards that resulted. I'm all for the removal, but why hide the realities?
Wow. Usually when they remove a dam, they cut a spillway and lower the water by a few feet, then another few feet, and so on, until the lake is emptied. This time, they basically blew up the dam. Guess they were sure there was nothing important downstream.
I agree, virgin lands are better but I'm sure you agree with me in saying that the hot water output from a power plant would have done more damage than the dam there. I'm all for hydro power because there are no emissions and other forms of power, which we need, have more of an impact than a dam does.
Some really misguided ideas about dams in the video but whatever. Dam building isn't ending and not all dams will or should be removed. They provide irreplaceable services. Rivers don't have any real reason for existing only in the "natural" state as animals adjust to the realities of a river, not what the river once was. A dam is no more damaging to fish than a natural high waterfall. On top of it, the removal of the condit dam just lead to the reservoir turn into a massive dustbowl.
Rivers will always have suspended and dissolved sediments. The fish were never negatively affected. Every time there is an above average rainfall the river will rise and it will carry tons of sediments. The sediments also slow and sometimes prevent coastal erosion. That dam outlived its utility decades ago. I'm happy it's gone. More obsolete dams need to be removed.
A great country can feed, house, and care for not just it's human population, but also the earth that sustains it. One implies the other! There are plenty of energy alternatives. Salmon are just one of the 'indicator species' in our region that show how we ALL are doing. We all want clean air, food, water, soil. ps wild salmon is 10x better. Get educated. from a frugal, conservative, liberal, planet and people loving human.
The owner of the dam considered putting in a fish ladder to move fish beyond the dam but decided to tear it down. Dams are finite, they have a lifetime. This one has reached the end of its life.
I don’t understand the notion “we need to remove dams”. Could you imagine the power struggles if they removed the Columbia river dams?? Very short-sighted.
i'd have expected a much more destructive surge from that violent amount of water initially released. I'd have thought homes downstream to be put in peril... guess not. that looked intense
Yes, i agree with you. However, dams also provide an important part in our life such as providing electricity and water. I say remove all unnecessary dams and leave important ones like hoover dam or imperial dam alone.
Silt and sediment come from the movement of water (and air, to a lesser extent). The dam held back the flow, reducing the amount of silt. Opening the dam released the choking material in huge quantities.
I just thinking about, why dont you remove Niagara Falls because fishes cant move through...? Maybe you should remove highways, roads and your houses because deers and other wild animals cant move through...? You really think that we all should come back to caves???
Those guys that fight for fish know anything about dams? Do they know dams have fish ladders, specialy for the fish to travel freely? So, instead of fighting for a modernising of the dam, those dudes fight for the fish-rights? I'd love to see them in some years after shoveling theyr backyards to remove flood remains that will invade the land every spring or autumn.
My point is that modern dams are built with a "fish ladder", which are a series of pools with water descending from the one at the top to the one at the bottom. This helps fish travel freely, so there is no ecosystem destruction created by the dam. The second point is that in a world where renewable energy is more and more necessary (due to reasons Greenpeace always talk about), the hydro-electric power plants are the only solution (at the moment) that can produce a huge amount of energy with very high efficiency (higher than solar or even wind). The third point is that due to Global warming the annual rain-water quantity that falls on earth will grow. Therefore, an intelligent control of the land water flows (rivers) through dams becomes a true necessity, if you do not want to repair damages caused by floods every spring and autumn. Therefore these guys should have fought for upgrading of the dam, or for a parallel water circuit to "enrich" the view of the area. Instead they fought against a dam which they might be regretting in some 15 years
On the other hand, the dams cause the land behind them to be flooded, loosing the places land animals call home. Along with the fact that even with modern dams having fish ladders, there have been modern dams built that have displaced people who have lived there. I understand the need for drinking water reserves for cities and towns, but and hydroelectric power, but dams displace people and animals
Fish was caught and moved above the dam of course!? What you think they didn't think of something so extremely basic? You must be the smartest guy alive.
+Stormcruzerlore I'm pretty sure it wasn't a hydroelectric dam. The problem with them is that they interrupt the flow of the river, and block fish from moving into and out of their breeding grounds. Hydroelectric dams might be clean energy, but it's not without its problems.
Just because hyrdo-power doesn't produce green house gases doesn't mean there is no environmental impact. Damming a river has enormous ecological consequence, one is the trapped build up of silt which you can see in the video. Another consequence is inability of fish to migrate past the dam. Considering this river is a major watershed for endangered Steelhead, a broader picture emerges. We have to evaluate the impact. What's better, an antiquated dam with limited power output, or a live river?
12 years later the mantra is Clean Energy which we had with hydroelectric power. Keep removing dams in the name of environmental activism but don’t cry when we don’t have enough electricity available to sustain our need for it. Solar and Windmills aren’t going to cut it.
I agree. A slow drain down over say 15 years or so; It would give people enough time to replant trees and shrubs behind the dam area as well. This was one of the first big dams to go, I believe. Maybe it was like a test of what would happen
There could be a message there for everyone. One little drop of water has no real power on it's own, Bute when it gets together with millions of other droplets it has a very powerful voice. Maybe nature has a message there for each of us humans? Thank you for showing this video.
Yeah maybe nature has the same message as the Bible has…. Romans 8:19 New International Version 19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed.
Anyone ever consider that maybe these dam removals might be contributing to the red tides because of all the nutrients being washed down stream to the ocean?
There is a retired hydroelectric damn in Oakland Mills, Iowa that has went to total shit since the Iowa Corps of Engineers took it over. It used to still have three fully functioning gates. Now it has one, and they never open it. The downside of the damn has completely filled in with silt from the water circling around from the spillway. Fishing used to be great there, now it is just another worthless P.O.S.
My opinion; Could have done that with alot less eco and biological damage than what you obviously did. I get the whole theory about wanting it gone and it seems a good idea overall. But you have effectively killed every living organisim in that stream for years by letting all the debris go all at once like that. Why didn't they simply drain it slowly and then, when empty, slowly dredge the sentiment back OUT of the water course mechanically and remove?
