When a dam no longer serves its intended purpose, removing it provides an opportunity for us to return a river to its original state, where natural systems are allowed to work without barriers.
The dark water coming it is rich with all the upstream silts & sediments that had collected and settled at the base of the dam. For the first little while after the flood passes through, the water will be extra cloudy (turbulent), but over the next few years, the plant life along the banks will flourish, and with it, insects, birds, mammals, reptiles, and yes, fish, will also come to flourish.
"In 2011, the massive 125-foot tall Condit Dam was removed from the waters of the White Salmon River. After more than one hundred years, the river came back to life as fish regained access to 18 miles of upstream habitat and spawning grounds, ecosystems flourished, and people flocked to boat and fish on the newly free- flowing river"
All dams should have been built with fish ladder until Jehovah's Day brings Paradise. Then Jehovah will let us know what he wants through the Kingdom Government like originally planned before the Garden of Eden
That spillway was a really beautiful and unique looking place with the openings in the cliff and different color foliage on the walls and hill and the water running down the sides, almost has a fantasy look to it, what an incredible and beautiful place!...
I'm not an engineer, conservationist or geologist, but to my completely untrained and ignorant eye, releasing so much water and sediment so fast seems like a bad idea for the immediate ecosystem.
Exactly, they destroy the whole river , lots of land flooded with that toxic sediment and not talking about the sea , all that mud probably destroy miles of coast lines
I just checked out the location on Google Maps. When they said “Dam removal”, they certainly did. All of the dam is completely removed, and there is only a short strip of concrete on one side of the overflow sluice left. Plus the large mostly tree free areas either side of the river up stream which all seem to have been replanted, and various walking/biking tracks installed. Barely know there used to be a lake there.
The state fish & wild life departments have admitted they have zero evidence from 10 years of studies that the removal helped the White Salmon. It was a loss of 15MWs of clean power now replaced by gas burning plant. The sediment plume killed some aquatic life below the dam breach and displace fish as far downstream as the Bonneville dam. Fish & wild life department spent $150,000 to plant 7,000 trees in the dry lake bed only 34 trees lived passed 2 years old. I could go on and on but you prob get the point.
it was the largest dam removal effort that had ever been attempted in the United States. The company that owned the dam, PacifiCorp, estimated that it would cost three times more to update Condit Dam to the required standards than it would cost to decommission it and take it out. In 2011, 99 years after workers came to the White Salmon to build Condit Dam, crews arrived to take it down. The overall counts of returning salmon have fluctuated over the past several years. Salmon and steelhead typically live for between three to six years, in the decade since the removal of Condit Dam, there have only been a few generation cycles for biologists to study. It may just take a few more generations.
@@ThinkStatistics The main issue I had with the removal project was the dam was in fine condition just needed fish passage to pass certification. In order to install the fish passage millions had to be spent on surveys. Then the physical requirements for the fish passage were extreme overkill. In the decade since the dam was demolished we now know that run off from roads specifically chemicals in rubber tires do more harm than dams. This is why tires have increased substantially in price. New types of compounds had to be developed without these fish harming chemicals. Now that that's changed it'll skew the results for all fish surveys.
So as per usual the government paid out the ass for an environmental impact study and assessment, company(s) didn’t know, do, or reveal true impact of what would, could and did happen and wasted time, resources and a shit load of money to eff up a whole bunch of plants, fish and other animals and organisms. But Jerry’s environmental impact studies, vacuum repair and cat obedience school got paid. T.F.G.
The sudden release of water in that fashion was nothing short of delinquent. There was a significant release of sludge which I long suspected would cause considerable damage downstream. That left an even greater quantity of sludge behind the dam which stank to high heaven for some time until it cleared through natural erosion. It would have been better to have released the water slowly with a continuous but lower level of sludge bearing until completely empty.
Any dam had a finite life span because huge amounts of sediment build up behind it, gradually reducing the flow through the turbines. The Condit Dam was 100 years old, so probably coming to or past the limit of its useful power generating life.
When they release the water at Fontana dam in North Carolina it’s an awesome sight to see .. The blast is over 300 feet long and the noise is Like a freight train
1930 년대 대공항시기 건설된 댐인데 자연보호를 위해 댐을 철거하는 작업과정의 하나인 물을 빼는 작업을 하는겁니다 후반 고랑이 파진건 댐안쪽이 그동안 누적되어온 퇴적물이고 몇일후 비가 오니 자연적으로 제거가 댔습니다 댐을 관리했던 회사는 댐을 철거하고 태양광 전기생실시설로 변경했습니다
Some context: this is the old Condit Dam site on the Little White Salmon River located in Washington state. It is between Bonneville and The Dalles Dams on the Columbia River. It was removed because the relicensing was too expensive because it would have required installation of fish passage for salmon and steelhead. The dams waters produced some electricity but was mainly used for lumber. It was built in the 1930's I believe cutting off salmon migration to the upper reaches of the water shed. Much has been made regarding dam removal as a must for salmon recovery. However, it remains to be seen. This river was a test run, along with the Elwah river dams as a litmus for whether or not the environmentalists would ever be able to remove the dams from the lower Snake River and eventually the Columbia River. I, personally do not agree with all dam removals, especially not on the Snake or Columbia Rivers. However, this removal has been acceptable. The Elwah is still a work in progress and the massive return of salmon they predicted has not materialized. Yet, even here, I have accepted the removal as justifiable. However, I do not support the removal of the major dams on the Snake or Columbia Rivers and I hope they never remove them. They are vital for the local economies they serve as well as producing the vast majority of clean and reliable electricity to the Northwest US and other parts of Canada and California. Small scale systems that no longer serve a purpose are fair game.
@jim carson there were websites dedicated to the removal of these dams. The images were very impressive. Bittersweet in a way, but hopefully, renewal is the result. So far, progress is slower than hoped, but in time, anything is possible.
They are going to remove some dams here in California that no longer serve their purpose and help with fish migration. I’m okay with their removal too. It’s also saving money on maintenance on old infrastructure that is no longer relevant.
The dam would have had a lot of silt behind it. Releasing it this quickly allowed the silt to be flushed downstream. This is actually the better way to do it from an ecological standpoint. The silt will be dispersed much farther downstream.
They did that a few years back to a local dam. In the end, they admitted that it solved none of the fish problems even though that was the goal, it destroyed a lake that brought tourism and sustained other habitat for various critters, and lost the only method for preventing flooding on the reservation that the river runs thru and meets the straits where most of the native rez housing is located. Another environmental knee-jerk reaction gone wrong.
It wasn't built for flood control. It was built for power. It's no longer necessary. It's actually bad for the environment in the area. Please do your research and know what you're talking about before you comment!
@leroy420b I'm sure it never stopped a flood....bcs they built it to generate power 🤦♂️ I bet no one ever took a boat on the lake behind it either bcs...you know power generation.
Interesting seeing all the sedimentation from the upstream camera angle that was like "where did all the water pressure/buoyancy go?" as it sloughed-down into the river, leaving bare rock behind.
@@stkyfngrszmooth@Kerry Pike So that the White Salmon would return to its original river channel and that trees and other plants would regrow along its banks and natural resource managers hoped to see the number of fish, especially endangered salmon, increase and regain miles of upriver habitat. Now, a decade since the dust of the dam’s demolition settled, some of those answers are starting to be seen.
I was there! I even lived on the other side of the river and we'd been worried the highway would flood, it didn't. It seems like a bunch of hooey for a very small drainage, that river drains essentially the southwestern face of Mt Adams and by vehicle, it is less than 40 miles to the summit trail parking lot. The fish did return, quickly, but it is not like the watershed is all that bountiful, imo. The fish still have to get past the Bonneville Dam fish ladder, before even reaching this river. The actual, stated reason the dam was removed, was because power generation alone did not offset the massive cost for not having a fish ladder, the dam was blown to end the fish ladder penalty fine.
Why would u put that amount of silt & debris into the stream/river system when u could do a slow controlled release (it is a dam they have that ability) then blow the shit out of it?
Yes, the silt could have acted as a small layer of remaining topsoil if allowed to dry in place and reseed and roll sod mats quickly to establish roots to hold it In place
@@mikevandehey402 I'm sure they did an environmental impact analysis on blowing it vs taking it down a bit at a time. Speed has the advantage of moving way more silt and sand around, which helps the ecosystem.
I was watching well downstream of the dam. Watching the initial mudflow was as awesome as the dam breaking itself. Yes, it put a load of silt into the river. Portions of it are still clogged up.
If by contaminate you mean refresh river banks and adding tons of nutrients to the river for a bit, then yes, you are right. That sediment would have gone down the river with no dam, why has it changed because it was behind a dam? The fish also lived. Mud in the water is no new thing, happens all the time.
