Taking down a dam

I'm curious what some of the effects of this can be? The river that runs through the town I live in has a small (by most standards) dam that used to function as a mill but now has no functional significance. The homeowners association that owns the rights to it and is also responsible for it's upkeep wants to remove it all together. Here's where it gets tricky, this river has trout in it and the local TU chapter would like to see the dam taken down so that the river below it would drop in temperature which in turn could make the river a trophy trout stream instead of a delayed harvest trout stream. SOME of the people that live near the river want the dam to stay because they contend that removing the slack water above the dam would change the usage potential of the river and would also result in an increase in mosquitoes (these are just a few of their arguments). I have yet to hear the city's official stance on the issue. No one has offered to pick up the tab to remove it or maintain it either.

Here's my question: how credible are the arguments of each group? In my experience, mosquitoes have a hard time breeding in moving water, so wouldn't there be fewer if the water was moving at a faster pace. Can the temperature of the river really drop enough to turn a delayed harvest into a trophy stream just be removing a small to medium sized dam?

I don't claim to have any sort of expertise on any of this, I'm just curious as a fisherman and citizen who lives within rock chucking distance of this river. Most of my information was gained through a flier that was distributed by the opponents of the project and from talking to people who are in favor of the project (so I've gotten to hear LOTS of biased opinions). I would simply like to hear some UNBIASED opinions about the aftermath of taking a dam like this down.

NcVirginian... I live in Southern Oregon, near the Rogue River. There have been two dams recently removed here. The first was Savage Rapids dam a litle above the city of Grants Pass. It's removal allowed unfettered passage by salmon and steelhead. It used to have a very difficult and treacherous fish ladder which, so some say, killed lots of anadronomous fish. some of the troubles they've had there include, drifting gravel, moving sand and gravel bars, and a very dangerous rapid which has some ancient debris in it, like cable and other man-caused debris. The drifting gravel has clogged the inflow to some major irrigation and water supply pumps that serve a part of the Grant's Pass population with drinking water. This was (some say) unforseen. However, the gravel bar that reappeared was clearly visible in some very old photos of the river prior to the dam's construction.
The other dam was Gold Ray Dam a few miles above the town of Gold Hill, Oregon. It created a large sluggish backwater known as Kelly Slough. Removal of that dam was completed sometime last year, and it drained a vast area which had become a perennial wetland supporting a unique ecosystem. The first spring after removal was a disaster in terms of the mosquitos. they were breeding in the mud, and pools left behind. The folks living above the old damsite were nearly run out of their homes for a time by the skeeters. Many of those folks have well and water troubles as a result of the change in the water table level.
My unbiased view is this... The results of dam removal are many and varied beyond the obvious and even the not so obvious. No one can accurately predict the whole "after" picture. There will be benefits, and detriments.
The Rogue river is now unimpeded to anadronomous fish for much of it's length, but there is still Lost Creek Dam, much farther upstream, built in the early 1980's. It has no ladder, and stops fish migration there. The river is by no means unimpeded. and Lost Creek Dam controls the flow of the river completely, and therefore the fish runs. Water releases can and do control the temperature of the river completely. As for a lower dam, the temperature control would be more limited, as the depth of the water above the dam is what determines how cool the wateris that cn be released. Applegate Dam, on the Applegate River, a major tributary of the Rogue, was also built in the early 1980's It is quite a deep reservoir, and dropped the temperature of the Applegate to the point that nearly noone swims in it any more, it's so cold, even in the heat of the summer.
The Klamath River, just south of us here, has a series of hydropower dams on it that are now embroiled in a huge dispute regarding their removal. Fish are the main factor on the pro-removal side. Water storage for farming and the economy it supports is on the other side.

There is no easy, certain answer in any case of a dam's construction or removal. Botttom line, in my opinion is it's a crap shoot.
Check the websites for the Medford, Oregon Mail Tribune newspaper for archived articles on Savage Rapids Dam Removal, and Gold Ray Dam Removal. Also The Grant's Pass, Oregon Daily Courier, and the Rogue River Press, of City of Rogue River, Oregon.
For info on the Klamath River situation, there is the Herald and News of Klamath Falls, Oregon. Also the Federal Bureau of Reclamation has info on the Klamath River and Klamath Basin water situation on their website. The Klamath thing has been a war with the farmers there for maybe 15 years..
I hope Iv'e not just rambled here, brother. Check out some of the sources I mentioned to see the history of the ongoing debate before and after dam removal. The Gold Ray Dam debacle is the most recent, and the most interesting, I think. Home and property owners above the old damsite are feeling profound effects, and have a slew of lawsuits in progress. The whole issue of dams is a firestorm, and is fueled by enotion as much as fact in most cases.
.................................................. Modoc Dan

The City of Springfield, Ohio went through this process over the past few years for Buck Creek, which flows through downtown Springfield. I think this project might be more similar to that of the James River project in Virginia (vs. the larger rivers and dams on the Klamath or Rogue in Oregon). Springfield added an interesting piece in that they turned the dam locations into whitewater kayaking features. I am not an engineer and do not know the issues, but can tell you what i have observed to have changed on Buck Creek since the removal of the first several dams: the river is cleaner b/c it does not have contaminated silt held back by the dams. With the combination of cleaner water, cooler water temps in the summer, and water that is better oxygenated, the the fishing is actually better.

Below is a link about the Springfield project. Also on the left of this web site are links to a number of other completed projects that lists info and results of the dam removals.

http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/ContentAp...0/Default.aspx

Thanks for the replies. It's interesting to read about some of the other areas where there have been dams removed. The river isn't that large and I'm pretty sure that none of the landowners that are "up in arms" are living off of well water so I don't think that's even an issue with this project. The part of the whole debate that irks me is that these people seem to want this homeowners association to keep maintaining the dam so that they can enjoy the river. Did I forget to mention that there's no access to the slack part of the river unless you cross their property (which they have mentioned as a possible problem), meaning that they - the homeowners - are the only ones that can enjoy that part of the river. So, how I see the argument is this, the homeowners don't want to foot any of the bill to maintain the dam which provides only them with a "usable" part of the river and the local TU chapter wants to remove the dam and provide the city with a very probable increase to tourism revenue. I honestly don't know how there's even any debate here. A few homeowners want the rest of the town to foot the bill for something that they, and only they, can use.

My other question is: What happens if the homeowners decide to simply not maintain the dam and it breaks down over time. Wouldn't there be a bigger problem then?

disclaimer: I am NOT a member of the local TU chapter, though I obviously am leaning towards their side of the argument.

In many states there is a high water mark whereas anybody can be in the river as long as that mark is not crossed. You may look into what your states water access laws are.
If the shoe was on the other foot and you owned the land where would you stand? How would you feel about intrusions into your castle?
Is your info about where the landowners stand word of mouth or actual information? In todays world I find that many times you need to dig so as to get reliable and truthful information.
I would not put it past various groups to spread misinformation to get their way.

Hardhat,
I am unsure of the "high water mark", but will definitely look into it. I have not heard of such a law in Virginia, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

You pose a very good question about if the shoe was on the other foot. I simply don't know how I would feel about the situation. I think that I'd honestly want whoever was proposing the removal to provide me with ALL of the facts concerning such a project and the aftermath. As a fisherman, I feel that I would welcome anything that could improve the quality of the stream and the ecosystems within it.

As far as how the homeowners feel, they distributed anti-removal materials throughout the neighborhoods nearby (which I live in) and seemingly expressed their views about the situation. That being said, they didn't do a very good job of it. Their facts were poorly supported by unreliable sources and there were several discrepancies throughout in regards to the aftermath (they said one thing on one page, and then contradicted themselves on another, etc.).

While you propose many good points, I don't want to get into a "what would you do if" debate about it. I'm simply trying to get some more opinions/facts concerning dam removal and the aftermath.

You know this is a good thread. I am also intersted in reading what others have to say about the results of similar situations. The results of removing the dam may be a win win for everybody. In your case it looks like the homeowners are only considering their wants and not those of them living around them. Would it not be surprise to them if people were allowed in the water through their property.

Interesting review of a dam removal on the Sandy River in Oregon; http://www.oregonlive.com/news/orego...080.xml&coll=7

Here is one to watch, the largest dam removal project to date in the US; http://www.nps.gov/olym/naturescienc...estoration.htm