Pages

Monday, November 10, 2014

Dams in the Adirondacks

In the reading for this past weekend, Terrie mentioned an attempt to build a dam on the South Branch of the Moose River in 1955 that was defeated by citizen environmentalists. The dam would have been built on public and private land, and the flooding caused by the dam would have affected thousands of more acres of both private land and forest preserve. Terrie writes about the defeat of this project as a triumphant moment for locals to stand up for the government, but as I read it, I remembered other dams that I had seen in forest preserve land in the Adirondacks, including popular areas like Marcy Dam and Lake Colden.

I found an article by Phil Brown, stating that there are over 50 dams in the Adirondacks right now, 6 of which are on "Forever Wild" lands. These dams were built before the land was taken into the forest preserve, but they bring up an interesting question of whether land can be considered "wild" when they have such obviously disrupting human-built structures. It is hard to consider an area called "Marcy Dam" truly wild when its own name refers to an artificial object that has such a huge--arguably negative--influence on the natural environment.

One of these dams on forest preserve land, the one at the Flowed Lands near Lake Colden, has recently been destroyed by the tropical storm Irene. The dam was already in some disrepair, and when it was blown down the state decided not to rebuild it. The State Land Master Plan does allow for rebuilding and repair of dams in wilderness areas that are already in place, so the DEC would not be breaking the law by fixing the dam, but part of their argument for not building the dam is to not interfere with the landscape any more than people already have. The other part of the argument, of course, is the amount of money it would take to bring in all of the materials and equipment to rebuild the dam, which is probably a very important factor in the DEC's decision making process. Interestingly, the body of water created by the dam--Duck Hole--is known as one of the most beautiful parts of the Northville-Placid Trail across the Adirondacks, so many people argue that rebuilding a dam would actually help the natural beauty of the area. This seems counter intuitive to the notion of dams as man-made, destructive structures, and complicates the issue of whether or not the dam should be rebuilt.

Duck Hole, before Irene

After destruction of the dam

Here is the Phil Brown article: http://www.adirondackexplorer.org/stories/dams-and-wilderness


3 comments:

  1. It will be interesting to me to see the regeneration of nature at the former dam sites. In the future, I would expect that there will be beautiful and verdant meadows at the former site of Marcy dam. Personally, I just wish there could be some sort of clean-up effort to remove the wooden planking and debris from the broken dam.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I definitely agree with you that land can't really be considered "wild" while there is still a huge manmade structure in it, like a dam, that actually manipulates the course of the ecosystem. The image of the broken down dam reminds me of the fourth installment in Thomas Cole's Course of Empire series where humans have been exterminated from the land but all of their great structures remain. Just like in Cole's painting, the dams will remain there even after humans are no longer using the space--what this means for the "wildness" of the land I'm not sure but I definitely wouldn't support adding more dams to the Adirondacks without a really really good reason for it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I also agree that there is a tension introduced by calling dammed water "forever wild." However, one of the main motivators of creating the park was to protect and conserve water resources for human use. If the dams are a motivation for the state's conservation efforts, then maybe they do have a place in the Adirondacks. However, I would argue that they need to be monitored and maintained so another break like the one above won't happen again.

    ReplyDelete