“Should we build more large dams?”

Photo Credit: Olivia Dorothy

As lock and dam infrastructure on the upper Mississippi River ages, we will be faced with some tough choices.  Ultimately, Congress must decide whether or not to replace the infrastructure.  With this in mind, I found a recent study[1] from Oxford particularly fascinating. 

Published in Energy Policy, researchers looked at the benefits and costs of large dams.  The study focused on large hydropower dams, but included other dams and asked whether large dams are worth it from a purely economic perspective, without evaluating environmental and social costs.

The result: “Even before accounting for negative impacts on human society and environment, the actual construction costs of large dams are too high to yield a positive return.” 

If the costs are so high and uneconomical, why are large dams continuing to be planned and built?  Because project planners, like the Corps of Engineers, are “delusional” and “deceptive” as they routinely fall into the “planning fallacy.”   

The planning fallacy occurs during the project planning process when experts (i.e. Army

Corps of Engineers) focus too much on what constituents (i.e. Congress, barge industries) want to accomplish rather than evaluating similar completed projects.  Rewards (i.e. political incentives) feed a delusional overconfidence, which is exacerbated by “strategic misrepresentation by project promoters” (a.k.a. deception) to obtain funding and approval for the project.

The study shows that the planning fallacy has and continues to drive large dam cost underestimation and delays.  Worldwide, the actual costs of dams were 96% higher than the estimated costs on average – the U.S. had the lowest average cost overrun at 11%. Eight out of every 10 large dams run over their scheduled completion date.  And we haven’t gotten better with time, the magnitude of cost and scheduling inaccuracies have been consistent since the early 1900s. 

What does this mean for planning?  The U.S., like most governments, requires experts to develop benefit to cost ratios to determine whether a project is a good economic investment.  Water resources projects require a minimum 2.5 ratio before the president recommends Congressional funding.  This means that for every dollar invested in water resource projects, at least $2.50 must be returned (for a net profit of $1.50).  The typical pre-construction benefit cost ratio worldwide for large dams is 1.4.  But the authors found that costs for large dams are underestimated by 44-99%!  So, the actual benefit cost ratios for most dams were less than 1, indicating net economic loss. 

If governments were provided more accurate information about dam costs, fewer large dams would be built.  This is why the authors are calling on planners and managers to develop a comprehensive global database to track costs and performance.  Such a database would help planners develop more accurate cost estimates and timelines, prevent unnecessary dam construction, and ultimately protect wildlife, habitat, cultural sites, farmland, and other resources.

---

[1] Ansar, A., et al. 2014.  Should we build more large dams?  The actual costs of hydropower megaproject development.  Energy Policy.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.10.069

What will we tell the children?

I know that it's not Friday, but I just have to share this adorable video published by Prairie Rivers Network, a Nicollet Island Coalition member, about the Clean Water Act proposed rules.  Tell the EPA you support the rules today at www.prairierivers.org/cleanwateract

Will Navigation Stop Global Warming?

Barges loaded with coal and frac sand.

Last week I spent several days with the Great March for Climate Action and, while my feet only lasted something like 25 miles, I got a chance to talk with them about the challenges facing the Mississippi River as the climate shifts.  The barge industry claims that navigation is the transportation solution to global warming.  But it is SOOO not true.  Here’s why.

Fuel Efficiency

The barge industry claims that they are to most fuel efficient mode of transportation.  A study by Texas Transportation Institute – funded by the navigation industry – says barges can move 576 ton-miles per gallon and claim rail only moves 413 ton-miles per gallon.  But two separate, independent studies by the Universities of Illinois and Iowa say that the industries figure for train fuel efficiency is flat out wrong – trains moving bulk goods carry 640 ton-miles per gallon.  Trains are way more efficient than barges.

Circuity

What the heck does “circuity” mean?  It’s the different distance traveled by the different modes of transportation with the same start and end point.  The same three studies I mentioned above all concluded that barges have to travel at least 30% further than rail because rivers are squiggly.  Taking those extra miles into account, barge fuel efficiency drops down to, at best, 443 ton-miles per gallon.

So with barges traveling further than and not as fuel-efficiently as trains, we can conclude that barges are emitting more carbon into the atmosphere than trains.  Two strikes against navigation in the climate debate.  Let’s look at the infrastructure because a colleague said the other day that navigation is the most at risk transportation sector as global temperatures increase.  It made me laugh after reading so many reports written by the barge industry that concluded global warming would be a boon for the industry – making the shipping season longer. 

Infrastructure at Risk

In the Upper Mississippi River basin climate change is causing more droughts punctuated by more intense storm events.  This means navigation is facing more frequent river closures from drought and floods and more weather related accidents on the river, like the barges that broke loose in Marseilles last year after the captain tried to move his tow in extremely high water.  The barges damaged the dam at Marseilles and breached the town’s levee, causing tens of millions of dollars in damages.

Fish and Wildlife

The infrastructure navigation relies on, like the locks and dams on the Mississippi River, by themselves cause significant habitat degradation.  The dams on the Mississippi have turned the upper portion of the river into a series of slack water pools, totally transforming the river’s character.  So the native flora and fauna are already struggling to hang on in this new environment and climate change will be another challenge for to survival of all the native wildlife.

So, that’s four strikes against navigation, one more than is necessary to drop them from the list of climate change solutions.  The industry continues to hang on, but we need to move our transportation plans out of the 19^th century on the Upper Mississippi and look at real solutions. 

Pool 2 Channel Realignment

Just above Lock and Dam 2 at Hastings, MN the navigation channel in the Mississippi River makes a tight turn, almost 90 degrees.  According to the navigation industry, 54 groundings have occurred at the site since 1990 and tows cannot move through the turn with a full load of 15 barges. 

In an effort to make navigation more profitable on this stretch of the Mississippi River, the Army Corps of Engineers is proposing to cut a new channel to circumvent the bend through what was known before the dam was built as Boulanger Slough. 

Source:  US Army Corps of Engineers

Is it a good idea?  The navigation industry argues that new channel is necessary to increase profitability.  But the Corps must justify the new channel from an operations and maintenance cost-benefit perspective.  When companies have to pay more to run smaller barge fleets, it’s not a public operations and maintenance expense.  

What are the public expenses of the proposed Boulanger Slough channel?  So far, the public expenses add up to cutting the new channel itself, dredging more sediment downstream, mitigating the environmental impact, and disposing of contaminated sediment

The new channel cut will certainly increase sedimentation downstream, which may increase the cost of operations and maintenance since it will require more dredging downstream.  There may also be costs associated with special handling of contaminated sediment since the site has elevated levels of contaminates including nickel, PAHs, PCBs, and other heavy metals.  But the Corps hopes to dodge environmental mitigation requirements by asking the Upper Mississippi River Restoration program do a restoration project downstream – a program that is not in the mitigation business. 

Even with all these certain costs, the Corps still thinks the project will overall reduce channel maintenance expenses, but they haven't produced the figures for all of it.  If the project moves forward, the Corps will be holding public meetings within the next year.  So stay tuned for opportunities to comment.

How to Kill Zombies: Deauthorization

This week the Obama Administration hosted their first listening session on the 2014 Water Resources Reform and Development Act to solicit ideas on how to implement the Water Resources Reform and Development Act signed into law last June. 

The Act is huge and sweeping and the Administration is hosting four sessions that focus on different parts of the bill.  This week, we talked about deauthorization and project planning.  I came prepared to talk about the chosen topics.  But a contingent of farmers had something else in mind.

Photo by Olivia Dorothy

Within the first minute a farmer from Illinois called on the Corps to fund the Navigation Ecosystem Sustainability Program…  Totally off topic.  Unfortunately the Illinois farmer wasn't alone.  The session was crashed by a team of pro-NESP cheerleaders.  Ugh!

What’s even more troubling is that some of the Team NESP cheerleaders actually had some articulate suggestions for the deauthorization guidance like “ensuring non-federal sponsors approve the project deauthorization.” 

I’m sorry, but nothing would ever be deauthorized if every single local interest group had the power to approve or deny a Corps project.  It’s bad enough local interests can pressure the Corps to reprogram funds to keep projects like NESP walking dead.

But it is not Congress's intent to make deauthorization harder.  The 2014 Act requires the Corps to produce a list of projects that total $18 billion for deauthorization.  But there is no way a penny will be deauthorized if local sponsors have the power to deny it.

Hopefully, the Administration will see through this and take a heavy hand to downsize the $60 billion plus list of unfunded Corps projects.  And I hope NESP will be taken out with the other dead ones.

How to comment on WRRDA implementation

Dragonflies on Illinois River by Olivia Dorothy

On Wednesday, the Army Corps of Engineers will host their first listening session on the Water Resources Reform and Development Act (WRRDA) signed into law a few months ago.  At the listening session, the Corps will take public comments on how they should implement the new WRRDA.  These listening sessions will be held every two weeks through the end of September.  This week’s session will cover backlog reduction, deauthorization, and project planning. 

A lot of environmental and conservation groups are very interested in the project planning discussion. This part of WRRDA significantly changed how the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act are applied water resources development projects. 

NEPA is credited with producing less damaging and more effective projects; preventing some of the most damaging and ill-conceived projects from moving forward; protecting wetlands vital to flood protection, migratory waterfowl, and water quality; and saving taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.

Unfortunately, these changes in WRRDA did not strengthen environmental laws like NEPA. 

The listening session on Wednesday is an opportunity for the public to help the Corps develop implementation guidance that ensures robust public participation and protects natural resources.

If you’re planning to attend Wednesday’s listening session, make a comment!  Here are some suggestions.

Ensure agencies like the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Environmental Protection Agency can work effectively to review and deny projects as appropriate. 

WRRDA language establishes a system that, if abused, allows the Corps of Engineers to pressure, harass, and fine other regulating agencies if they take too long to review Corps’ project proposals.  How will the Corps make sure other agencies aren’t being punished for doing their jobs?

Ensure there are steps in the planning process to vet and remove bad projects. 

WRRDA eliminated what was called the “reconnaissance phase” in project planning.  This short, cheap, cursory review created an opportunity to toss the duds if the Corps identified obvious problems.  Without reconnaissance studies, at what point will the Corps vet project proposals?

Ensure environmental reviews are robust. 

WRRDA language promotes less detailed environmental reviews for a broad range of programs and activities.  These “cursory reviews” will promote the use of outdated information and lead to uninformed decision-making.  How will the Corps ensure their expedited environmental reviews will protect natural resources?

Need more background?  Check out this great article about WRRDA written by Nicollet Island Coalition member Eileen Fretz Shader.  

Full Funding for Upper Mississippi River Restoration Likely

Pelican Farm by Chris Young

Last week, the Senate approved their fiscal year 2015 budget, which, like the House budget, included $33.17 million for Upper Mississippi River Restoration.  This is full funding for the popular restoration program!  The House and Senate 2015 budgets still needs to be reconciled before it goes to the President, but it is very likely the Upper Mississippi River Restoration funding will be included. 

Over the past few years, Congress has been incrementally increasing funding for the restoration program after decades of minimal funding.  Through the 1990s and 2000s the program received an average $20 million annually, so this is the first time since the program’s inception in 1986 that Congress has appropriated its full authorized amount.

Why is Congress suddenly so interested in Upper Mississippi River Restoration?  Partly because groups like the Mississippi River Network and Nicollet Island Coalition have stepped up their advocacy for the program.  But also, the Corps fixed a major budgeting error in 2014 allowing them to finally request full funding for the program. 

This money will go towards important work that will protect and restore the upper Mississippi River.  About two-thirds of the money will be put to habitat rehabilitation on the river and one-third will be spent on monitoring.  Go here for more information about the Upper Mississippi River Restoration program.

Thank you Congress for recommending full funding for this essential program!