Assignment 5 draft (so far)

Matt Ackroyd

ENG308J

Assignment #5

Dams: Good or Bad?

In the past 50 to 60 years, dams have been popping up everywhere. There are many reasons for installing a dam on a river. It may be a large hydroelectric dam that’s 600 feet high or just a small, 10 foot earth fill dam to hold back some extra water. But for every dam come a lot of different effects and impacts on the environment and the economy. Some of these effects are very beneficial, like hydroelectric power generation, but there are also the negative impacts on the river’s flow and wildlife as well as the effects on the surrounding environment. And it is the job of the engineers to account for all these effects and impacts before starting such a project. But for the already existing dams, what is to be done about those that aren’t very beneficial and have many negative impacts? This is an up and coming concern for engineers as many dams’ life spans are continuing to come closer to an end. So are dams good or bad? Do their benefits for humans outweigh their negative effects on the land its natural way of life?

Well as mentioned before, dams have many reasons to be built and have many uses. The main reason for dams is their ability to create and store a very large fresh water supply (ICOLD). Damming a river, no matter what the size, creates a larger, constant supply of water that can be used for irrigation for farming, drinking water for people in cities nearby, improved in-land navigation, and the recreational uses of a large lake-like body of water. Almost all of the dams in the Western United States are built and used for these reasons. This area of the country is fairly dry but is also very flat and useful for agriculture. And the water for these activities has to come from somewhere. It’s estimated that by the year 2025, 67% of water used for agriculture will come from means of some sort of irrigation (Boutraa). So to help aid in the irrigation, reservoirs are creating by building a dam. Dams also aid in another problem of nature, flooding.

Flooding is the major national disaster in the world, taking about 200 lives a year in the U.S. (http://floodsafety.org/national/life/statistics.htm). One way to prevent a flooding disaster from occurring in areas where it is common, a dam can be erected to help hold some of the excess runoff water back that produced during a heavy rain, resulting in lower water levels of main rivers and streams. In 1941, the U.S Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) built the Blackwater Dam in Webster, New Hampshire. It is part of a series of five flood control dams that were constructed in response to a flooding disaster in the Merrimack River Basin (http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/recreati/bwd/bwdfc.htm). It protects a large, populated area spanning from three cities in New Hampshire to three cities of Massachusetts and is estimated by the USACE to have prevented over $15 million in flood damages since its construction. And it only cost $1.32 to build. As for the effects the dam has on the flow of the river, it flows naturally through the dam and only when a flood is evident does the Corps close the flood gates to hold back the water (http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/recreati/bwd/bwdfc.htm). The reservoir has also created a diverse habitat for various types of animals, including the bald eagle and a couple species of trout. Unfortunately this particular dam doesn’t contribute to another important advantage a dam could have, which is the production of hydro electricity.

Figure 1: The Blackwater Dam in Webster, New Hampshire

The reason hydroelectric power is important is because it’s considered a clean energy resource because it essentially is produced by the simple falling of water due to gravity, which has no negative impact on the environment. The United States’ many hydroelectric dams produce a massive amount of electricity. The well known, 736.4 foot height Hoover Dam in Nevada produced a net average annual power generation of 4.2 billion kilowatt-hours between 1999 and 2008. This is in combination with the Bureau of Reclamation’s 57 other dams, which combine to produce an estimated 42 billion kilowatt-hours a year (http://www.usbr.gov/power/edu/pamphlet.pdf). A kilowatt-hour is the amount of energy used that is equivalent to 1000 watts in one hour. To put it in perspective, 42 billion kilowatt hours can power a city of 14 million people for a year. This type of power generation is reproducible and can be accessed anytime with the push of a couple buttons on a control panel. This is very advantageous in the event of some kind of major power loss, where a large quantity of electricity is needed quickly. And according to the Bureau of Reclamation, hydroelectric power plants are generally inexpensive to maintain, last for a long while compared to other types of power plants, and do not require of any other type of natural resource to keep this electricity production flowing. Engineers are searching for more ways to access and use hydroelectric power, especially in states like Ohio, who got about 87% percent of their power from coal in 2002, just because coal is so abundant in the area, compared to Washington, who got 90% of their electricity from hydropower (http://www.usbr.gov/power/edu/pamphlet.pdf). Low head dams, which are small dams with a water drop of less than 65 feet, are a considerable option because they produce a large amount of power compared to their size and costs to build. But one of the reasons dams, big and small, aren’t being built everywhere possible is there major effects on the natural environments.

*Adding negative effects and discussion of the option of dam removal, and a conclusion*

Major and Sustainability Essay

Matt Ackroyd

ENG 308J

Major and Sustainability Essay

Environmental Sustainability in the Eyes of Civil Engineers

Civil Engineering as a field is best described, in the most basic form, by the American Society of Civil Engineers organization as “the design and maintenance of public works such as roads, bridges, water and energy systems as well as public facilities like ports, railways, and airports.” To go into greater detail, today’s engineers deal with the careful and complicated planning, design, construction, and maintenance of most infrastructures of the world. These infrastructures include transportation systems, basic water systems such as waste water/ fresh water treatment, dams, flooding control, and irrigation systems, environmental systems including pollution control and things of that nature, and all kinds of structures. All of these private and public works have a direct effect on the environment and careful considerations are made in the planning and design in accordance to certain laws and codes. Every field of engineering deals with working with, and sometimes altering the environment is some way or another. And it has become a main concern for engineers to create more sustainable ways of going about their practices. They are constantly trying to come up with newer and more efficient techniques of working with the environment as opposed to against it. This can be a very challenging task considering the main goal of engineers is to build an environment that is better and efficient for human lives, without so much considering the environmental impacts. Though sustainability has always been something engineers try to consider, it has become more evident in the 21^st century that it needs to be emphasized more in the designing and maintaining of projects.

An example of one of the systems that engineers create and manage that has a large effect on our natural environment is our water systems. Almost all of our rivers and streams are affected by dams. There are 6,375 dams in the United States alone, which is about 13% of the world dam population ( www.dams.org/global/namerica.htm ). Building a dam on a river has many long and short term effects on the natural water systems and the surrounding environments. This practice of “damming” in the world has fragmented the river systems drastically, impacting various wildlife and vegetation ecosystems and the natural flow of the rivers. Every river has its own flood plain and natural flooding pattern that have its own benefits to the ecosystem, and building a dam greatly impacts and changes this. A flood plain is an area surrounding a river or body of water that is at a low elevation and usually very flat and is where the water can and will overflow onto during a flood. But this is also one of the goals of the engineer in building a dam, to control the river and its flow of water for reasons such as irrigation and flood control. And part of their job is to look at both sides; the positive benefits and the negative effects the dam would have on the area. If the benefits outweigh the effects, then the dam is built. And this is where they have to factor in sustainability.

Flooding is the most common hazard in the United States and can occur on a small scale, affecting only a town or two, or extremely large scale, affecting entire river basins and multiple states (http://www.fema.gov/hazard/flood/index.shtm). It causes major damage to life and property, plus the burden of very expensive water damage repairs. Many American cities and towns are built along and beside rivers to maximize their potential in trading and transporting goods. The floodplain land also provides flat, fertile soil for farming and such. And chances are that the city or town is located in the flood plain of the river. This presents the downside of living in a city next to a river, the flooding of that river into the city. So it is in our human nature to modify the system so that it works better for us. This is where the engineer steps in and considers ways to control the floods. If no other options are sustainable then flood control dams are built. They are often built along upstream tributaries of a larger river so that they will temporarily trap the excess water and runoff produced by a heavy rain. Then the water is slowly released through the dam instead of all of it rushing down to the one area. This greatly reduces the amount of water that would travel through the main river course, resulting in less flooding, which saves property, crops, and potentially human life. But that is only one of the many situations where engineers consider building a dam.

Almost all of the dams in the western United States are primarily used for irrigation purposes to provide the much needed water to the massive farming and the large populations in these flat, but dry regions of the country. Without a dam, the only accessible water source is ground water and there is only so much that can be accessed. Once that’s gone, it’s gone forever. So the solution seems obvious to an engineer. Build a dam to hold back the accessible water that can be used for whatever the need happens to be. Other benefits also come into play when building a dam that help the sustainability argument, the main one being that they are used in producing hydroelectric power.

Figure 1: American Dam Uses.

Source: National Inventory of Dams, 2005.

Hydroelectric power is considered clean power, meaning it has no negative impact on the environment, and it is renewable. It is produced by the energy of the falling water, which is converted to electricity. The U.S. is one of largest generators of hydroelectric power, in which dams provide 8-12% of the nation’s power needs (http://www.fema.gov/hazard/damfailure/benefits.shtm ). It is estimated by the U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation, that their 58 hydroelectric power plants, i.e. dams, produce an average of about 42 billion kilowatt-hours per year (http://www.usbr.gov/power/edu/pamphlet.pdf ). This is enough electricity to provide about 14 million citizens with residential power. Hydroelectric power plants are also generally inexpensive to maintain and do not need any other natural resources to make the electricity. More importantly, they have the extremely useful ability to produce electricity whenever it is needed, like during a power outage. The future holds a lot of potential for the use and production of hydroelectric power, but issues, such as the environmental impacts, are holding it back. And every method and reason for damming has an impact on a river’s environment and its ecosystem, both upstream and downstream.

This is why engineers also have to factor in the many effects the dam would have on the river. There would be a major impact on the river’s surrounding environment, including the land and the people living along the river, along with the wildlife in and around it. Sometimes many people have to be displaced from an area in order to have a reservoir that consumes an entire valley. Worldwide, 40 to 80 million people have been displaced due to dam building (http://www.civilengineergroup.com/negative-impacts-hydroelectric-dams.html ). Many animals’ habitats and ways of life are altered as well. In the Loire Valley in France, for example, salmon were very abundant and about 100,000 migrated up the river before a dam was built, and in 1997 only 389 were counted traveling upriver (Marks, 2007). Also, in Maine, when the Edwards Dam was taken down in 1999 on the Kennebec River, biologists observed the return of many species of animals that originally resided there, such as the striped bass, Atlantic salmon, and the bald eagle (Marks, 2007). But it is important to point out that taking down a dam does not simply return the ecosystem back to normal. It is a very complicated process that involves many other factors that engineers would have to consider before knocking one down, such as all the sediment built up behind that dam that would be released into the river. The figure is a picture of a large hydroelectric dam showing the general large scale impact it has on the area.

Figure 2: Large hydroelectric dam

So in this particular engineering example, damming, it is the engineer’s job to weigh the benefits of building a dam against the negative effects it has on the environment of the area. They have to come up with sustainable arguments that support the project. Such arguments include if the dam is going to help the area’s environment more than hurt it and if it is worth the cost and effort put forth to complete the complicated project. And as mentioned earlier, if the benefits outweigh the negative effects, then the dam is built.

In all areas of engineering, engineers are called in to assess a situation, make a plan with a design considering all the possible factors of the project, and usually building something, in this case, a dam, to make the situation better for us humans. It is part of their job to do this as sustainably as possible, with careful considerations to things like environment impacts a certain project would have. And it has become one of their main goals to do this more effectively; to have less of an impact on the environment while making the environment better for the people.

Sust. and Civil Eng. Argurement Paper (Not 100% done)

Environmental Sustainability in the Eyes of Civil Engineers

Civil Engineering as a field is best described in the most basic form by the American Society of Civil Engineers organization as “the design and maintenance of public works such as roads, bridges, water and energy systems as well as public facilities like ports, railways, and airports.” To go into greater detail, today’s engineers deal with the careful and complicated planning, design, construction, and maintenance of most infrastructures of today’s world. These infrastructures include transportation systems; basic water systems such as waste water/ fresh water treatment, dams, flooding control, and irrigation systems; environmental systems including pollution control and things of that nature; and all kinds of structures. All of these private and public works have a direct effect on the environment and careful considerations are made in the planning and design in accordance to certain laws and codes. Every field of engineering deals with working with, and sometimes altering the environment is some way or another. And it has become a main concern for engineers to create more sustainable ways of going about their practices. They are constantly trying to come up with newer and more efficient techniques of working with the environment as opposed to against it. This can be a very challenging task considering the main goal of engineers is to make an environment that is better and efficient for human lives. Sustainability has always been something engineers try to consider but it has become more evident in the 21^st century that it needs to be included in the main goals of a project.

An example of one of the systems that engineers create and manage that has a large effect on our natural environment is our water systems. Almost all of our rivers and streams are affected by dams. There are 6,375 dams in the United States alone, which is about 13% of the world dam population (www.dams.org). Building a dam on a river has many long and short term effects on the natural water systems and the surrounding environments. The system of dams in the world has fragmented the river systems drastically, impacting various wildlife and vegetation ecosystems and the natural flow of the rivers. Every river has its own flood plain and natural flooding patterns, which have their own benefits to the ecosystem, and building a dam greatly impacts and changes this. But this is also one of the goals of the engineers building a dam, to control the river and its flow of valuable water for reasons such as irrigation and flood control. And part of their job is to look at both sides; the positive benefits and the negative effects the dam would have on the area. If the benefits outweigh the effects, then the dam is built. And this is where they have to factor in sustainability.

Flooding is the most common hazard in the United States and can occur on a small scale, affecting only a town or two, or extremely large scale, affecting entire river basins and multiple states (http://www.fema.gov/hazard/flood/index.shtm). It causes major damage to life and property, plus water damage is very expensive to repair. Many American cities and towns are built along and beside rivers to maximize their potential in trading and transporting goods. The downside of having a city next to a large river is the flooding of that river into the city. And chances are that the city and probably other towns are located in the natural flood plain. So it is in our human nature to modify the system so that it works better for us. Flood control dams are built for these reasons. They are often built along upstream tributaries of a larger river so that they will temporarily trap excess rain and runoff produced by a heavy rain. Then the water is slowly released through the dam. This greatly reduces the amount of water that would travel through the main river course, resulting in less flooding in that particular river basin. Engineers also take other routes in flood prevention. Many channels that run through large cities are modified to get water through the area as fast as possible without the consequences of a flood. Such modifications include straightening the channel, adding concrete barriers, or just simply rerouting it to flow out of the populated area. Both of these methods have an effect of the natural flow and the ecosystem of the river, both upstream and downstream.

Almost all of the dams in the western United States are primarily used for irrigation purposes to provide the much needed water to the massive farming and the large populations in these flat, but dry regions of the country. Without a dam, the only accessible water source is ground water and there is only so much that can be accessed. Once that’s gone, it’s gone forever. So the solution seems obvious to an engineer, who is a problem solver. Build a dam to hold back the accessible water that can be used for whatever the need happens to be. Dams also have other benefits which help for the sustainability argument, mainly being that they are used to produce hydroelectric power. Hydroelectric power is considered clean power, meaning it has no negative impact on the environment, and it is renewable. The U.S. is the largest generator of hydroelectric power, in which dams provide 8-12% of the nation’s power needs (fema.gov).

Figure 1: American Dam Uses.

Source: National Inventory of Dams, 2005.

Engineers have to factor in the many negative effects of dam building also. There would be a major impact on the river’s surrounding environment, including the land and the people living along the river, along with the wildlife in and around it. Sometimes many people have to be displaced from an area in order to have a reservoir. Many animal’s habitats and ways of life are altered as well. In the Loire Valley in France, for example, salmon were very abundant and about 100,000 migrated up the river, and in 1997 only 389 were counted traveling upriver (Marks, 2007). Also, in Maine, when the Edwards Dam was taken down in 1999 on the Kennebec River, biologists observed the return of many species of animals that originally resided there, such as the striped bass, Atlantic salmon, and the bald eagle (Marks, 2007). But it is important to point out that taking down a dam does not simply return the ecosystem back to normal. It is a very complicated process that involves many other factors such as all the sediment built up behind that dam that would be released into the river. The removal of dams is becoming more common than the building of them these days and will probably follow that trend in the near future.

So in this particular engineering example, it is the engineer’s job to weigh the benefits of building a dam against the negative effects if has on the environment of the area. They have to come up with sustainable arguments that support the project. Such arguments include if the dam is going to help the area’s environment more than hurt it and if it is worth the cost and effort put forth to complete the complicated project. And as mentioned earlier, if the benefits outweigh the negative effects, then the dam is built.

*Not completely finished. I want to add another paragraph or so about things engineers are doing now to become more sustainable, and then a conclusion.*

Food Inc

This movie had a huge impact on me. The facts about the food industry were very suprising and astonishing. The treatment of these animals, which will become our food, was what grabbed me the most and is absolutely inhumane. I mean yeah, they're going to die anyway, but that doesn't mean we should treat them like garbage. With these cows and chickens standing and eating in their own feces, it can't be healthy for them, which makes their meat unhealthy for us. And the fact that the industries have to bathe the meat in, I think it was chlorine, makes me wonder about what else goes on behind closed doors.

Also, why not have these cows eat what they're genetically made to eat? GRASS. It grows naturally, their manure fertilizes it, and its healthy for the cow. I mean I get it, corn is cheap and you have to wait for grass to grow back, but isn't it worth the risk of not getting E-coli into the meat? It's crazy how if one cow spreads the bacteria and it gets into the raw meat, then about 25% of the meat distributed to America is bad and dangerous and needs to be recalled. And if that happens then the company can't even be shut down by the FDA. What's the point of such an agency if they have no power over the thing thats most important? Its BS how these companies have so much power and I am totally against them. But what can I do? I can try to eat organically and try to buy from local farmer's markets but I dont think I can afford to do that right now. I've already boycotted fast food (because of this movie), not completely yet though because the food is so cheap and tastes so good! But I'm trying and am looking into ways to influence a change in this multi-million dollar company ran food industry. I never thought MY FOOD would be so controlled by a big shot company that seems to have no moral ethics about the simplest aspect of life, eating.

Consumption (Accidentally posted on main course blog too)

Generally, I try to watch my consumption on things that have an affect on the environment. And I think I do a pretty good job compared to my peers. My biggest thing right now is recycling. I recycle almost everything; mainly plastics, glass, cardboard, and aluminum. Recycling helps the environment because we reuse things instead of putting energy into making new one. I've found that it also saves a lot of trash bags from being used. This in turn saves me money and makes one less thing that I use. Also, I don't have a car, which means I don't drive much at all.

But on the other hand, I do consume quite a bit. I'll admit that even though I don't own a car, I use one whenever I have access. I'm not a big fan a walking places, especially in the cold, early morning. I used to have a bike and used it quite a bit, but now that I don't have one anymore, I drive a lot more often. Also, I own a lot of electronics that probably use a lot of energy. I try to keep my electric use down when I can by turning off lights when I leave a room and things like that. Awhile back I found out that just leaving a charger plugged into the wall without it charging anything uses a lot of energy, so I try to keep that to a minimum.

Materialism is something that I try to stay away from. I think its a huge problem in this country because we have so much access to pretty much anything we want. But in reality, we don't need a majority of these things that supposedly make our lives better. Things like a huge TV's, big trucks, and any luxery that uses electricity. People like nice things, and I get that, but the real question nowadays is do we really need them?

Writing About Readings Assignment

Matt Ackroyd

Writing About Readings

For the two readings I chose What We Talk About When We Talk About Wilderness by Ted Kerasote, and Cultured or Crabbed by Gary Snyder. Both readings discuss briefly the importance of the “wild,” and how society as well as individuals have an effect or understand their effect on wildlife.

Both authors weave politics and human influence into their articles, adding historical background and scope to the question of how human’s have perceived and are perceiving nature. This tactic is successful, but comes across better in Kerasote’s essay. Starting off discussing the founding of America, Kerasote instantly has the reader’s attention by adding informative and intriguing information in regards to how originally Europeans found America to be untamed. He goes on to argue that America was certainly not completely wild at the time of Christopher’s find because aboriginal people had been working, traveling and naming the land for many decades. Instantly, I was fascinated by this claim, as I’m sure his many readers were as well. It was an interesting philosophical argument on what we define as wild. He then goes on noting various examples of what we typically define as wild, where the word wild came from, and what he personally believes is “wild.”

This tactic of using historical evidence as support for an argument is also seen in Snyder’s piece. Although less effective, Snyder has a few references to historical instances to focus on understanding the differences between nature and wild.

Both authors are attempting to define wild and both seem to draw the conclusion that wild is nature that is untouched or not influenced by humans. They seem to use this argument to entice their reader to think and analyze wildlife as something that is out of our control, whereas we use the term “nature” to support our goals of controlling it. It does not become automatically evident that this is the argument until the end of both pieces.

Both writers seem to be targeting the masses. Neither articles seem to be targeted toward historians or environmental enthusiasts, but instead give insightful information so people can understand where we as humans fit into the bigger picture of nature and wildlife.

In Kerasote’s article, he tries to put the reader in context with nature and wildlife. He brings together the description of the founding our country, the influence of people and religion on our diverse wildlife and how we are all apart and are contributing to the destruction of our beautiful wild places. By putting the individual in context to their surroundings using imagery of the beautiful national parks, referencing grizzly bears and mountain lions, Kerasote is successful in drawing parallels between the individual and his or her’s surroundings.

Snyder uses similar approaches when he asks his audience to consider how we know nature and how we know the difference between nature and wild. Instantly the reader is involved with the writer and his work. Using this approach creates and fosters a reader-writer relationship. Snyder goes on to argue that there are two kinds of knowing. He tells the reader that there is what we know which helps us enhance public life and save endangered species by rebuilding wildlife through the process of national parks and planting trees, and then there’s other ways of learning that involve us going out into the world and learning from experience. At first I was a little confused by this description, but it becomes clear in the end that Snyder was setting up his argument. He wanted to connect with the reader, and than toward the end of the article he brings us back to the beginning by saying that nature is not endangered wilderness, and instead is a result of its own natural responses and cycles. Snyder brings the reader into the piece throughout the article by talking directly to his audience. Whether it’s when he is referencing the new Earth First! movement or telling us the critical difference in the meaning between nature and wild nature, Snyder really seems to want to make personal connections between his content and his reader.

Although both authors offer compelling arguments to enhance reader’s understanding of the importance of nature, they have some flaws. Neither really offers a solution to America’s divergence from nature. If they did it was not a concrete solution, nor was it one that really sheds hope on the future of man and nature relationship. I was expecting both authors to offer either drastic solutions such as giving up on industry or protesting with group A or group B, but they failed to do so. Briefly Snyder talks about the progression of green movements, but he doesn’t really advice his readers to take action. Instead it seems as if both authors are simply raising awareness to the issue, and are briefly opening their reader’s eyes to the “bigger picture.” This also complicated my understanding of whom they were talking to. In the descriptions of the authors I found some insight onto whom they typically write for. Kerasote is known for writing for outdoors magazines, and Snyder is considered one of the most important contemporary nature writers whose article was first published in a book titled The Practices of the Wild. It says he is arguing for a deeper understanding of environmental politics. Although the essay could be targeted for politicians or journalists, it is written like Kerasote’s essay where it seems to be targeted for all people. It would make sense that both of these essays are for the general public because they include such basic information regarding environmentalism, and draw on basic comparisons between human and nature. Instead of being overloaded with references to laws, environmental constituents, lobbyists or go into great detail regarding environmental hazards and changes over the course of human history. This leads me to believe that the authors didn’t want to create the article in a way that would confuse the common person, and instead have formed compelling articles to tackle today’s environmental issues.

In a climate that has become more open to environmental issues I feel as if interested individuals who are looking to define their place and outlook in regards to nature would accept both of these articles. Both authors offer inviting and informative information for those who are willing and open to reading it. Neither attack their audience nor demand their audience to think one way or another. Instead, the authors form their arguments beneath detail and rhetoric as to not make their opinions too obvious and instead sound more like a friend speaking about today’s environmental issues to another friend. Such articles are refreshing in today’s media where you see too often brash and invasive arguments that scare people away from thinking one way or the other. It seems as if both authors have a love and appreciation of nature, and are simply trying to speak to the world about what the importance of wild, nature and us is and isn’t.