DAM PROBLEM: The world's dams are being built for water flow conditions that may no longer apply thanks to climate change, according to new research.
Image: Noodle snacks/Wikimedia Commons
Over the past four years, John Matthews has been traveling the world to better understand freshwater and climate change issues. He found that poor planning is creating one of the biggest water-related threats.
"We need to think about managing water in a much more flexible way," said Matthews, who is director of fresh water and adaptation at Conservation International. "Let's not just design for a single future; let's think about multiple possible futures."
In a paper published this month in the journal PLoS Biology, Matthews and his co-authors argue that investment and management decisions risk exacerbating climate-initiated changes, which could lead to economic catastrophes.
The conventional method of building dams is fundamentally flawed, said Matthews. Looking at the available data, engineers decide on a flow rate that they feel will optimize the infrastructure project. The problem, says Matthews, is that historical data is not a very good guide to the future of freshwater resources -- particularly now that extreme water conditions have been exacerbated by a rapidly changing climate.
According to the United Nations, humans will feel the effects of climate change through the water supply. The hydrological cycle -- which includes surface and ground sources, glaciers, precipitation, runoff and vaporization -- is very sensitive to small climatic shifts. This is a concern not only because water is essential for subsistence, but because it's also the key to economic development. The way humans are managing water infrastructure and conservation, the authors argue, is only intensifying these issues.
Old dams, new realities
"It's not that we need to give up designing; it's that we need a better design and decisionmaking process," said Matthews. "We need to think carefully about how conditions may be shifting, because there are some things that we can say with high confidence are happening because of climate change."
Over the past century, dams made in the West have become more mismatched with their ambient climate. The Hoover Dam, for instance, was designed based on a 30-year period that had markedly higher precipitation levels than today. As a result of a decade of drought, the dam is now operating at only 30 percent of its capacity, said Matthews, and new mechanisms have been added to cope with the lower water levels.
When infrastructure plans are based on a set climate scenario, rather than a flexible one, it can be very costly in both human and economic terms, especially in the developing world, the paper argues.
Less-developed areas, particularly parts of East and South Asia, are now entering a period of rapid hydro infrastructure development. Since water managers are largely following the West's rigid planning model, these countries are going to have difficulty adapting to changes in water availability.
According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 40 percent of all development investments are at risk due to climate change, write authors in the PLoS paper. If a hydropower project fails to fulfill expectations due to the effects of climate change, governments could struggle to pay back loans from development investors.
New dams and power shortfalls
Masses of people could also face prolonged brownouts. Matthews saw this take place in Nepal, where low water levels rendered a brand-new dam project ineffective and cut off the water supply farther downstream.
"[Developing countries] are likely to make themselves poorer and make species and ecosystems decline at the same time, and I think that's a huge crisis," said Matthews.
The solution is to build new water infrastructure in stages, say the authors of the PLoS paper. Using that approach, managers can adjust their strategy as climate patterns become clearer. Another step is to integrate ecosystems into infrastructure development -- by "building with nature" rather than on top of it, using a system that will be more adaptive.
Finally, it's necessary to plan for multiple future climate scenarios by coordinating engineers, economists and conservationists. A collective approach will result in a more robust long-term strategy.
If water management practices stay the same and do not account for future risks, then "we're building things based on a hydrological lie," said Matthews.
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500
See what we're tweeting about
27 Comments
Add CommentAnother anti-capitalism fluff story. /yawn
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Velstras: You make a bombastic statement but, like most people who make such statements, you don't back it up. What specifically, is anti-capitalist about this article? Or perhaps you think it's anti-capitalist to plan for long-term benefits in-lieu of short-term gain?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo we should not design hydroelectric (or other projects) on the basis of past history. We should design them on the basis of of the fundamentalist religion of AGW. Well that's just wonderful!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLMAO! It really is funny to read these comments sometimes. Especially when it comes to global warming and rapid man made climate change. I always see people writing these well written denials of the science behind such claims. Only problem is, that it is a fact that a vast majority of science professionals DO believe that these denials are just straight wrong. Oh, and for the lobbyists who always want a link, here is one of many:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/06/scientists-overwhelmingly-believe-in-man-made-climate-change/1
Lobbyists... Geez.
A consensus does not make a fact and failure to even allow for civil discussion actually empowers those who disagree with you. Obviously, the opposition is on the right track when you try to dismiss them without a hearing. And, by the way, several of those scientists have jumped that sinking ship recently. Including Dr. Ivar Giaever.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/09/14/nobel-prize-winning-physicist-resigns-from-top-physics-group-over-global/
He is by a long shot, not the first, and will not be the last.
While there certainly are 'scientists' who argue there is no global warning...there are essentially no 'reputable scientists' who argue that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe "true believers" will tell you that I must be paid by the oil companies. I keep wondering when those checks will start rolling in.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisU S consensus;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate/scientific_american_poll_81_think_the_ipcc_is_corrupt_with_group_think_poli/
and:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx?sm=ONSUsVTBSpkC_2f2cTnptR6w_2fehN0orSbxLH1gIA03DqU_3d
Notice, this is an SA poll.
They already have:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/28/us-usa-climate-skeptic-idUSTRE75R2HD20110628
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/28/us-usa-climate-skeptic-idUSTRE75R2HD20110628
You need to do more than post debunked talking points on the comments board around here and move up to fabricating scientific conclusions out of whole cloth! then I'm sure you'll see some of that sweet fossil fuel cash!
"Soon agreed he had received funding from all of the groups and companies, but denied any group would have influenced his studies. "I have never been motivated by financial reward in any of my scientific research," he said.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I would have accepted money from Greenpeace if they had offered it to do my research," he added."
This is the last part of your link.
Sault - Here is another good take on your link:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate/the_log_in_the_eye_of_greenpeace/
It may be that severe weather wjether it is incrasing or not is not compatible for our juman living environment in that we have to rebuild excessively and poweer grids go down to easily in a powr critical world... we hav eht cpistalist protit motive that will ruin the very planet we live on for short term profit and we will not invest in redundant critical human life support systems and we have no conscept of holistic system design whenever everyon is innovating soley for their own profit anhd little regard for consequence. Our military industrial research at our expense is then tunred lose on us at increasing expense to us and little long term consequences. The Roman tested the water supply for their cities for a year before using them for all but then ran the water through their lead pipes. Our economic system is poorly designed for living within the means of our planet wasting too much on wars of destruction and reconstruction profiteering and on a population growth model and with massive accumulation of wealth for only a few and poisoning the very planet we live on, a precious oasis of life called Earth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe dams will likely all fail if the Armageddon asteroid story is accurate. If an asteroid is big enough to raise Atlantis.....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe dams in our area were not able to control the excess water. Where do you live? Maybe we can pipe some of the dirty flood water to your basement. It's not a problem for you is it? People talk nonsenses until the dirty water is threatening their home.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEngineers design things for what conditions are and what they may reasonably be. The fact that engineers are unwilling to sign off on issues surrounding AGW should tell you something; the something being that that the issue is unquantifiable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn engineer speak unquantifiable means imaginary.
I belong to an association of professional engineers and when AGW agitators tried to present reasons why we should all sign off on their goofy schemes they were loudly laughed out of the meeting.
Professional engineers are not willing to shoulder personal and professional liability for some else's politcal delusion. An AGW agitator or researcher can say "All that stuff I said...nevermind." and walk away scot-free. The engineer is legally liable for the works of ther hand forever.
Sorry, people, but in the real world, nothing happens until an engineer signs off and the engineers I know hold the AGW movement in utter contempt for playing silly games with science.
Why would we expect that a physicist would have special knowledge about climatology? Does expert knowledge in one are imply expertise in all?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs I understand it -- agreed, there is no consensus concerning the degree to which humans are responsible for global warming. Seems to me there IS a consensus that the world is warmer than (say) 100 years ago, and growing warmer. Conceivably, humans can mitigate global warming through human action, regardless of the cause. (Or we can take no action, and hope that things work out OK.)
It's not necessary to believe that humans are responsible for global warming, in order to accept the general points of the article.
"In engineer speak unquantifiable means imaginary."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAhh no, I am likewise an engineer, and that is simply wrong. For example: we cannot quantify the likelihood of an earthquake in the future; or a tsunami; or airplanes crashing into buildings. We often understand the past pretty well, but we aren't very good at predicting the future. (Those who are good at predictions have made their millions at the race track; now live in idle luxury on large estates where they read and comment on these articles.)
But we design for those problems all the time. Sometimes the design cost is small (or the benefit is great, even at very small risk).
@ pokerplyer. Suggest you try reading the article again. Which says that the dam is operating at 30% of its capacity not water level.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe dam has an operational capacity of 2080MW. Here:
http://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/faqs/powerfaq.html
These people seem to know what they are taking about:
http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/2010/world/low-water-may-still-hoover-dam%E2%80%99s-power/
All very calm and factual. No histrionics or wild googleeyed accusations to be seen. Unlike someone I can think of....
To be honest I have neither the time nor inclination to work out what the current operational power generation level is. Perhaps you could be a dear and check for me? I'm sure that the Bureau of Reclamation would be pleased to tell you.
Anyhow the point of the article is not so much about global warming but about the realities that engineers (people like me) have to deal with in designing our systems. The climate is variable and the designers of future hydro power projects need to acknowledge that if they are to operate efficiently in the longterm.
Its not about dogma at all you see......its about economics
Yeah...uh, that's not really an unbiased source. The problem with the denial movement in this country is that you think an internet blog or a talk radio / Faux News commentator is equally qualified to speak on scientific matters as an ACTUAL scientist who is a specialist in the field under discussion. Hence, this is why hucksters such as Watts, Pielke and even TV personalities are given more credence in your mind that the climate scientists that provide evidence that doesn't agree with your preconceived worldview.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIce cap or whatever maintains that there's this flood of money going into climate science. Well, what about the flood of money going to the fossil fuel industry? The top 5 oil companies made a TRILLION $$$ in PROFIT over the last 10 years, so don't you think they'd want to protect that revenue stream as long as possible? I mean, just look at how much money they send to the American Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, The Heritage Foundation, American Energy Solutions, America's Oil and Natural Gas Producers, the list goes on and on. All of these organizations receive MILLION$ from the fossil fuel companies and surprise, surprise, they tent to produce EXTREMELY biased reports filled with flawed methodology or bogus press releases riddled with inaccuracies and downright lying. See "Hummer vs Prius" or the Heartland Institute's economic modeling of the Cap and Trade Bill to see what I mean.
Oh well, I guess the dirty energy companies learned from their buddies in the tobacco industry how to delay public action on a scientific issue for as long as possible, because these are the EXACT SAME tactics employed by many of the SAME people!
By unquantifiable, I mean just that. It is statistically possible to calculate the likliehood and magnitude of an earthquake, tsunami etc given the past occurrences of such events. Designs are made to reflect these issues.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnquantifiable means basing design parameters on IPCC blessed computer models that have no track record of experimental verification, utilize undisclosed "black box" programming, use only politically laundered data, are untestable, unfalsifiable and which demand, ultimately an act of faith. One may as well take his or her shoe size or waist size(either will do) multiply by the square root of the circumference of a jelly bean and use that as an estimate of climate change.
In summary, there is no experimentally verified evidence supporting Man Made Global Warming. If there were, the scientists involved would have claimed their Nobel Prizes by now. All the existing MMGW research does is document occurrences that they deem consistent with global warming. This is a circular argument at best, as it assumes the conclusion before the data collection begins. In terms of research it is strictly Grade 7 Science fair stuff,as all they do is describe things, not devise experiments to test for a root cause.
The scientists at CERN took a giant step forward in the identification of root causes by demonstrating that cloud formation appears tied in some fashion to cosmic ray variation. Instead of welcoming this information as a new piece in the puzzle as to what controls the planets climate (as a truly neutral and curious scientist would do)the MMGW elite lined up to attack it and the scientists involved. Why would they do that unless they have a vested interest in the outcome?
Now, how about if Hansen and Mann et. al take a risk and ask the tough question: How can we devise experiments to disprove MMGW? That I'd like to see, but the chances are about the same as having Osama Bin Laden over for a pulled pork tailgate party at the Super Bowl. And yes I know OBL is dead, that just makes my point on how biased the MMGW research is.
My point of this diatribe being that there is a massive difference between the quantifiable issues that engineers use everyday and the leaps of faith and susensions of disbelief that are demanded by the MMGW movement.
When you take one square meter,black so that it absorbs every wavelengt the sun shine you will find the "solar constant" being about 1,3 Kilowatt. Take the same gadget to the ISS it will measure 1,6 Kilowatt ! the difference, about 300 Watt per square meter. This does fuel the climate machine ! We had, in the past, a number of ice ages without any human intervention. Quite interesting and really worth thinking about it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDr.Kamlander@aon.at
Water is one of the most precious natural resources on the earth, and humans are sparing no efforts to save water with developing technologies as well as growing threats from climate changes. It's better for scientists to start to work as a whole, trying to find some ways to reduce and finally eliminate what is threatening to humans. UN indeed, is playing such a crucial roles.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) Earthquakes, Tsunamis, and things of that nature are accounted for in applicable areas since we know what to expect from something like that as it has happened many times throughout history. Even though the structures built to withstand those forces aren't foolproof (i.e. they aren't going to be withstand those natural disasters every time) at least there is some quantifiable effect those disasters have on structures. Whereas with something as large and with as many variables as an entire planets' climate shifting, you can only do so much to prepare for that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs to the scientists, here is a list of former U N IPCC members who don't agree:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=8355&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ClimaterealistsNewsBlog+%28ClimateRealists+News+Blog%29
The money figures are taken from their own websites and public disclosures as well as articles in the Washington Post and Washington Examiner among others. Are they lying on their own sites? Biased or not, if the source is correct, the figures stand.
Okay, we can have dueling internet blogs as sources:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.skepticalscience.com/Hulme-IPCC-consensus.htm
At least this one provides reputable sources and doesn't have an overt political agenda. A few more things, that graph of the 5 temperature sets is doctored. 2005 and 2010 tied for the warmest years on record, even beating 1998, which you deniers held as the peak of global temperatures until 2002 somehow was then crowned the temp champion. And that cute little red line is so disingenuous that I wonder if your tribal affiliates said gravity was decreasing, would you believe a graph they cooked up to illustrate their crackpottery? I think my computer just got stoopider just by visiting your wingnut site.
So, how is it that even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists acknowledge that humans are jacking up the climate while you guys think you know better than the world's ENTIRE scientific establishment?
Really? Skepticalscience.com? Talk about biased, you hit the nail on the head there. Also funny how you don't counter the rest. I know I'm wasting my breath and keyboard on you, but, luckily, other readers do check out the alternative, non-consensus sites. Your guys are afraid to even debate the scientists on the other side.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate
Anthropologic Global Warming is necessary keyword to get a Government grant. No Global Warming, no grant.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNotwithstanding the unnecessary AGW hype of this article, the author of this article raises valid points regarding planning for dams. Dams perform a multitude of important functions: Water supply & irrigation, flood control, power supply, navigability, etc. Because planning these functions is generally left to governments, the planning is generally poor.
We need the water supply that dam impoundments provide, with or without AGW. The earth's population is growing and drinking water standards are increasing.
We need hydroelectric power to supplement the base-load energy needs of our communities. Solar power doesn't work at night, and wind power only works when it's windy. The growth of our energy needs happen regardless whether AGW advocates or IceAge adherents are correct.
Dam control structures are currently designed for some percentage of a Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP). These PMP events have return periods measured in the millions of years--not the 100-year storm return events we are used to talking about. If our reservoirs are a little low, or if we are under-utilizing our dam spillways, it is because we intentionally over-designed these features for safety purposes. Not because of global warming.
We have shot ourselves in the collective feet with respect to new or replacement dams. Dams are important. Replacing old dams or building new dams is nearly impossible because of environmental permitting regulations. That is stupid.
Stupidity was not caused by Global Warming.
Mike Kelter, PE, m.ASCE, ASDSO