Impacts of Building a Dam
Expensive
Cal-Am misrepresents the cost of one dam alternative, desalination, in their mailer. Regardless of whether you believe we even need or want a desal plant, Cal-Am should put out true and complete information-such as the fact that the Public Utilities Commission's own "Ratepayer Representation Branch" recently researched the costs of desal and found it to be much lower than claimed by the Water Management District and Cal-Am in the Parsons Report. Again, this fact is part of the public record. Cal-Am's dam cost estimate of $107-$127 million is not substantiated. Where are the costs for the extensive "mitigations" such as the expectedbull-dozing of the river channel as a result of the altered flows and sedimentation? Why aren't the costs of dismantling the project (as called for by NMFS) included? Clearly, this does not tell the whole story when it comes to costs.
Click here for more
Dams are being removed in many parts of the United States.
(See articles on dams being dismantled
in Smithsonian Magazine Nov. 98 issue,
Aububon Magazine Sept./ Oct 1998)
". . . Unfortunately, the fiscal mischief and environmental harm don't end when the construction of a dam ends; they just become harder to see . . ."
- Robert S. Devine, "The Trouble with Dams" The Atlantic Monthly, August 1995
© 1999 Kira Carrillo Corser
The Water District and Cal-Am have deliberately biased the alternatives analysis by including in each alternative package an expensive desal plant. Futher, the costs of desal are overstated by at least 50% per our (CAWS and Sierra Club) desalination consultant.
Further, the costs of mitigations, monitoring, ancillary construction such as road and bridge work, have been left out of the dam cost estimate.
- John Brennen,
Carmel River Watershed Council
