Add your voice by writing your comments and beliefs, using the form below.
It is not necessary to leave your email in order to send a comment.
Coalition for Susitna Dam Alternatives
Add your voice by writing your comments and beliefs, using the form below.
It is not necessary to leave your email in order to send a comment.
http://phys.org/news/2013-03-swiss-fault-thousands-trout.html
Lifelong Alaska resident here. The Susitna Dam project is a giant boondoggle promoted by people whose primary interest is the money they will make off studying the project and building the project. Billions of dollars is a language clearly understood by most of us. What is not so clearly understood is how this project will pencil out to actually do what it is supposed to do SAFELY and not commit Alaska to a manmade disaster area one of the United States last great wild rivers.
Glacial silt, nearby active fault zones, temperatures that commonly go below 40 below zero in winter creating massive ice are obvious problems.
With global warming affecting Alaska as we speak melting glaciers will create a constantly changing flow environment with increasing silt as a given.
There is a much cheaper dam alternative at Chakachamna Lake that would be online in less time at less expense and have far less uncertainty and effect not one person. Why are we wasting public time and money on this enormous expense to create so called cheap power? The answer is simple: money and lots of it to contractors.
That is not a good enough reason for this Alaskan. We can use that money more wisely but first we have to vote in wise people.
We need the dam, please go protest something else. We need cheap power and this is a fantastic way to achieve that goal. I own a guided fishing business, and we fish the Susitna, and I am optimistic about this great project. Is anyone in Talkeetna from Alaska anymore?…go back to the states and let us develop OUR state. I am also optimistic about Pebble. Willow creek has a gold mine at the head waters and it has never fished better.
— Reply: Thanks for your thoughts. Keep paying attention to the data that continues to come out about what effects the dam will have on river flows. You may end up changing your mind.
Why in an age where we are learning the detrimental effects of Dams on rivers is Alaska so behind the time? Other places in the world they are tearing down dams and trying to repair the damage that has been done. Please let us learn from what others have done and instead of building infrastructure that is decades behind the time, be forward thinking for new energy resources that don’t effect our wild, healthy land.
(emailed to legislators 2/23/13)
Hello Senator Dunleavy and Representative Keller,
I’m sorry I missed your presentation in Talkeetna last Saturday. I’ve lived in Talkeetna over 30 years now and am the local registered land surveyor. I just want to express my grave concerns about the Susitna Dam project. It’s being fast-tracked and I don’t think the engineering considerations are being looked at in a realistic way. It’s going to be another expensive boondoggle. The money that would be spent on it should be used to develop an in state gas line.
This ‘mandate’ to have x amount of renewable energy generating power by such and such a date is a flimsy excuse to build this dam. I’ve seen what dams did to the Columbia River and other places. The time of major hydroelectric is over. The environmental damage and ongoing maintenace costs of such a project should make it a non-starter. The only thing renewable about it is that it will have to be maintained with a continual renewal of cash.
If you get the opportunity, fly up the Susitna and look at the massive blocks of ice that have formed this year. Breakup is going to be a wild ride. I have no idea (and I doubt anyone else does) how conditions like this would be effected by a dam. The site is also in a major tectonic zone and the siltation of this glacial fed river is a huge factor. I get the feeling when I hear the ‘marketers’ talking about this dam that the template is for the kind of dam that might be built in California. This ain’t California and it’s winter most of the year.
Thanks for considering my comments.
Murray Nash
Just a little more information about dam building nations.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/hydropower-geothermal/will-himalayan-dams-solve-indias-energy-woes-14982175?click=pm_latest
The lesson here is simple. Governments do not know best.
When I moved to Alaska in 1980, I hoped to live the rest of my life in a place where people let wilderness reign. Having seen all too often the mistakes made in the Lower 48, I was tired of fighting to preserve the wild places which were being swallowed up by development. But of course Alaska is threatened as well. And here we are, fighting against this dam, again. We will win, again– we have to. We have to keep fighting the good fight, to preserve the wild places for the future. It’s why we’re here. Thank you, one and all, for following your hearts, doing what’s right and standing strong for the wilderness and all that it means. We of the so-called “last frontier” need to show the developers that there is always an alternative and a better way to meet the needs of the people without destroying the wilderness. We can over-ride greed and “quick fix” mentality and find a way to “walk gently, this good Earth.”
Check out the “Compass” in the ADN this morning (Dec 30, 2012) by Meera Kohler about an All Alaskan Energy project. This energy producing plan would use the natural gas that we have in abundance. The idea is to build a enormous gas fired power plant on the north slope with high voltage direct transmission lines to the places where it is needed including south central Alaska. I think that the Alaska Energy Commission should be asked to consider this alternative to building this costly dam. We need to get the Alaskan legislature to understand that A LOT of the population of Alaska is opposed to building the dam and need to be educated about real viable alternatives. We need our natural gas for energy. We don’t need a plan to sell it to foreign markets! The legislature is being feed a lot of —- from the AEC about natural being too costly. How do they know because all they have studied is the DAM! Parnell’s PR team!
Hi,
As someone that works on dambreaks, there have been many more than 11 catastrophic failures of dams since 1979 in the US so I would like to know where you got that number. Catastrophic meaning people killed? What are the criteria? There are several papers that deal with this issue the last one is this one:
ASCE Task Committee on Dam/Levee Break Fluvial Processes. Environmental and Water Resources Institute, American Society of Civil Engineers (2011). Earthen Embankment Breaching. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 137, 1549-1564.
The papers by William Graf could also be of help on the extent of damming in the US.
Furthermore, I would not only stick to US data in order to exhibit the extent of the problem dams pose.
Dams are being decommissioned right now in western countries not built – Glines Canyon Dam on the Elwah River wASHINGTON and Marmot Dam in the Sandy River drainage Oregon are good examples in the US.
Good luck,
Nati
—Reply:
Huh. You’re right. Look at this: http://www.damsafety.org/news/?p=412f29c8-3fd8-4529-b5c9-8d47364c1f3e
which says that, “From Jan. 1, 2005 through Jan. 1, 2009, state dam safety programs reported 132 dam failures.”
The “11 catastrophic dam failures in America since 1979″ came from Google. But WHERE on Google is now a mystery, having just spent a half-hour searching for the original source. The information age giveth and taketh away. Thank you for the heads-up. Very important to get data right. Especially when we’re underestimating the incidence of dam failures.
I can help get the kayak and raft industry behind promoting better alternatives.
Also, if we could begin to think more like Colorado did 20 years ago that winter recreation tourism can earn a billions of dollars. We could create great jobs with renewable resources, snow, water, scenery, wildlife viewing, Northern lights, glacier science centers etc, things that we will always have if we all work together to protect Alaska from the take and retire mantality
If could get the State behind the entrepreneurs that have plans to build trams, glacier science centers we could turn this around so Alaskans stay in Alaska, not just here to get retirement and leave but invest in there communities to make Alaska what it could be.
Dean Cummings
—–REPLY: The Susitna in winter won’t freeze to any degree of safety if the dam’s built; variable discharge rates and warmer water from the reservoir will preclude solid river ice. So here’s the plan: stop the dam, then invent the new sport of Kayak Luge, using the 184 miles of the Su from glaciers to ocean as one loooong wild run. Winter tourism issues would be solved. (So yes, please help get kayakers and rafters on board to bring tidal and wind and geothermal instead of the dam.)
See below. It would seem to me that an intelligent 2013 budget cut would be to axe further monies spent to “study” the Proposed Susitna Damn (sic)
“Gov. Sean Parnell said Friday that his proposed 2013 budget will cut $1.1 billion from current spending by targeting the huge capital budgets that have emerged from Juneau during the recent years of plenty. “(ADN)
“In a series of events that unveiled his proposed spending plan for the next fiscal year, Parnell said the recent treasury windfalls from oil tax revenues are fading as the price of oil declines, production from aging North Slope fields drops, and oil companies take advantage of existing tax credits doled out to industry.”
–Anchorage Daily News, December 14
I have talked to two legislators from Fairbanks about building a gas plant on the
north slope with a power line to Fairbanks that could feed down the intertie south.
They have been told it is not cost effective. I believe it would be better than the DAM,
in several ways: 1}cheaper and faster to build. 2} Less environmental impact.
I think one of the reasons it is not being built is that there is no ” Real” $ to be made
after the line is done. To me this should be the first real push before even a gasline.
I live in Talkeetna and enjoy the majesty of this area.There is no viable reason to build a dam that will destroy so much and not enhance anyones’ way of life.There just has to be another alternative to this action.The electricity generated by the dam is miniscule anyway, when you read the plan.It is unneeded, period.
I do not want the Susitna Dam built. If / or when it breaks, and it will, many small communities will be wiped out – many people will die. Nature always takes back her resources. Find another way that is safer.
An interesting factoid that I read in the New York Review of Books. about solar energy. The Chinese by most accounts are leading the world in installation of renewable energy. The biggest use of solar power in the world is that 1/4 of China gets its domestic hotwater from solar roof top systems. There are cities where every apartment building has such a system. In the U.S. there is less than 1% using such systems. It is a shame that this country is so behind in this technology. President Carter had hot water solar panels on the roof of the White House inn 1979 which were taken down by President Reagon in 1985. Go figure.
To paraphrase: “There’s something happening here,
What it is is all too clear!
There’s a gov with a dam over there
Telling us he really don’t care.
IT’S TIME TOO STOP, CHILDREN,
THAT BUILDING SOUND!!!!
EVERYBODY, LOOK WERE GOING DOWN
“…once destroyed, nature’s beauty can not be repurchased at any price.” ~ Ansel Adams
Please.
Do not build this dam. Please.
Fifty or sixty years ago there was a similar proposal affecting the Yukon River. A dam would back up a huge lake, to be named Lake Gruning(sp?) after an AK senator I think. The USFWS did some basic nutrient reseach regarding the effect the dam would have on downstream productivity. Thankfully technical issues were in part responsible for canning the idea.
During the summers of 1966-’67-’68 I worked on a USF&WS research project being conducted on the Copper River at Wood’s Canyon. The project was designed to established to quanitify the salmon runs through the proposed site. After 1968 I understand the AK Game and Fish continued some aspects of the research. I was informed the technical issues in concert with the cost lost-cost gain ratio was discouraging. Fortunately the idea for the dam was canned.
I also spent the summer of 1964 doing King Salmon surveys on the Susitna and Yentna Rivers, while stationed on the Deshka River.
I think I still have the USFWS report on the Wood’s Canyon research.
What the hell is this world coming to????
jak
To: State of Alaska
Alaska Energy Authority
Comments: Susitna/Watana Dam Project
From: Anthony Martin August 8, 2012
P.O.Box 374
Talkeetna, AK 99676
907-841-8736
RE: Susitna Hydroelectric Project
I am submitting my comments independently as a resident of the the State of Alaska and as a registered voter in the Mat Su Borough.
I have no objection to public works projects that provide the ” the greatest good for the greatest number of people” if those projects are executed in safe, practical, & cost beneficial manner. I completely object to any project which lacks credible leadership and credible integrity,
It is self evident that the construction of a Susitna Dam would impact, for an undetermined time, the environment directly above and below the installation. In addition, such a project would also create a
transportation infra-structure and power grid reaching far beyond it’s immediate location. Therefore, a reasonable person would expect that, if the project were implemented, that it would be held to the highest standards of safety, design, and construction, with an eye on the actuality of its future operation.
It is said that government and politics are ‘local’ in nature’. The proposed hydro-electric dam is to be located in the upper Mat-Su Borough. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to examine the conduct of the Mat Su Borough and the State of Alaska in one of the ‘northern most outposts’ of the Borough, Talkeetna, Southern Gateway to Denali.
The Mat Su Borough owns and operates a small public water and sewer system that services the village of Talkeetna. The sewage lagoon system is and has been ‘dysfunctional’. The lagoon discharges non-compliant effluent into the drainage’s of the Talkeetn-Susitna River System.
How is this evidence of credible leadership and integrity on the part of the Mat Su Borough as a
steward of natural resources? The State of Alaska is responsible for oversight of such a public utility as regards discharging into public waterways and fish spawning rivers. The State’s lack of response, either to identify or to remedy the deficiencies of that system, do not indicate the highest level of credible leadership and integrity, as regards a steward of the Alaska’s natural resources.
To summarize, no matter what its merits, I do not believe that the construction of a Susitna Dam should proceed unless hard evidence can be provided that demonstrates credible capability, integrity, and leadership inn executing the project, operating the project, and managing the results of the project. Very simply, if a swimmer doesn’t win races in the local pool, how can they be expected to even compete at the Olympic level. And a Susitna Dam is at the Olympic level. If the State of Alaska and the Mat Su Borough cannot perform at the local level on the Lower Susitna at Talkeetna, how can it be expected that they will perform well on the Upper Susitna? In conclusion, on the latter premise, I object to the construction of the dam.
The consideration of my comments is appreciated.
Anthony Martin
This project make no sense, why would anyone want a Dam on this mighty river. The enviromental impact is too costly for the people of this great state. It will not increase the job market over the long haul nor will it fix the energy problems that are in the state now or in the future. The use of Wind, Geothermal, Tidal flow, and Solar seem to me to have less impact on the enviroment then the building of such a project. The alternate sources will continue to produce energy and jobs for the state, as well a revenue. The use of natural gas is working, but even as the cost is lower right now, we a consumers don’t see a reduction in the cost at our home. This Dam will not make this happen as well. These are the small issue I have with this project, the biggest are the impact on the natural habitat that we as Alaskans have that is differant from any other state. That is the reason many people around the world come here to see our Great State in it beutiful free natural settings. The will not come to see another Dam Damn! They can see them anywere in the lower “48.” This is not the project I had in mind to solve our future energy issues. J. Don-6 Aug 12
I think it is a great idea. I have property in Talkeetna, and welcome the technolgy, and sustainability of hydro power.. I hope the progect gains momentum
–REPLY: What’s interesting is that the momentum being gained is in opposition to the dam. 85-90% of people across Alaska and the nation who learn the details of the project end up saying, “No dam.” To date that’s over 2000 members of the Coalition, growing by 50-100 each day. Simply put, there are better ways to provide electricity that have far less impacts, risks, and problems– and at less cost, and with greater sustainability across future generations. Renewable energy yes. This massive industrial project no.
This is one of the craziest things I have seen in my life. It would take one of the, or the, prettiest, most beautiful place in the world and build the biggest dam on it. Alaska is a state that is supposed to be wild. It would not only lead to more houses being built, because there is more electricity, but would also create a huge, ugly lake. It would block off the caribou,s migration path, and it would kill a lot of animals. All five types of salmon would no longer be able to swin through the Susitna River. This idea s just plain ridiculous.
This project is clearly absurd. Knowing the amount of till, sediment beds, earthquakes, etc. here, building a dam it completely illogical (not to mention the high risk for environmental hazards).
I am so against this project. Even when I first heard of it, I was shocked (who would want to build a dam in such an “unstable” and wildlife-rich area?).
I am an undergrad studying geology, and although I have little experience with dam construction, I know in the event of a major earthquake (which we have often) there will be great potential of dam failure. I cringe at the thought of what might take place in that situation.
This is one of those things that make my stomach turn just thinking about it.
I have visited the su and her headwaters and drainages for the last 17yrs releasing trout, grayling, and salmon. The idea of a dam here blows me away- with modern technology, we should be able to find a solution with zero impact. Even minor impact should not be tolerated as AKs biggest and irreplaceable resourse is the land and her brood. Hats off to all you all are doing- thanks
Scottyd
I have lived in Talkeetna for 23 years and I am not in favor of the Watana-Susitna Project. I urge that consideration be given to heed the voices of the people who KNOW this land.
History has shown that so often our very best man-made marvels of technology fail due to unforeseen disasters.There have been 11 major dam failures in the United States alone since 1972. That the proposed Susitna-Watana dam would never collapse is just plain nonsense. Locating it next to the Denali Fault zone just doesn’t make sense. A collapse could very well happen in an earthquake, and it could eradicate the downstream villages of Talkeetna and Trapper Creek.
It was said, in fact, that the disaster at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant could never happen. China’s newly-completed Three Gorges dam, already has cracks in it.
In 2002, a 7.9 quake along the Denali Fault was so powerful, that it reconfigured the landscape within 45 miles of the dam’s site.The entire ice and snowcover on the Wickersham wall of Mt. McKinley broke off. Saying that a catastrophic Susitna Dam failure can’t happen is impossible.
A large dam on the Susitna would forever change the landscape, interrupting caribou migration, the salmon runs, moose and bear habitats.It could decimate tourism in Talkeetna. Before building one of the largest dams I think that alternative sources of electricity need to be researched: wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, and others.
Any consideration of the dam should take into account the loss of habitat to our salmon, and how extremely important salmon are to our residents for subsistance, for fishing guides, for tourism. With effects of global warming, and the long winter season, the flow of the river will fluctuate.
I am NOT in favor of building the Watana-Susitna dam.
.
Salmon, trout, caribou, moose, bear, anglers, hunters, paddlers, boaters, tourists…
IF YOU BUILD IT, THEY WON’T COME
I like “Damn the Dam” but it would be nice to have a sticker that highlights the economic costs, since right now the perceived economic benefits are the state’s main case for this debacle.
Let us show some sand, and save a mighty and pristine river. The river itself, the ecology along the banks, and especially the fish in it are important to all Alaskans. Aside from general idiocy in disturbing vast ecosystems, the spiritual destruction of a society that dams its rivers, and the damage to tourism and recreation (for example, to one of the three premier white water rafting places in North America), if that dam is put in place, at least 40% of the fish habitat in the whole Susitna River drainage will be destroyed. Think about it. Salmon are the lifeblood of our land, the hope of the future of our people.
Hydropower from the damming of huge rivers is not only drastically unsustainable, it also does not fulfil the requirements of the “renewables by 2025″ plan because it is non-renewable generation technique, and that is a well-proven scientific fact. FERC has already had held local meetings on the subject, which I am hearing about, while in a foreign country, via other sources, but where is the Alaskan public’s involvement? As a renewable energy technician and advocate, I am well aware that the Susitna dam is a politically thorny issue because it has the word “sustainable” attached to it, but that adjective here applied is a lie.
I practically crossed the threshold of manhood on that river, and so did a lot of people I know. If you can’t protect your own roots, I don’t know what you can protect.
while the dan jenke power source is small and provides not the greatest amount of power. 415 more project have less impact than one massive system.
many small hydro sources (of various sizes) that can service specific locations throughout the state constructed at reasonable costs, and can be up and running in a reasonable timeframe. long before the mega dam even breaks ground. they creats many jobs in all regions and very little impact in the event of any catastrophic event. and as any repair or maintenance is required, fewer people are impacted than if a mega dam is shut down.
mega dams require vast areas of land to be utilized for the holding of water plus the destruction of property to install the project and the extended damage from running the power lines out from the system.
small hydro projects like jenke’s does not require a large dams as it is a by-pass system that does not “store” water it merely re-directs some of the water.
415 at a million each is cheaper that the billion plus necessary for the mega dam.
I think we need to make bumper stickers that say DAMN THE DAM to raise awareness/funds for susitna damn alternatives.
Dan Jenke’s, South Fork, run-of-the-river hydro project an excellent economical alternative energy project. With 6000 MWh annual energy generation it would take 415 more projects like this to equal the energy production of the Susitna Dam. However, this run-of-the-river project has no storage and the winter stream flows are small. The projects capacity factor is about 57%. It suffers the same intermittent power production problems that wind and solar do, only to a lesser extent. Another source of power will be necessary when the stream flow is small, in winter and early spring.
The Susitna Dam, with it’s large storage capacity and the ability to ramp up and down the power production rapidly is the best compliment to solar, wind and run-of-the river hydro.
More about the South Fork project: http://www.electricityforum.com/news/jul09/Homesteaderstobuildhydroelectricplant.html
—REPLY: Small-scale hydro that do not kill salmon runs, good. Massive dams that crush entire ecosystems and local economies, bad.
when one thinks of an alternative energy source many think of wind power. yet we all know that one wind turbine can not produce enough energy to service all requirements. therefore there are usually many wind turbines installed to get as much energy as they can. look at the wind farms in calaifornia, 200-300 turbines in a valley. look in texas many line the ridges in the western part of that state. Look along the Columbia river in Washington where it is lined at the ridges with these energy producers.
now lets look at the south fork of eagle river, where homesteader, dan jenke, has installed a small hydro-dam along side this river and is capable of producing enough power for 4800 homes. in doing so he does not distrupt the flow of water, he does not dam it up, he simply diverts a small portion to run his turbines. and it cost him a little over a million dollars to build.
this concept is what is really needed in alaska. many small hydro dams that cna be placed in many locations throughout this state and built at reasonable costs. they will provide the power for the needs today and in the future . they don’t distrupt the enviroment scales of balance. they provide jobs for the various regions and in the event of any catastrophic event not all will be shut down.
—-REPLY: in-stream hydro, too: not a dam but a device that water flows through that generates electricity. For rural areas, it’s a no-brainer.
I, in no shape form or fashion, support your organization. I find your complaints trivial and misleading. The proposed dam will have little impact upon the land and will bring much in the way of benefits. For those of you proposing natural gas as an alternative think for a moment at the cost over time. The resource is now being targeted at the Asian market for about eight times what the current price per mmbtu of normal gas in the lower 48. So… after all the expense of building an infrastructure we’re gonna get cut rate gas to power turbines? No in this reality.
I can go on and on but it doesn’t really matter. You people are convinced of righteousness (and bluntly I suspect a large percentage of you are closet green extremists running what could be described as a fifth column operation). I will do what little I can to support the dam project and hope to see your efforts go down in flames.
–REPLY: Talk about extremists! About 1 in 20 or 30 people who actually read the website refuse to see how utterly the dam would change the entire ecosystem. It’s like the Gahan Wilson cartoon showing a devastated landscape with a hulking soldier amidst it saying, “I won! I think.” Massive dams on wild rivers always have massive impacts. The only benefit of the dam is electricity, which we already have. The many risks and impacts are simply not worth the sole benefit, which is more, more, MORE!
Hello. My name is Michele (Lovel) Finley. I have lived in Alaska since May 1963. I moved to Mile 258.3 ARR on September 8, 1964, and grew up there homesteading. Our homestead, one of the last four homesteads granted in the U.S.A., is world famous and is known as Sherman City Hall. My mother, Mary Lovel, wrote and published two books about homesteading in the Susitna Valley.
A dam for the Susitna River has been discussed over and over again through the years. I have heard many arguments for and against it, and in the end, it is always defeated.
My thoughts concerning the concept of any kind of dam for this river:
This is a very bad idea—poorly thought out and with no regard for the true impact on the area above as well as the vast lands below the dam site. There are many other ways–more efficient, less destructive and more cost effective ways–to produce the little power the dam would generate when it was completed.
My brother, Bud Lovel, sent this to you, and I am going to quote him, since he has expressed it very well. It is well worth a second or third reading:
“One of the strong reasons it should NOT be built, is the trend I have seen in the river over the last 47 plus years: the steady decline in the winter water levels. The headwaters of the Big Su start in the glaciers in the Alaska Range, and drain portions of the uplands of the Talkeetna Range. During summers without a lot of rain, the river levels have gotten lower and lower from the diminished sources of ice and snow in the higher elevations at the headwaters. I have watched many glaciers recede in the last 47 years, including the famous Portage Glacier, the Matanuska Glacier, Exit Glacier, just to name a few. I remember well the now gone “galloping glacier” when I was around twelve years old, standing in front of it as it moved gravel so fast you could see it tumble from the front of the ice face. ALL glaciers and snow packs are receding due to the trend of warming. Flora and fauna have changed significantly in the Susitna Valley during my life. You can see it yourself if you check out the photos in the books my mom, Mary Lovel, has written about our adventures living up there.
“So the bottom line is this. No Dam! It is not worth the $ cost, and it sure is not worth the loss of pristine beauty it would make. Not to mention that natural resources such as fishing, hunting, and exploring would be impacted in a detrimental way. Oh….and the thought of another nice big shaker like the ’64 quake…with that big ol hunk of man made wall holding back all that water poised over our heads…yes…over our heads! Our homestead is right in the path of any failure of that dam, as well as many other adventurous souls that have built cabins north of Talkeetna. Talkeetna, is also right in the line of fire, as is any number of homes, schools, medical facilities, businesses, roads and bridges between the dam and cook inlet. Engineers promise you things they just cannot. I tried to stand up on Arctic Blvd on March 27, 1964 and it was not possible. I felt the power the earth can unleash and no man can prevent loss during that.”
Please heed the voices of the people who KNOW this land—not the engineers with their theories and wishful thinking. Too often our very best man-made marvels of technology fail due to unforeseen disasters—(see the atomic power plant in Japan in the face of a Tsunami last year). THIS is a sure bet: building the dam will have a fully negative impact on the land above and below the dam, even if natural disasters were not to be taken into account. And the natural disasters ARE inevitable. Don’t add to the devastation of our next big earthquake—by adding tons of dirt and dammed up waters to the mix.
Use the money you are wasting on planning for this project, by working up the alternatives, then implementing them: wind and solar.
Thank you for your consideration.
The trouble with the ANTI crowd is that they are basically ignorant and want the impossible. As Alaska grows the infrastructure has to grow too. You all want cheap utilities but you want it earth friendly. How earth friendly is a wind turbine? Besides they make very little power and are high maintenance besides destroying the view of the countryside. Solar power is great but how many sunny days are there in Alaska and don’t we need electricity in the winter too? Lets see how many solar panels do we need as an alternative to the dam. Mind boggling. Oh and natural gas, ha-ha burn natural gas that we don’t have to push the price of heating our homes up. Well that has to be the oil companies fault, doesn’t it? My vote is for a nuclear plant, wouldn’t that be something. The Susitna Dam probably won’t change one of you peoples lives. It will be lasting energy that will not require any fuel or pollution. A dam also provides a lot of recreation. The salmon runs in the Big Su are nearly all below the proposed dam sites. I have nothing at stake here. I will not profit from this project in any way. I generate my own power and live off the grid. Get real people.
—-REPLY: This is the standard “just build it” argument: careless and poorly informed. A dam of such staggering size in an ecosystem of such complexity is a disaster waiting to happen. Salmon below the dam site will be seriously impacted thru changes in water temperature, flow, toxicity, and river morphology. Caribou, moose, and bear above the dam site will be seriously impacted by the huge construction requirements of roads, gravel mines, power lines, camps, and the 22,000 acre reservoir itself. The tourist economy that now brings as much as 163 million dollars and 1900 jobs per year to the Mat-Su Borough just thru sport fishing alone will be seriously impacted. The fact that a bad project has been proposed does not mean it is the only choice for electricity.
I moved to Sherman on September 8, 1964, at seven years of age, and grew up there. Our homestead is pretty much world famous and is known as Sherman City Hall.
I have very strong thoughts about the idea of the Susitna Dam. They ALL are totally against it. There are many other ways to produce the little power the dam would generate when it was completed. One of the strong reasons it should NOT be built, is the trend I have seen in the river over the last 47 plus years is the steady decline in the winter water levels. The headwaters of the Big Su start in the glaciers in the Alaska Range, and drain portions of the uplands of the Talkeetna Range. During summers without a lot of rain, the river levels have gotten lower and lower from the diminished sources of ice and snow in the higher elevations at the headwaters. I have watched many glaciers recede in the last 47 years, including the famous Portage Glacier, the Matanuska Glacier, Exit Glacier, just to name a few. I remember well the now gone “galloping glacier” when I was around twelve years old, standing in front of it as it moved gravel so fast you could see it tumble from the front of the ice face. ALL glaciers and snow packs are receding due to the trend of warming. Flora and fauna have changed significantly in the Susitna Valley during my life. You can see it yourself if you check out the photos in the books my mom, Mary Lovel, has written about our adventures living up there.
So the bottom line is this. No Dam! It is not worth the $ cost, and it sure is not worth the loss of pristine beauty it would make. Not to mention that natural resources such as fishing, hunting, and exploring would be impacted in a detrimental way. Oh….and the thought of another nice big shaker like the ’64 quake…with that big ol hunk of man made wall holding back all that water poised over our heads…yes…over our heads! Our homestead is right in the path of any failure of that dam, as well as many other adventurous souls that have built cabins north of Talkeetna. Talkeetna, is also right in the line of fire, as is any number of homes, schools, medical facilities, businesses, roads and bridges between the dam and cook inlet. Engineers promise you things they just cannot. I tried to stand up on Arctic Blvd on March 27, 1964 and it was not possible. I felt the power the earth can unleash and no man can prevent loss during that.
I will stop now, typing, but I will not stop opposing the construction of a dam on the Susitna River. It is a bad idea and it needs to be taken off the table now.
Thanks.
I totally support preventing the dam from being built. I promise to vote against any legislator who is in favor of this project.
In the age that we live in with so much effort and expansion in less environmentally impacting renewable energy I am pretty appalled that the State of Alaska has chosen to build this dam. It appears that it is only being built because of the political will of the few who need a large “revenue generating” project such as this to add to their resume.
Politicians should be ashamed to be attached to this project.
Dam building has proven to be environmentally disastrous already. Building a dam, especially one on one of the nations last wild rivers, in order to meet “environmental” goals via renewable energy makes less sense than fucking for virginity. There are plenty of viable alternatives to this plan that pose a much smaller risk to a pristine environment. Thank you for putting up this information. Why are we so prone to repeating past mistakes as opposed to learning from them.
One of the guys on the Diane Rehm Show today:
“The cheapest power plant is the one you don’t build… California knows this, they have kept per capita energy consumption the same for 30 years while it has increased 60% in the rest of the country.”
I’m tired of the power elite destroying OUR earth for THEIR profit!
I’m ignorant about the energy politics and business interests in AK, but wonder, if the state wants to head toward using renewable resources, why more dollars aren’t going to researching the natural gas alternative as a way of making that happen…
From Bloomberg Businessweek, Nov. 3, 2011 by Paul M. Barrett
“We need to find a way to take advantage of this historic opportunity to cut back on burning coal, which is the worst energy option,” says the EDF’s Krupp. And he says that as an advocate of more wind- and solar-generated electricity. The best way to exploit renewable power on a large scale is to use it in conjunction with natural gas plants. Gas-fired generation ensures steady power when the wind isn’t blowing or the sun isn’t shining. “Done the right way,” Krupp says, “there’s just a lot to be said for natural gas.”
The idea of building a dam when in this day we are actively removing dams elsewhere is outlandish. Dams are very bad ideas for rivers and their biota. I wish you well in your dam fight.
Once Alaska goes down the road of dam building, there will
be no end. Wind, solar, and geothermal make much more sense
in that wild and beautiful place. We fouled our nests in the lower 48
with dams that are now obsolete but which block salmon runs
on wild rivers. When will we learn??
Thank you so much for providing this website and all of the useful information in it. But I have a request – it would make it so much easier for me to share this site with people and the information in it if some of the key facts were pulled out so that I could just read them to someone really quickly, or point them to a short list to read that would get their attention and really get them into your site right away. I guess I was thinking of a sidebar on your front page – with a heading for each section, a couple of the most significant facts from each section and a link to each section after. That was what came to my mind anyway. There is so much great information on this site but people have such short attention spans when they’re on the web, I don’t know if they would wade in to get it all even if I pointed them here. This information is worth sharing – it is so important that Alaskans be educated about what the repercussions of building this dam would be!!
Slide have been posted in advance for the Oct 24 Resource Agency Aquatic Resources Initial Issue and Study Identification Meeting.
The Climate Change Summary states:
“IPCC model results show about a 10% increase in flow in the Susitna River vicinity by 2050.”
People living near the river need to be prepared.
http://susitna-watanahydro.org/Docs/Climate_Change.pdf
We’ve just added a new page on this website titled Join Us” that makes it simple to join the Coalition. You’ll find our email address there, but here it is: susitnadamalternatives@gmail.com Check out the Updates page, too, to see how quickly the word is spreading.
I’d like to sign up as an activist and contribute to your cause. How do I do it?
Also, I’m about to publish a comment, but I really wanted to send you an email. Do you have an email address?
~ for the river, Ginger
Thank you for doing this. Wish Edward Abbey were here to help.
Gail Pearlman, formerly of Talkeetna (now living in Grants Pass, Oregon).
I will fight this dam project until my dying breath! This is an outrage and the end to life as we know it, should it happen. It must not!! Please keep me informed of every meeting, bill, etc. I will attend and add my voice, wherever it’s needed.
La devono smettere di deturpare la natura per i loro interessi….
Another knee jerk reaction from our elected officals. We should spend time and money looking at the alternatives to this project. The life of the project and the amount of possible electricity produced should be enough to have this project studied in greater detail, not to mention the impacts on the environment. Gee, where’s all the media coverage of this action in view of the amount of TV and newspaper ads listing factless claims concerning the Pebble Project? Bad decisions like this will lead us right into the money problems of CA.
Thank you for informing of us of this project. If there are letters to be signed and sent that express disapproval for this project please let us know.
Bennett, Washington State.
GREAT website!!!!
Info is pertinent, well-written, strongly substantiated, with a bit o’ humor.
(LOVE the “taking it up the wa-su” comment….;-)
Whoever put this together ought to be paid as much (or more!) than those promoting this destructive, consumptive dam idea.
Or rather, maybe Gov Parnell could hire y’all to promote HIS website after he retracts his dam proclamation.
One suggestion might be to add this to your list of alternatives: Reduce individual energy consumption…if we lower our energy needs, energy demand automatically lessens. We can each do our part. Grassroots.
I want everyone to know that the Susitna Dam is not the answer! Please! We cannot support further degradation of Alaska’s Wild Places, this dam would be an environmental nightmare.
The Dam will be funded by the State of Alaska, and with bonds that ratepayers will end up paying.
Please do not build the Susitna dam for the reason of the beauty your state offers to us from the lower 48 as well as your residents. What you have as a state is amazing. Why would anyone do this? This damn could jeopardize the salmon runs that feed your residents and bring monies to your state from all the tourists paying to fish the river. The pipeline has put an obstacle in the way of your caribou herds why put another manmade obstruction there. Think of the resources that provide food, money to your state. The dam would result in more damage than good.
Ugh, why can’t politicians ever look at the facts (and not at the bribery money)? Can logic ever win? I really hope so. Damn the dam.
Any information on funding sources?
Thank you guys for putting up the website to make people aware of the problem that is forming. I grew up out there, hunting, fishing, training, in this country and I would really hate to see it go to waste. It’s amazing what people will do for a quick buck without really caring about what they are really doing.
heya, awesome post, and an excellent understand! 1 for my book marks.
For all the reasons you have already written in opposition to the dam, I agree with you whole heartily. I live on the Susitna River and for personal reasons don’t want it disturbed. Also, our family has a set net sight at the mouth of the Susitna on the west side and we depend on the salmon runs that go up the Susitna.
I can’t believe the money and time people have all ready spent trying to develop this outrageous plan.
We have lived in the Talkeetna area for over 35 years. Our daughter and granddaughter live in the village. It terrifies me to think that such a huge dam is being built above Talkeetna/Trapper Creek and all the environs in between. I can not rest on any reassurances by the project engineers that the dam’s integrity and/or the earth underneath it, will remain intact in the event of an earthquake. This project is wrong on so many levels. There are safer and more cost effective alternatives for producing energy.
I strongly oppose the construction of the Susitna Dam or any other future dam plans in Alaska.
The study done by concerned Alaskans and the proposal for alternative energy sources makes a lot of sense.
Preservation and conservation, not destruction should be on the politicians’ minds!
I am appalled that this is even a consideration. The people were against this the first time around. To take the beauty of that river and try to harness it when there are viable and less costly alternatives is a travesty.
I oppose the construction of the dam. Whether we have a say in this or not we still oppose it.
I strongly oppose the construction of the proposed dam as there are so many superior alternatives suggested. Please stop destroying our beautiful world.
Quality information, incredible web page theme, carry on the good work
It seems futile to voice an opinion or to protest this plan from outside of Alaska. We, the few random Americans from across the country who happen to hear about this by chance or by word of mouth apparently do not have a real say in the matter or a vote or a referendum. Nevertheless, the few courageous and resourceful Alaskans who created this website and who are reaching out to us deserve our support.
The Governor’s plan reeks of corruption and greed. Someone has to be profiting big time at the expense of one of the few remaining natural habitats we are so blessed with in our country. If the information on this site is accurate, then it is time for Alaskan citizens to tell their Governor to “go home”. Or better yet, bring back Sarah Palin, maybe she could stop it since it might infringe on her hunting escapades.
Chicago, IL
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
This sounds like a terrible plan that is not only unnecessary, but potentially dangerous to the people of this area and to the wildlife.
It is a sad day when we continue to retry things that have been tried before and expect different results. A dam does not seem like the answer to Alaska’s electrical energy problems. Please consider natural gas or alternative energy sourses like solar power cells. we need to be environmently responsible and protect our environment.
Chicago, IL
Bookmarked, I love your site!
Last month (August 2011) my sister and I cruised the Inside Passage, and took advantage of every shore excursion we could to explore as much of the fabulous scenery as we could — by helicopter, float-plane, catamaran, and vintage train. A never-to-be forgotten experience! Alaska must be protected from exploitation.
this looks and sounds like a really unnecessary thing to do. Alaska is a jewel in our 50 states; it belongs to us all, and should stay as pristine as possible.
I believe there are compelling reasons to abandon the plan to build this dam.
Way to go with this website! There are better options than Susitna Dam. Distributed solar PV generation/feed-in-tariff, north slope gas, and large scale wind, geothermal, and tidal are the path forward.
Not encouraging news:
TESTING AT MOUNT SPURR PROJECT IN ALASKA NOT AS SUCCESSFUL AS HOPED FOR ORMAT
http://thinkgeoenergy.com/archives/8382
This is the worst idea in Alaska’s history. The path of developmental destruction will be vast if all of these projects succeed. We moved here for the rural landscape, not for development. The rest of the world is tearing down damns and we are building them.
We need to preserve our wildlife, instead of abusing it for the sake of a quick buck. Don’t build the dam!
To the political leaders who are promoting this scheme:
Forty-nine of our fifty States have largely managed to “destroy by development” land that was once a NATURAL habitat, which sustained the delicate balance-of-life, from lichen to Man, in such varied beauty as to be almost indescribable in words today. A significant part of what remains of this wilderness lies in the State of Alaska.
And now the great and fabled “SOMEONE”, who has so successfully decimated and Disneyized those other states in just a few generations, has turned a ruthless and calculating eye on a vast part of Alaska’s natural wonders and wildness that still exist. “SOMEONE” would like to restructure this “unprofitable” land and “improve” it into destruction by building a gigantic dam!
Well, I’m SOMEONE too. And using what freedom of speech I may still have left, I am registering here and now my complete rejection of this or any other dam proposal in this part of our country. FIND AN ALTERNATIVE, BECAUSE THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE!
Maude Kirk
Don’t do this. There are strong alternatives!
Why not Dam it all up? While we’re at it, let’s put a couple dozen parking lots, a few hundred condos, some office buildings, a freeway, some casinos (so they can justify the electricity generated), more cars, trucks, landfills, more people, more roads, stores, banks, bakeries, transmission repair shops, fast food joints, a bigger airport…
Let’s put it all up there; that way, we’ll be able to enjoy all the comforts of home, right there, in all that… splendor?! What’s next? Mountaintop removal Mining? There must be some coal up there in all of those annoying mountaintops… Get a crew up there and start clearing those trees!!!
We should just blow it all up and stop wasting our time! Man is such the collective idiot!
The most beautiful part of the United States is in that state called Alaska. It is the largest part of that original wilderness the original settlers discovered hundreds of years ago. “Wilderness” is something that nature made–not us. Once gone, it’s gone forever. Built the dam and you’ve taken the first giant step to making Alaska the world’s largest Disney theme park… .
Totally mindblowing! And a great job on the website to alert us – but what can we do to keep this from happening – “WE” being the people who care – from N.Y to California to Hawaii – Will be watching your website to know more.
Right On!!! I have always felt that the state should be involved with owning the natural gas reserves. I hope this web site can draw people especially some legislators from around the state to form a coalition to make this happen.
Some interesting facts that I got from reading volume 6 of the Big Game Studies dated Aug. 1987 on Black and Brown Bear in the Watana/Susitna Dam area. The king salmon run in Prarie Creek is the most concentrated king salmon spawning area in Upper Cook Inlet. This is a food source for both species of bears and these are bears in the proposed project area. The study documents that project impacts on Prarie Creek could displace bears from that habitat because of human disturbance and development and the increase of access and recreational use of the whole surrounding area. Thus, Prarie Creek is critical bear habitat so much so that the biologist recommended protecting the area as a State Game Refuge.
Also the berries that are an important food source for bears especially in the time 6 to 8 weeks prior to denning, their habitat which is semi-open shrubland sites are located between the Tsusena and Deadman Creeks– the exact areas where facilities and communities will be established to construct the dam.