Exit here: strategies for dealing with aging dams and reservoirs

Abstract

Aging infrastructure is prevalent throughout the world, but water control management structures, specifically dams, are of growing concern. Dams and their corresponding reservoirs have inherent, but separate, lifespans. The proportion of dams around the world that continue operation beyond their intended lifespans is growing at an alarming rate. Society will not only have to navigate the tradeoffs associated with the deterioration of services provided by reservoirs and dams, but also impending structural failures. Society is nearing a critical pinch point where we will have to decide how to deal with dams and reservoirs at scales that range from a single system to multiple systems in large watersheds. No comprehensive strategy exists to inform both the range of actions that can be applied to such infrastructure and how such actions would influence biophysical, socioeconomic, and geopolitical tradeoffs. The development of proactive exit strategies is a critical first step in ensuring controlled transitions for aging dams and reservoirs. Herein, we present an overview of actions and considerations for aging dams and reservoirs, followed by an initial framework for exit strategy development to launch a further discussion on how society could deal with this aging infrastructure.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Allen CR, Fontaine JJ, Pope KL, Garmestani AS (2011) Adaptive management for a turbulent future. J Environ Manag Adapt Manag Nat Resour 92:1339–1345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.11.019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. American Society of Civil Engineers Task Committee (1997) Guidelines for retirement of dams and hydroelectric facilities. ASCE, New York

    Google Scholar 

  3. Arthington AH, Bunn SE, Poff NL, Naiman RJ (2006) The challenge of providing environmental flow rules to sustain river ecosystems. Ecol Appl 16:1311–1318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Association of State Dam Safety Officials (2019) Dam failures and incidents https://damsafety.org/dam-failures Accessed 13 Feb 2019.

  5. Bea RG (2017) Preliminary Root Causes Analysis of Failures of the Oroville Dam Gated Spillway. University of California Berkeley, Center for Catastrophic Risk Management, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bednarek A (2001) Undamming rivers: a review of the ecological impacts of dam removal. Environ Manag 27(6):803–814. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002670010189

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bellmore JR, Duda JJ, Craig LS, Greene SL, Torgersen CE, Collins MJ, Vittum K (2017) Status and trends of dam removal research in the United States: Status and trends of dam removal research in the US. Wiley Interdiscip Rev 4:e1164. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Billington DP, Jackson DC, Melosi MV (2005) The history of large federal dams: planning, design, and construction in the era of big dams. Government Printing Office, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  9. Binder D (2001) Emergency action plans: a legal and practical blueprint failing to plan is planning to fail symposium: post-september 11 legal topics. U Pitt L Rev 63:791–814

    Google Scholar 

  10. Biswas AK, Tortajada C (2001) Development and large dams: a global perspective. Int J Water Resour Dev 17(1):9–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/07900620120025024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Born SM, Genskow KD, Filbert TL, Hernandez-Mora N, Keefer ML, White KA (1998) Socioeconomic and institutional dimensions of dam removals: the wisconsin experience. Environ Manage 22:359–370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002679900111

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bowles DS, Anderson LR, Glover TF, Chauhan SS (1999) Understanding and managing the risks of aging dams: Principles and case studies, in: the nineteenth US Cold Annual Meeting and Lecture, Atlanta, GA.

  13. Bowman MB (2002) Legal perspectives on dam removalthis article outlines the legal issues associated with dam removal and examines how environmental restoration activities such as dam removal fit into the existing US legal system. Bioscience 52:739–747

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Brownjohn J (2007) Structural health monitoring of civil infrastructure. Philos Trans R Soc A 365:589–622. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2006.1925

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bunn SE, Arthington AH (2002) Basic principles and ecological consequences of altered flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity. Environ Manag 30:492–507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-002-2737-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Cagle RF (2003) Infrastructure asset management: an emerging direction. AACE international transactions, PM21

  17. California Department of Water Resources (2018) Oroville Spillways Construction and Cost Estimate Update https://water.ca.gov/News/News-Releases/2018/Sept-18/Oroville-Spillways-Construction-and-Cost-Estimate-Update Accessed 13 Feb 2019.

  18. Choi JH, Yoon TH, Kim JS, Moon YI (2018) Dam rehabilitation assessment using the delphi-AHP method for adapting to climate change. J Water Resour Plann Manag 144:06017007. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000877

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Chunlong L, Lise C, Olden JD (2017) Heads you win, tails you lose: life-history traits predict invasion and extinction risk of the world’s freshwater fishes. Aquat Conserv 27:773–779. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2740

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Datta PS, Tyagi SK (1996) Major ion chemistry of groundwater in Delhi area: chemical weathering processes and groundwater flow regime. J Geol Soc India 47:179–188

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Diloreto G, Curtis S, Bennett J, Camp J, Hann S, Herrmann A, Hookham C, Kito S, Lynch O, Matteo A, McKeehan B, Merfeld P, Montgomery Mills S, Morris M, Movassaghi K, Murphy J, Neumann K, Nikolic A, Ogden M, Perrings D, Peskin R, Pierce L, Quinn C, Shelton R, Schipper M, Stahlman W, Talocco N, Tilchin M (2017) Infrastructure report card. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston

    Google Scholar 

  22. Dolen T (2005) Materials properties model of aging concrete (No. DSO-05-05), reclamation managing water in the west. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  23. Doyle MW, Stanley EH, Orr CH, Selle AR, Sethi SA, Harbor JM (2005) Stream ecosystem response to small dam removal: lessons from the Heartland. Geomorphology 71:227–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2004.04.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Doyle MW, Stanley EH, Havlick DG, Kaiser MJ, Steinbach G, Graf WL, Galloway GE, Riggsbee JA (2008) Environmental science: aging infrastructure and ecosystem restoration. Science 319:286–287. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1149852

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Evans JE, Mackey SD, Gottgens JF, Gill WM (2000) Lessons from a dam failure. Ohio J Sci 100:11

    Google Scholar 

  26. Federal Emergency Management Association (2007) Emergency action planning for state regulated high-hazard potential dams. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

  27. Federal Emergency Management Agency (2012) Summary of existing guidelines for hydrologic safety of dams. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

  28. Federal Emergency Management Agency (2013) Federal guidelines for dam safety emergency action planning for dams. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

  29. Fluixá-Sanmartín J, Altarejos-García L, Morales-Torres A, Escuder-Bueno I (2018) Review article: climate change impacts on dam safety. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 18:2471–2488. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-18-2471-2018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Foster M, Fell R, Spannagle M (2000) The statistics of embankment dam failures and accidents. Can Geotech J 37:1000–1024. https://doi.org/10.1139/t00-030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. France J, Alvi I, Dickson P, Falvey H, Rigbey S, Trojanowski J (2018) Independent forensic team report Oroville dam spillway incident

  32. Füssel H-M (2007) Vulnerability: a generally applicable conceptual framework for climate change research. Glob Environ Change 17:155–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.05.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Gagnon L, Klimpt J-É, Seelos K (2002) Comparing recommendations from the World Commission on Dams and the IEA initiative on hydropower. Energy Policy 30:1299–1304. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(02)00093-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Garandeau R, Edwards S, Maslin M (2014) Biophysical, socioeconomic and geopolitical impacts assessments of large dams: an overview. University College London, London

    Google Scholar 

  35. Goteti G, Stachelek J (2016) Dams in the United States from the National Inventory of Dams (NID). R package version 0.2. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=dams

  36. Grabowski ZJ, Chang H, Granek EF (2018) Fracturing dams, fractured data: empirical trends and characteristics of existing and removed dams in the United States. River Res Appl 34:526–537. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.3283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Graf WL (1999) Dam nation: a geographic census of American dams and their large-scale hydrologic impacts. Water Resour Res 35:1305–1311. https://doi.org/10.1029/1999WR900016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Grant G (2001) Dam removal: panacea or Pandora for rivers? Hydrol Process 15:1531–1532

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Heinz Center (2002) Dam removal: science and decision making. H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment, Washington, DC

  40. Halfawy M (2008) Integration of municipal infrastructure asset management processes: challenges and solutions. J Comput Civil Eng 22:216–229. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3801(2008)22:3(216)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Ho M, Lall U, Allaire M, Devineni N, Kwon HH, Pal I, Raff D, Wegner D (2017) The future role of dams in the United States of America. Water Resour Res 53:982–998. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016WR019905

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Hoenke KM, Kumar M, Batt L (2014) A GIS based approach for prioritizing dams for potential removal. Ecol Eng 64:27–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2013.12.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Hollins L, Eisenberg D, Seager T (2018) Risk and resilience at the Oroville dam. Infrastructures 3(4):49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Johnson SE, Graber BE (2002) Enlisting the social sciences in decisions about dam removal. Bioscience. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052%5b0731:ETSSID%5d2.0.CO;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Johnson PT, Olden JD, Vander Zanden MJ (2008) Dam invaders: impoundments facilitate biological invasions into freshwaters. Front Ecol Environ 6:357–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Jorgensen D, Renofalt BM (2013) Damned if you do, dammed if you don’t: debates on dam removal in the Swedish media. Ecol Soc 18:18. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05364-180118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Juracek KE (2015) The aging of america’s reservoirs: in-reservoir and downstream physical changes and habitat implications. J Am Water Resour Assoc 51:168–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/jawr.12238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Kimmel BL, Groeger AW (1983) Limnological and ecological changes associated with reservoir aging (No. CONF-8306160-1). Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge

    Google Scholar 

  49. Kondolf GM (1997) PROFILE: hungry water: effects of dams and gravel mining on river channels. Environ Manag 21:533–551

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Kondolf GM, Gao Y, Annandale GW, Morris GL, Jiang E, Zhang J, Cao Y, Carling P, Fu K, Guo Q, Hotchkiss R, Peteuil C, Sumi T, Wang H-W, Wang Z, Wei Z, Wu B, Wu C, Yang CT (2014) Sustainable sediment management in reservoirs and regulated rivers: experiences from five continents. Earth’s Future 2:256–280. https://doi.org/10.1002/2013EF000184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Lewis LY, Bohlen C, Wilson S (2008) Dams, dam removal, and river restoration: a hedonic property value analysis. Contemp Econ Policy 26:175–186. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7287.2008.00100.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Lin TM, Pathranarakul P (2006) An integrated approach to natural disaster management: public project management and its critical success factors. Disaster Prev Manag 15:396–413. https://doi.org/10.1108/09653560610669882

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Martin TE, Davies MP (2000) Trends in the stewardship of tailings dams. Tailings and Waste

  54. McKay SK, Cooper AR, Diebel MW, Elkins D, Oldford G, Roghair C, Wieferich D (2017) Informing watershed connectivity barrier prioritization decisions: a synthesis. River Res Appl 33:847–862. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.3021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. McManamay RA, Oigbokie CO, Kao S-C, Bevelhimer MS (2016) Classification of US hydropower dams by their modes of operation. River Res Appl 32:1450–1468. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.3004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Miranda LE (2017) Reservoir fish habitat management. Lightning Press, Totowa

    Google Scholar 

  57. Miranda LE, Krogman RM (2015) Functional age as an indicator of reservoir senescence. Fisheries 40:170–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/03632415.2015.1007207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. National Performance of Dams Program (2017) Dam failure loss-of-life consequences http://npdp.stanford.edu/consequences_fatalities Accessed 13 Feb 2019.

  59. Nüsser M (2003) Political ecology of large dams: a critical review. Petermanns Geogr Mitt 147:20–27

    Google Scholar 

  60. Nutley S, Walter I, Davies HTO (2003) From knowing to doing: a framework for understanding the evidence-into-practice agenda. Evaluation 9:125–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389003009002002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Palmer MA, Liermann CAR, Nilsson C, Flörke M, Alcamo J, Lake PS, Bond N (2008) Climate change and the world’s river basins: anticipating management options. Front Ecol Environ 6:81–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Palmieri A, Shah F, Dinar A (2001) Economics of reservoir sedimentation and sustainable management of dams. J Environ Manag 61:149–163. https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.2000.0392

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Pegg MA, Pope KL, Powell LA, Turek KC, Spurgeon JJ, Stewart NT, Hogberg NP, Porath MT (2015) Reservoir rehabilitations: seeking the fountain of youth. Fisheries 40:177–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/03632415.2015.1017635

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Peyras L, Royet P, Boissier D (2006) Dam ageing diagnosis and risk analysis: development of methods to support expert judgment. Can Geotech J 43:169–186. https://doi.org/10.1139/T05-096

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Pinter N (2005) One step forward, two steps back on U.S. Floodplains. Science 308:207–208. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1108411

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Pisaniello JD, McKay J (2007) A tool to aid emergency managers and communities in appraising private dam safety and policy. Disasters 31:176–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7717.2007.01003.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Pisaniello JD, Tingey-Holyoak JL (2017) Growing community developments causing ‘hazard creep’ downstream of farm dams, a simple and cost-effective tool to help land planners appraise flood safety. Saf Sci 97:58–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2016.07.020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Pittock J, Hartmann J (2011) Taking a second look: climate change, periodic relicensing and improved management of dams. Mar Freshw Res 62:312. https://doi.org/10.1071/MF09302

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Poff NL, Hart DD (2002) How dams vary and why it matters for the emerging science of dam removal. Bioscience 52:659–668

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Poff NL, Allan JD, Palmer MA, Hart DD, Richter BD, Arthington AH, Rogers KH, Meyer JL, Stanford JA (2003) River flows and water wars: emerging science for environmental decision making. Front Ecol Environ 1:298–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Rahel FJ (2007) Biogeographic barriers, connectivity and homogenization of freshwater faunas: it’s a small world after all. Freshw Biol 52:696–710

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Randle T, Helper T, Edwards W, Hozer W, Krivanec C (2015) Guidelines for dam decommissioning projects. United States Society on Dams, Denver

    Google Scholar 

  73. Richter B, Thomas G (2007) Restoring environmental flows by modifying dam operations. Ecol Soc. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-02014-120112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Richter BD, Warner AT, Meyer JL, Lutz K (2006) A collaborative and adaptive process for developing environmental flow recommendations. River Res Appl 22:297–318. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.892

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Schmitz D, Blank M, Ammondt S, Patten DT (2009) Using historic aerial photography and paleohydrologic techniques to assess long-term ecological response to two Montana dam removals. J Environ Manag. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.07.028

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Schmutz S, Moog O (2018) Dams: ecological impacts and management, in: riverine ecosystem management, aquatic ecology series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73250-3_6

    Book  Google Scholar 

  77. Shuman JR (1995) Environmental considerations for assessing dam removal alternatives for river restoration. Regul Rivers 11:249–261. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrr.3450110302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Siddiqui IH (2009) Dams and reservoirs: planning and engineering. Oxford University Press, Karachi

    Google Scholar 

  79. Sims G (1992) Dam aging. Thomas Telford Services Ltd, London

    Google Scholar 

  80. Smith C, Williams J, Nejadhashemi AP, Woznicki S, Leatherman J (2013) Cropland management versus dredging: an economic analysis of reservoir sediment management. Lake Reserv Manag 29:151–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/10402381.2013.814184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Stanley EH, Doyle MW (2003) Trading off: the ecological effects of dam removal. Front Ecol Environ 1:15–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Stapledon D, MacGregor P, Bell G, Fell R (2005) Geotechnical engineering of dams. Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.1201/NOE0415364409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Stedinger J, Heath DC, Thompson K (1996) Risk analysis for dam safety evaluation: hydrologic risk. Defense Technical Information Center, Fort Belvoir. https://doi.org/10.21236/ADA316926

    Book  Google Scholar 

  84. Swain RE, David B, Dean O (1998) A framework for characterization of extreme floods for dam safety risk assessments. In: Proceedings of the 1998 USCOLD annual lecture, Buffalo, New York.

  85. Tang Z, Engel BA, Pijanowski BC, Lim KJ (2005) Forecasting land use change and its environmental impact at a watershed scale. J Environ Manage 76:35–45

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Task Committee of the Association of State Dam Safety Officials (2016) The cost of rehabilitating our nation’s dams: a methodology, estimate, and proposed funding mechanisms. Association of State Dam Safety Officials

  87. Tilt B, Braun Y, He D (2009) Social impacts of large dam projects: a comparison of international case studies and implications for best practice. J Environ Manag. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.07.030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Tonitto C, Riha SJ (2016) Planning and implementing small dam removals: lessons learned from dam removals across the eastern United States. Sustain Water Resour Manag 2:489–507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40899-016-0062-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Tullos D, Foster-Moore E, Magee D, Tilt B, Wolf A, Schmitt E, Gassert F, Kibler K (2013) Biophysical, socioeconomic, and geopolitical vulnerabilities to hydropower development on the nu river, China. Ecol Soc. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05465-180316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. U.S Army Corps of Engineers (2018) National Inventory of Dams http://nid.usace.army.mil/ 13 Accessed Feb 2019)

  91. Warner K, Pejchar L (2001) A river might run through it again: criteria for consideration of dam removal and interim lessons from California. Environ Manage 28:561–575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002670010244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Wescoat J, Halvorson S (2000) Ex post evaluation of dams and related water projects: patterns, problems, and potential. Report to the world commission on dams. https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.1.1450.5840

  93. Willems JJ, Busscher T, van den Brink M, Arts J (2018) Anticipating water infrastructure renewal: a framing perspective on organizational learning in public agencies. Environ Plann C 36:1088–1108. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399654417733993

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. World Commission on Dams (2000) Dams and development: a new framework for decision-making. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  95. Banyard JK, Coxon RE, Johnston TA (1992) Carsington Reservoir-Reconstruction of the Dam. In: Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers Civil Engineering https://doi.org/10.1680/icien.1992.20280

  96. Fahlbusch H (2009) Early dams. In: Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers Engineering History and Heritage. https://doi.org/10.1680/ehh2009.162.1.13

  97. Zamarrón-Mieza I, Yepes V, Moreno-Jiménez JM (2017) A systematic review of application of multi-criteria decision analysis for aging-dam management. J Clean Prod 147:217–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.092

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Zarfl C, Lumsdon AE, Berlekamp J, Tydecks L, Tockner K (2015) A global boom in hydropower dam construction. Aquat Sci 77(1):161–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00027-014-0377-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The ideas presented herein were developed during a graduate-level course entitled “Managed Aquatic Systems” that was taught during spring 2017. We thank Dr. Steve Miranda and two reviewers for critical and insightful comments that substantially improved the manuscript. MAP is supported by Hatch funds through the Agricultural Research Division at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. The Nebraska Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit is jointly supported by a cooperative agreement among the U.S. Geological Survey, the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, the University of Nebraska, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Wildlife Management Institute.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Henry H. Hansen.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hansen, H.H., Forzono, E., Grams, A. et al. Exit here: strategies for dealing with aging dams and reservoirs. Aquat Sci 82, 2 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00027-019-0679-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Dams
  • Reservoirs
  • Rivers
  • Aging
  • Exit strategy
  • Conceptual framework