Sure, practical from an engineering/technological standpoint, but
impractical from a real-world application with its mixture of politics,
private property rights, government regulation, etc. Water flows where
water will flow. You aren't going to sell people on a grand plan to dig
canals through the countryside. It's impractical from a biological
standpoint, too. Invariably you would cut across river basins and connect
previously separate streams and from a salmonid viewpoint, this would
really mess them up and cause false imprinting, cross-breeding, and
more. This would be worse than the dams and make the whole project quite
illegal. I'm sure the situation in the SE, with its many T&E species,
would present problems, too. So, when you look it all over with an
objective eye, what better solution than to simply remove the dams?! :-)
>Your reply sounded upset,
No, just quite aware of the biological, private property and eminent domain
issues, ones that are as hot as any in this country. I disagree with your
assessment that private landownwers will like canals dug through their
properties. Even landowners adamantly opposed to dam removal would have a
change of heart if the cost of keeping dams in place became losing their land.
Peace.
Jay
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
/"Unless stated otherwise, comments made on this list do not necessarily
/ reflect the beliefs or goals of the North American Native Fishes
/ Association"
/ This is the discussion list of the North American Native Fishes Association
/ nanfa_at_aquaria.net. To subscribe, unsubscribe, or get help, send the word
/ subscribe, unsubscribe, or help in the body (not subject) of an email to
/ nanfa-request_at_aquaria.net. For a digest version, send the command to
/ nanfa-digest-request_at_aquaria.net instead.
/ For more information about NANFA, visit our web page, http://www.nanfa.org
</x-flowed>