Global Dam Projects

Author: Michael Redmond Edited by: Nora Lewis

Suggested Citation:

Redmond, M., Lewis, N. (2026). Global dam projects. Technology Assessment Project Case Study Library, University of Michigan. https://stpp.fordschool.umich.edu/tap-case-study-library/global-dam-projects

Global Dam Projects

Key Takeaways

• Deploying new technologies without community engagement and governance structures set in place can lead to increased and/or new inequalities and conflict.
• "Green" energy technologies that still rely on large quantities of land and other natural resources may perpetuate settler-colonial frameworks of economic development and resource usage.
• Under this schema, "green" energy technologies will likely transfer large sums of public money to the private sector without any real reduction in environmental threats.

Hydroelectric dams are the world's oldest and most abundant renewable energy technology. Hydropower dams provide abundant, cheap, low-carbon electricity (Wisconsin Valley Improvement Company, n.d.) but also have in the past, in many cases, served to perpetuate settler-colonial and neoliberal frameworks for economic development. This history has taught us that dams in low-income countries could disrupt existing community governance of shared resources, leading to new inequalities and conflict.

Function and Form: Industrializing Remote Locations and the Settler-Colonial Project

Both dams and advanced reactors are designed to open new geographic areas to forms of business and settlement consistent with the colonial project, facilitating irreparable harm to Indigenous communities and the environment.

Settling the West: Dams are a Colonial Power's Best Friend

The United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) was established in 1902 (Energy.Gov, n.d.) with the goal of promoting settlement of "unpopulated" and "arid" far western states through the construction of dams and other water infrastructure (Living New Deal, n.d.; Shirvan & Buongiorno, 2024). As pro-reclamation congressman Samuel B. Hill put it at the time, lands in the West "Have been kept there, no doubt, under some divine provision as a residuum awaiting the necessity for their development to constitute homes, rural life, and economic development" (Griffith, 2018).

The settlement of Indigenous land by Christian white Americans through reclamation projects was overt and intentional - as the official USBR magazine put it, land was acquired by "crowding the Indian farther west and making free farms out of his domain" (Griffith, 2018). The Department of the Interior chose settlers for reclamation projects on this "free land" based on traits such as "character" and "vigor" that almost always correspond to whiteness, and employment on dam construction projects was just as racially selective (Griffith, 2018). In the period between 1900 and 1970, the USBR facilitated the seizure of millions of acres of Indigenous land for white settlement, often in flagrant violation of legally binding pacts and treaties, and to this day denies many of these communities legal and moral rights to their ancestral lands and water (Reisner, 1986).

The economic expansion of western industry into rural and remote locations facilitated by advanced reactor technology could easily fit these patterns. The businesses most likely to operate in remote areas are extractive industries - timber, oil, and mining. These industries are notoriously dominated by Western corporations and white men, and large portions of remote or "undeveloped" land (including in places like the American West and Arctic Circle) are stewarded by or adjacent to Indigenous populations (Brady, 2017; Struzik, 2022; Zippia, n.d.). In a world whose energy, timber, and mineral needs are projected to expand dramatically while conventional sources become scarce, how likely is it that native treaty rights or the rights of Indigenous people in developing countries will trump the needs of "national security," "economic development," or large multi-national corporations?

They say that under capitalism, a forest has no value until it's cut down. After traveling the "virgin" Colombia while he was campaigning for the Vice Presidency, Franklin D. Roosevelt said he "could not help thinking, as everyone does, of all that water running unchecked down to the sea," (Northwest Power and Conservation Council, n.d.b). I think it would be fair to say that under settler-colonialism, a river has no value until it's dammed. Under the same ideology, then, remote locations have no value until they're industrialized, and advanced reactors designed for remote industries could mirror the extractionist and settler-colonial practices observed in the damming of the American West.

Reclaiming the Columbia: The Old Man River Bows to Google Servers and B-52s

The construction of dams on the Columbia River was designed to industrialize the region, but also severely impacted the environment and native populations. The Columbia River has hydroelectric potential unmatched by any other river in the U.S., and before the construction of dams was flood-prone and nearly unnavigable (Northwest Power and Conservation Council, n.d.b).

The expansion of shipping capabilities and cheap hydroelectricity brought energy intensive industries to the region. The Columbia River Basin quickly became a global leader in the aluminum industry, producing 40 percent of U.S. stocks through most of the 20th century (Kinsey Hill, 2001). Boeing was a primary consumer, and it's estimated that the power from Grand Coulee dam alone produced one third of all U.S. planes used in WWII (Northwest Power and Conservation Council, n.d.a). The abundant power from Grand Coulee was also utilized to manufacture nuclear weapons at the Hanford Site, now widely considered to be one of the most hazardous and polluted locations in the U.S. (Perry, 2020).

Access to cheap, abundant, carbon-free electricity facilitated the development of energy intensive industries, calling into question the potential for energy-addition dynamics, an area of discussion highly relevant to advanced reactors. Today, the Columbia River basin plays host to some of the largest server-farm operations in the world. Companies like Google and Amazon say that the abundant, cheap hydroelectricity in the region creates a natural habitat for energy intensive data centers, and that these facilities create jobs and benefit local communities (Levenda & Mahmoudi, 2019). But building more highways doesn't alleviate traffic, it just means more people drive to work. Similarly, carbon-free energy doesn't necessarily replace the burning of fossil fuels. These companies host their operations in the Columbia River basin because energy is cheap and abundant, not because it benefits the planet. Using advanced reactors to generate energy "too cheap to meter" might simply create new energy-intensive industries, rather than making old ones cleaner.

The legacy of environmental damage and settler-colonialism along the Columbia is deep, and continues to this day (Allen, 2007). The construction of the Dalles Dam in 1957, motivated by increased demand for hydroelectricity, flooded Celilo Falls, a sacred Native American site. The falls supported the largest inland fishery in North America, as well as one of the densest and most diverse Indigenous communities on the continent (Allen, 2007). Tribes were compensated for their lost land, but not their lost fishing rights and income, resulting in not only a traumatic loss of cultural heritage but also the complete destruction of an economy that had sustained residents for over 15,000 years (Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission, n.d.). Despite large investments in fish-ladders and other technical solutions, damming on the Columbia has reduced fish stocks to less than 10 percent their original numbers. Due to the legacy of environmental pollution from Hanford, the aluminum industry, and many other energy-intensive industries that moved to the area, the fish that remain are highly contaminated, and Native populations that rely on them for food are 50 times more likely to develop cancer than people who eat Columbia river salmon once a month (Columbia Riverkeeper, n.d.).

The Politics of Urgency: Neoliberalism, Stolen Land, and the Public Good

Like dams, advanced reactors have been proposed as a solution to large-scale environmental disasters. However, the history of dam and water infrastructure construction serves as a cautionary tale about the influence of powerful interests and the manipulation of public perception, exemplified by the construction of the Pine Flat Dam on the King's River and the Los Angeles Aqueduct in the early 20th century.

To Flood or Not to Flood: Pine Flat and a Damned Alliance

The case of Pine Flat Dam demonstrates how political alliances, regulatory jurisdictions, and policy compromises can shape the outcomes and benefits of large-scale infrastructure projects in ways that may diverge from their initial promises or public narratives.

In the 1940's, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) formed a political alliance with powerful agribusiness interests in California's Central Valley so that they, not the USBR, could construct the Pine Flat dam on the Kings River. Because the ACOE was responsible for flood control (not irrigation) dams, any water stored in an ACOE reservoir would be considered "surplus" and handed over to large agribusiness productions at cut-rate prices (Reisner, 1986). A compromise was eventually reached that included both agencies in the construction and management of Pine Flat, but it required the USBR to forgo acreage limits for the entire region. Following completion of the project, the ACOE handed control of Pine Flat to the local irrigation district. The result: "70 percent of the profit on what is supposed to be some of the richest farmland in the world comes solely through taxpayer subsidization—not crop production," (Reisner, 1986).

To add another level of irony, Pine Flat provided significantly less flood control capacity than described in the original ACOE plans (Kings River Conservation District, 2009). During a particularly wet rainy season in 1969, the Pine Flat Dam was on the brink of overflowing. To protect valuable cropland owned by corporate giant J. G. Boswell from inundation, a decision was made by the irrigation district (at Boswell's behest) to instead flood the homes of local residents (Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Water Dist, 1973). The residents sued, but their lawsuit was struck down in 1973 by the Supreme Court, which claimed corporate capture of the irrigation district was constitutional because flood control was not an important government function. This would not be the only time Pine Flat's lackluster flood control impacted residents - the dam was forced to release flood waters once again in April of this year (2023), contributing to flooding that displaced hundreds of people and caused extensive economic damage in the region (Hubbard, 2023).

Pine Flat offers an illustrative example of the potential for commercial and political agendas to override benefits promised to the public. The construction of advanced reactors could easily be fueled by promises of cheap energy and avoiding catastrophic climate change, while in reality serving as a vehicle for clout-seeking federal agencies and private interests to benefit from billions of dollars in public investment. If ARs simply become energy additions rather than replacing fossil fuels, significant public money will have been invested and transferred to the private sector with no real reduction of environmental threats.

Our Town or Chinatown: The LA Times Will Let You Know

The LA Aqueduct was a masterclass in manipulating public opinion for private gain. The project was supposed to be a way to allow the rapidly growing city access to adequate water supplies, but in reality, the project was designed to provide cheap subsidized water to irrigate water-intensive agribusiness areas in the San Fernando Valley. The process was largely driven by a syndicate led by Fred Eaton and Harrison Gray Otis, who held significant sway over the San Fernando Valley and the Los Angeles Times, respectively (Weingarten, 2019). Capitalizing on their influence, they successfully manipulated public opinion to support the construction of the aqueduct. The LA Times, owned by the Otis/Chandler family, played a crucial role, circulating stories of imminent water shortages and droughts that painted a dire picture of Los Angeles's future without a new water source (Weingarten, 2019).

Despite the truth that Los Angeles's existing water resources were adequate for its population at the time, the fear mongering tactics successfully rallied public support for the aqueduct project. It was sold as a necessary measure for the city's survival, with its opponents framed as enemies of progress. Consequently, the environmental and societal costs were largely dismissed or ignored. Those costs were profound: The LA Water Project destroyed an entire community of rural farmers in the Owens Valley, and fundamentally changed multiple ecosystems in Southern California (Weingarten, 2019). Rather than providing a public good, it enriched a small group of landowners, the same ones who had manipulated public opinion and oversaw the use of public funds for construction of the aqueduct.

This is not to deny the real-world impact of droughts and floods – the Pine Flat dam and LA aqueduct have mitigated millions of dollars in flood damage and allowed Southern California to develop into one of the world's largest economies. However, in both instances the construction of dams/water infrastructure served as a vehicle for massive transfers of public wealth to a handful of powerful interests who mobilized narratives of impending environmental crisis for personal financial gain (Food & Water Watch, 2023).

Calls for expanding low-carbon electricity will likely grow louder as the frequency of extreme weather events and the impacts of climate change continue to increase. In ways similar to California's early 20th century water politics, these narratives of impending crisis could be pushed or co-opted by powerful interests seeking to benefit personally from publicly subsidized clean-energy projects. This would further obscure the discourse and motivations behind advanced reactor technology deployment, and end up concentrating (instead of democratizing) the green energy transition. And as long as the narrative, like the LA Water Project narrative, leads not to replacing existing energy or water use with more sustainable programs, but to expand total capacity in the name of unlimited growth, it will not achieve its touted goals or provide for the general welfare (California Water Impact Network, n.d.).

Destructive Structures: Community Governance and Resource Conflict

Dam construction can inadvertently lead to the disruption of existing community dynamics, giving rise to new inequalities and conflicts. Beginning in 2012, the government of Thailand began aggressively pursuing the construction of small hydropower dams to increase the nation's generation capacity (Fung et al., 2019). Along the Ing River, the construction of approximately a dozen small dams significantly altered the basin's hydrology and resulted in a major restructuring of local water management practices. For 700 years, the Muang Fai system governed the collective management of water for irrigation through a network of locally controlled weirs and canals. Community-devised rules for equitable allocation and distribution evolved over hundreds of years, and were almost immediately displaced by the construction of small dams along the river. The unequal distribution of agricultural impacts was striking - villages upstream of dam construction saw significant benefits, such as increased dry season farming, while water supplies for villages downstream were significantly reduced (Fung et al., 2019). While most villagers in the region were grateful to see flood frequency and severity reduced, the inequitable redistribution of water resources resulted in regional conflict that had not been observed under the previous Muang Fai management system.

Relevance to Advanced Nuclear Energy

Similar to dams, it is likely that advanced reactors may be used not just to replace fossil fuels, but for modes of economic growth that concentrate wealth in the hands of a few while damaging vulnerable communities and doing little to address the climate crisis. No matter how carefully it's managed, advanced reactor technology will lead to some major environmental impacts that cannot at this time be mitigated, including everything from the impacts of uranium mining (which happens mostly on Native American land) to the transportation and eventual storage of highly toxic fuel. Given the history of winners and losers in the history of hydropower dam construction, there are serious concerns about how advanced nuclear energy technology will impact vulnerable communities.

Key References

Allen, C. (2007). "Boils swell & whorl pools:" The historical landscape of the Dalles—Celilo reach of the Columbia River. Oregon Historical Quarterly, 108(4), 546–560.

Griffith, J. (2018). Do some work for me: Settler colonialism, professional communication, and representations of Indigenous water. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 7(1), 132–157.

References

Allen, C. (2007). "Boils swell & whorl pools:" The historical landscape of the Dalles—Celilo reach of the Columbia River. Oregon Historical Quarterly, 108(4), 546–560.

Brady, J. (2017). Big Oil has a diversity problem. NPR.

California Water Impact Network. (n.d.). Over allocation.

Columbia Riverkeeper. (n.d.). Uniting people for clean water, climate action, and healthy communities.

Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission. (n.d.). Celilo Falls. CRITFC.

Energy.Gov. (n.d.). History of Hydropower.

Fung, Z., Pomun, T., Charles, K.J., & Kirchherr, J. (2019). Mapping the social impacts of small dams: The case of Thailand's Ing River basin. Ambio, 48, 180–191.

Griffith, J. (2018). Do some work for me: Settler colonialism, professional communication, and representations of Indigenous water. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 7(1), 132–157.

Hubbard, L. (2023, March 19). Pine Flat to begin rare flood release to Tulare Lake, Army Corps announces.

International Energy Association. (n.d.). Executive summary: Hydropower special market report.

Kinsey Hill, G. (2001, March 11). Electricity prices have weakened Northwest smelters, hastening their demise. Blue Fish.

Kings River Conservation District. (2009, September). Kings River Handbook.

Levenda, A., & Mahmoudi, D. (2019). Silicon forest and server farms: The (urban) nature of digital capitalism in the Pacific Northwest. Culture Machine, 18.

Living New Deal. (n.d.). Bureau of Reclamation (1902).

Northwest Power and Conservation Council. (n.d.a). Aluminum.

Northwest Power and Conservation Council. (n.d.b). Dams: history and purpose.

Perry, D. (2020, August 2). Hanford Site, or "The apocalypse factory," fueled Manhattan Project and environmental disaster in northwest. OregonLive.

Reisner, M. (1986). Cadillac desert: The American West and its disappearing water. Viking.

Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Water Dist. 410 U.S. 719 (1973). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/719/.

Shirvan, K., & Buongiorno, J. (2024, July 30). Advanced nuclear reactors. MIT Climate Portal.

Struzik, E. (2022, November 3). Native guardians: Canada's First Nations move to protect their lands. Yale E360.

Watch, Food & Water. (2023). Big Ag, Big Oil, and the California Water Crisis.

Weingarten, M. (2019). Thirsty: William Mulholland, California Water, and the real Chinatown. Vireo/Rare Bird.

Wisconsin Valley Improvement Company. (n.d.). Facts about hydropower.

Zippia. (n.d.). Miner demographics and statistics [2023]: Number of miners in the US.

Photo: Pine Flat Dam by Kjkolb / CC BY-SA 4.0