NationStates Jolt Archive

Mitigation of Hydroelectric Plants
A resolution to increase the quality of the world’s environment, at the expense of industry.

Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses
Proposed by: Mikitivity

Description:
The NationStates United Nations,

RECOGNIZING that many large watersheds and river systems cross international boundaries, and thus represent a shared resource between riparian and coastal nations;

OBSERVING the international nature of the economic benefit to ocean and freshwater commercial fisheries of abundant and healthy anadromous fish populations, such as salmon;

AWARE that salmon represent an important source of Omega-3 fatty acids, though farmed salmon tend to have higher concentrations of dioxins and PCBs than wild salmon;

NOTING the desire to increase the maximum electrical output of existing hydroelectric plants by increasing the height of reservoirs or to design new hydroelectric power plants in order to meet growing electricity demands;

FURTHER NOTING that electrical power generation is often one of several uses of the water stored in multi-use reservoirs;

BEARING IN MIND that the operation of large-reservoirs alters the unimpaired (i.e. natural) flow, water temperature, nutrient availability, and sediment load in the water downstream of the reservoir;

TAKING NOTE of the fact that since many migratory species, including anadromous fish, can not tolerate significant long-term deviations in the natural variations in flow patterns, water temperature, nutrient availability, and / or sediment load, that there have been declines in many native species’ populations;

CONVINCED that in order for hydroelectric power to be of net beneficial use, that the environmental and commercial impacts of reservoir releases must be managed or mitigated in a sustainable way;

1. APPROVES of continued research into various large-scale reservoir mitigation measures including the design and operation of temperature control devices, construction of fish passage structures (such as fish ladders), use of pulse flows during migration and other critical periods, and maintenance and restoration of wetlands (which are important nutrient sources);

2. CALLS UPON nations to investigate and promote water supply and electrical demand reduction strategies, such encouraging energy efficient equipment, telecommuting and alternative work weeks, and operating large-scale industrial equipment during off-peak electrical demand periods;

3. SUGGESTS that adaptive management techniques such as timing reservoir releases to periods that are beneficial to both riparian wildlife and power users can minimize some of the impacts associated with large-scale reservoir releases;

4. RECOMMENDS the restoration of flood plains and seasonal wetland habitats, including designing flood bypass areas and seasonal agricultural easements;

5. FURTHER RECOMMENDS that these wetlands and flood bypasses be used to offset the need for dedicated flood storage in large multi-use reservoirs; and

6. EXPRESSES ITS HOPE that other alternative energy sources will be considered as supplements or alternatives to hydroelectric power generation, with the understanding that a sustainable power supply needs to be diverse and manageable in order to accommodate long-term economic stability.

Copies of this draft have already been posted to the following regions:
International Democratic Union
The North Pacific
The East Pacific
The West Pacific
Texas
Celdonian Diplomatic Quarter

Proposal History:

2005.07.02 -- First Draft circulated to allies
2005.07.16 -- Second Draft posted
2005.07.22 -- Third Draft (Myopian amendments) posted
2005.07.25 -- Forth Draft posted

I'm not sure about this. I'm all for making power generation greener, but it might warrant something a bit more forceful than this. Also, you've omitted one very important impact of hydroelectric power plants - greenhouse gas emissions. Here is a relevant excerpt from a recent New Scientist article (issue 2488, 26 February 2005, page 8):

In a study to be published in Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Fearnside estimates that in 1990 the greenhouse effect of emissions from the Curuá-Una dam in Pará, Brazil, was more than three-and-a-half times what would have been produced by generating the same amount of electricity from oil.

This is because large amounts of carbon tied up in trees and other plants are released when the reservoir is initially flooded and the plants rot. Then after this first pulse of decay, plant matter settling on the reservoir's bottom decomposes without oxygen, resulting in a build-up of dissolved methane. This is released into the atmosphere when water passes through the dam's turbines.

Seasonal changes in water depth mean there is a continuous supply of decaying material. In the dry season plants colonise the banks of the reservoir only to be engulfed when the water level rises. For shallow-shelving reservoirs these "drawdown" regions can account for several thousand square kilometres.

In effect man-made reservoirs convert carbon dioxide in the atmosphere into methane. This is significant because methane's effect on global warming is 21 times stronger than carbon dioxide's.

(my bold)

I think if the topic of HEP is to be dealt with, this lesser-known problem must be considered. I am dubious about encouraging the use of HEP or making it appear environmentally friendly without insistence that greenhouse emissions must be taken into account - by encouraging solutions to the main problems people are aware of concerning HEP, this proposal would give many a false sense of environmental security about this method of electricity generation.

What you've done is only added another (good) justification, but look at what the proposed resolution is advocating:


1. APPROVES of continued research into various large-scale reservoir mitigation measures ...

2. CALLS UPON nations to investigate and promote water supply and electrical demand reduction strategies, ...

3. SUGGESTS that adaptive management techniques such as timing reservoir releases ...


The problem isn't the release of methane (which actually, despite that article siting as a major problem is something that is still being investigated), but the timing of that release.

Long before humans were constructing reservoirs, many parts of the world would go through seasonal dry periods, where carbon mass would build up on land, and be flushed out of watersheds and into the rivers and later wetlands with the first few runoff generated storm events.

This resolution is proposing that reservoir releases be timed to a more natural cycle in order to mitigate (i.e. reduce) the negative impacts of storing water behind large dams. Furthermore, it advocates coming up with new ways of treating the problems. Though I listed several (OOC: very RL examples), there is still enough vagueries in the proposal that if you wanted to control the carbon load going into the reservoir, you could do the following (OOC: with current technology in fact) re-airation (sp?), which will might promote the decomposition of material in a more natural cycle, and treatment prior to storage in the reservoir, where sediments and organics could be bypassed from the storage <-- interestingly enough, this is something I see managers will be looking at in about 30-years time, but for security reasons).

Finally, the problem is that we are storing water. Clause #2 is nothing to ignore. It basically says *gasp* reduce your use. All too often politicans (OOC: In RL as well), treat resources as though they are unlimited. Fresh water is not unlimited. Demand reduction strageties could range from poluation control to shifting the timing of the use of water and electricity. (OOC: A great RL example I included: telecommunity! By keeping people off the roads when it is really hot, you are reducing smog ... although they might be running their home ACs, many larger office buildings can reduce the power consumption -- lights, AC, water, if they have fewer people, such as my government office does, we completely turn off our AC on Friday late-afternoon, so that the poor people like me that work til 6 PM aren't having as much power spent on us, though it is OK, because there honestly are very few government employees who stick around past 3:30 PM on any given Friday.)

In short, I'm not dismissing your government's concern, but I do feel that this already wordy resolution, offers three really great approaches to addressing the problem you cited. :)

The problem isn't the release of methane (which actually, despite that article siting as a major problem is something that is still being investigated), but the timing of that release.

Long before humans were constructing reservoirs, many parts of the world would go through seasonal dry periods, where carbon mass would build up on land, and be flushed out of watersheds and into the rivers and later wetlands with the first few runoff generated storm events.

This resolution is proposing that reservoir releases be timed to a more natural cycle in order to mitigate (i.e. reduce) the negative impacts of storing water behind large dams.

Surely, if the methane is being produced, then it will cause a problem whenever it is released?

Regardless, all I'm really asking as far as greenhouse gases are concerned is that this be included as one of the environmental problems that nations are asked to look into and try and deal with, because it's a possibility that does not seem to be widely known about and could easily be ignored.

EDIT: e.g. just a preambulatory clause along the lines of "FURTHER NOTING the possibility that methane emissions from decomposition in reservoirs could contribute substantially to global warming" and perhaps, if it fits, an encouragement to nations to take the possible greenhouse impact of reservoirs into account in environmental impact assessments.

Surely, if the methane is being produced, then it will cause a problem whenever it is released?


Hmmm, I honestly believe the problem is not independent of the time of release. Timing is very important. That is why *storage* is a problem over the natural condition.

The problem here is because the *natural* flow coming from watersheds is captured and then retained. In hydrology, this natural flow is called "unimpared". When the flow is "stored" it becomes impared flow. So we need to focus on the "storage", not the flow itself, right? :)

Long before humans were storing water in reservoirs, there would be a pulse of organics and sediment released with the first large storms of each wet season (here we are talking about climates with a moderate to large variation in seasonal rainfall patterns, much like the western US).

If the water isn't stored for a long time, the decaying plant matter won't collect in the bottom of the reservoirs and release as much methane. The methane gas is still a biological process though ... it is one in which the planet matter that settled at the bottom becomes food for microbes in the soil (in technical terms we call these "benthic sources"). Under normal situtations, these microbes then release dissolved phosphorus, which in turn becomes food for algae in the water column, which also feed on dissolved oxygen and ammonia nitrogren, nitrite nitrogen, and nitrate nitrogen. The problem is, that in deeper water columns, the amount of dissolved oxygen levels is depressed (often below 5 mg/L -- this is very bad), and the algae end up DYING. The algae, being organic themselves increase the amount of methane (which is just carbon gas) decay.

In the real world, there is a lot of work in open body ship channels, like the Stockton Deep Water Ship Channel (I can provide numerous technical links if you like) to increase the dissolved oxygen content of the water, but this work is driven large by the goal to provide a healthy habitat for fish species that pass through the San Joaquin River. Methane generation along the river / ship channel, is not something I see talked about!

The key here (why timing is important), is that dissolved oxygen and water temperature are linked. The rate of algae growth is seasonal, and highly dependent upon temperature and light.

In the case of the SDWSC mentioned above, engineers and biologists simply feel adding oxygen will improve water quality a great deal. In the case of reservoirs, other projects have seriously proposed the concepts of "circulation" (such as with CALFED's proposed In-Delta Storage program) or "release-pump" (such as with the California Department of Water Resources Orroville Dam operations).

Circulation of a small reservoir is simple. It means that you'll constantly exchange part of the water stored in a reservoir with riparian sources ... which promotes mixing in the water column. This mixing will bring oxygen rich water *down* to the depths of the resevoir that at night tend to stratify (which is bad).

Release-pump operations were originally designed not for environmental reasons, but for economic / power supply reasons. The idea here is you release water from a high head reservoir during the day when electrical demand is HIGH, but at night, you reverse the river and pull back the same volume of water. The reason is that power demand at night is minimal. People are asleep, and they aren't watching TV or playing on the computer. ;) But during the day, whatever power can be provided by coal-fired and nuke-fired plants is supplemented by the addition of hydro power.

The environmental (secondary) benefit here is that this operation will result in a mixing of the reservoir day and night. Furthermore, sediments and organics high in the water column won't be retained at the same rate.

Naturally, you'll see that I'm advocating in the proposal that the timing of electrical use be reoperated such that there isn't a day-night differential or demand, but such a practice doesn't mean that the power can't be effectively stored in something like a battery and that the release-pump operation itself need to be stopped. If anything, I'm a STRONG advocate of nuclear and geothermal power (I'm still concerned about solar, but my opinions there are mostly just intiution and not scientific) ... the power sources that are problematic remain coal, natural gas, and hydro. Given that nuclear is pretty steady, it provides a fixed yield, the idea of including things like coal, natural gas, and hydro actually makes some amount of sense, as these three sources can be ramped up and down as needed in order to meet surplus demands. And even though I have serious reservations about these sources, I honestly believe that in moderation and combination with sustainable power sources that they complete an "energy portfolio".

Now, the truth is, the methane issue is one that I've not seen professionally discussed that much ... so while I feel the current draft provides management options to reduce it, I'm VERY reluctant here. (Not closed to the idea, but reluctant.)

I *know* about fisheries declines. They are a huge economic loss in real life, and I see them as much more serious issue.

I *know* about wetlands / habitat loss, and again, I feel they too are dire international problems ... worthy of appearing in a preamble.

I *know* about coastal and riparian errosion, and again can (if called upon) talk about why these are problems with a great deal of certainity.

I honestly think the methane generation issue is something that there is less consensus on, and as the proponent of the resolution ... I'd first like a bit *more* on that subject before adding a new clause to address its important.

Your text:

"FURTHER NOTING the possibility that methane emissions from decomposition in reservoirs could contribute substantially to global warming;"

Is really good! :) It is short, and to the point. But I'd like to at least look and read a few more articles about methane production from open body reservoirs and the connection to global warming first. Is the New Scientist article available on-line? Are there some other articles you can point me to, because I'm going to need to defend "global warming" which is in reality a hot button for many people if I include the above.

Arm me, and I'll be happy to fight that battle as well. :)

Here (http://www.brynmawr.edu/geology/206/cleare2.htm) is an interesting paper discussing greenhouse gas emissions from hydroelectric reservoirs.

Here (http://www.brynmawr.edu/geology/206/cleare2.htm) is an interesting paper discussing greenhouse gas emissions from hydroelectric reservoirs.

That is a very interesting paper. :)

The author did point out at the end that she felt that her paper wasn't a strike against hydroelectric power, but rather that its impacts on climate change should be further studied.

Given that, I'd like for several more nations to read the paper, and then provide us feedback if this is serious enough that I should take _Myopia_'s amendment (which I'm seriously leaning towards doing).

Is really good! :) It is short, and to the point. But I'd like to at least look and read a few more articles about methane production from open body reservoirs and the connection to global warming first. Is the New Scientist article available on-line? Are there some other articles you can point me to, because I'm going to need to defend "global warming" which is in reality a hot button for many people if I include the above.

Arm me, and I'll be happy to fight that battle as well. :)

To be honest, I don't have the time right now to fully absorb all your information about mitigation possibilities, or the paper that Yelda posted. I will try and get a look sometime soon. I can link you to the article on New Scientist (there appears to be 2 versions, one open to subscribers which I quoted from, and one open to all, which I'll link you to. I don't think there's a significant difference) - http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn7046

That article appears to have links to related articles, and some external related websites like the IPCC.

As far as global warming arguments are concerned, there was an in-depth look at the sceptics' positions in Feb in New Scientist also - http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18524861.400 - main article
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18524861.500 and http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18524861.600 - sub-sections within the article

There were also the following two things, which are only available to subscribers - I don't know if you have a subscription, but I don't really want to post it on a free forum for fear of getting Max/jolt in trouble. Anyway, the previews of the articles are here:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18524864.300
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18524864.400

I appreciate all of this. :) And no, I do not have a subscription, but I do agree that posting copyrighted material of that nature here is not a good idea. The IPCC material should be great for what I'm looking for.

Neither Clean Nor Green: The Surprising Truth About Reservoirs and Climate Change
http://www.irn.org/programs/greenhouse/index.php?id=wrr16n2.truth.html

“The WCD report’s guidelines recommend that estimates of net reservoir emissions be included in dam feasibility studies and notes the need for more research into reservoir emissions, especially in temperate and semi–arid regions.”

“The impacts of climate change on water resources will vary widely between regions and over time, and are extremely difficult to predict. But this uncertainty is no reason for ignoring climate change, which has largely been the response of dam operators until now. The WCD’s thematic review on climate change and dams rightly states that the best way for water planners to deal with uncertainty will be to reduce vulnerability through reducing water demand, rather than attempting to increase supply. Even without climate change, this is a common sense approach, but one which dam proponents have resisted.”


Do all reservoirs produce methane?

Methane in alpine hydroelectric reservoirs
http://www.eawag.ch/research_e/surf/Activities/Projects/biogeochemistry/climate%20gases/p_climate_gases.htm

“Preliminary measurements showed that alpine reservoirs can be split in two main groups, those dominated by glacial waters that have milky water representing extreme environments and those with little or no direct water from glaciers, who can maintain primary production. The glacial reservoirs contain methane, but it is not produced inside the reservoirs, which mainly act as a store for methane.”

http://www.waterconserve.info/articles/reader.asp?linkid=12069

“The various United Nations ( news - web sites) processes dealing with climate change have largely overlooked the possibility of emissions from dam reservoirs, the [IRN] added.

The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an international panel of hundreds of scientists, does not include reservoirs as a source of emissions in its latest assessment report on greenhouse gases. Similarly, the mandatory guidelines for producing reports of national emissions under the Kyoto Protocol ( news - web sites) on climate change do not include dam reservoirs.”

Natural vs. Manmade Sources
http://www.epa.gov/methane/sources.html

“Methane is emitted from a variety of both human-related (anthropogenic) and natural sources. Human-related activities include fossil fuel production, animal husbandry (enteric fermentation in livestock and manure management), rice cultivation, biomass burning, and waste management. These activities release significant quantities of methane to the atmosphere. It is estimated that 60% of global methane emissions are related to human-related activities (IPCC, 2001c). Natural sources of methane include wetlands, gas hydrates, permafrost, termites, oceans, freshwater bodies, non-wetland soils, and other sources such as wildfires.”

About Methane
http://www.epa.gov/methane/index.html

Mitigation of Methane
http://www.epa.gov/methane/projections.html

“Unlike other greenhouse gases, methane can be used to produce energy since it is the major component (95 percent) of natural gas. Consequently, for many methane sources, opportunities exist to reduce emissions cost-effectively or at low cost by capturing the methane and using it as fuel.”

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/acid_rain.html

“The researchers discovered that low levels of sulfate, which is in acid rain, actually block some bacteria found in wetlands from producing methane.”

“Dr. Vincent Gauci of Open University, United Kingdom, lead author of the study, said "We wouldn't want to give the impression that acid rain is a good thing - it has long been known that acid rain damages natural ecosystems such as forests, grasslands, rivers and lakes. But our findings suggest that small amounts of pollution may also have a positive effect in blocking this important greenhouse gas."

In the wetland study areas, scientists applied several quantities of sulfate, similar to the amounts found in acid rain. The results, acquired over several years, showed that low doses of sulfate reduced methane emissions by 30 to 40 percent.”

Thinking about this, are there any inexpensive ways in which methane could be extracted from the water as it passes through the dam? Burning it to CO2 for fuel would reduce its global warming potential, and would technically be carbon neutral as the carbon doesn't seem to be from long-term carbon sinks (except for the first old plants flooded and rotted when the reservoir is created). Plus there isn't the issue of polluting impurities found with methane as a fossil fuel. If extraction is feasible and not prohibitively expensive, it might be worth advocating use of the methane for storage and sale as fuel.

Thinking about this, are there any inexpensive ways in which methane could be extracted from the water as it passes through the dam? Burning it to CO2 for fuel would reduce its global warming potential, and would technically be carbon neutral as the carbon doesn't seem to be from long-term carbon sinks (except for the first old plants flooded and rotted when the reservoir is created). Plus there isn't the issue of polluting impurities found with methane as a fossil fuel. If extraction is feasible and not prohibitively expensive, it might be worth advocating use of the methane for storage and sale as fuel.

The thing to bear in mind is that wetlands (which have been largely destroyed in the 19th and 20th centuries) are a natural and important source of methane.

As I was reading (in more detail) many of the links provided, it is now clear to my government that the production of methane from reservoirs is largely a function of the location and quality of water flowing into the reservoirs.

For example, a deep alpine reservoir will not have the same emissions as a shallow tropical reservoir. Different water temperatures, nutrient contents, soil types, and circulation patterns are all very important factors.

However, it is clear that this is something that bears watching ...

I'd say that a *different* idea for a UN resolution would be to discussion anthropgenic (sp?) sources of methane and the global methane balance.

Originally my proposal, was titled "anadromonous fish protection" (http://s10.invisionfree.com/IDU/index.php?showtopic=214), largely because the focus and goal of the proposal was to save salmon and other native fisheries.

I'm now convinced that in addition to this idea that an air quality (not water quality) resolution should be debated. My government doesn't want to see such an idea make a bold statement like setting some arbitrary target for reduction of point or even non-point sources of greenhouse gases, but would rather see more discussion on the nature of these sources.

As for the Mitigation of Hydroelectric Plants proposal, I feel there is enough science to merit the addition of Myopia's suggested amendment. But I still want to stress that I feel this is an issue best devoited to its *own* resolution.

Mitigation of Hydroelectric Plants
A resolution to increase the quality of the world’s environment, at the expense of industry.

Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses
Proposed by: Mikitivity

Description:
The NationStates United Nations,

RECOGNIZING that many large watersheds and river systems cross international boundaries, and thus represent a shared resource between riparian and coastal nations;

OBSERVING the international nature of the economic benefit to ocean and freshwater commercial fisheries of abundant and healthy anadromous fish populations, such as salmon;

AWARE that salmon represent an important source of Omega-3 fatty acids, though farmed salmon tend to have higher concentrations of dioxins and PCBs than wild salmon;

NOTING the desire to increase the maximum electrical output of existing hydroelectric plants by increasing the height of reservoirs or to design new hydroelectric power plants in order to meet growing electricity demands;

FURTHER NOTING that electrical power generation is often one of several uses of the water stored in multi-use reservoirs;

BEARING IN MIND that the operation of large-reservoirs alters the unimpaired (i.e. natural) flow, water temperature, nutrient availability, and sediment load in the water downstream of the reservoir;

TAKING NOTE that since many migratory species can not tolerate significant long-term deviations in the natural variations in flow patterns, water temperature, nutrient availability, and / or sediment load, that there have been declines in many native species’ populations;

CONCERNED that methane emissions from decomposition in reservoirs could contribute substantially to global warming;

CONVINCED that in order for hydroelectric power to be of net beneficial use, that the environmental and commercial impacts of reservoir releases must be managed or mitigated in a sustainable way;

1. APPROVES of continued research into various large-scale reservoir mitigation measures including the design and operation of temperature control devices, construction of fish passage structures (such as fish ladders), use of pulse flows during migration and other critical periods, and maintenance and restoration of wetlands (which are important nutrient sources);

2. CALLS UPON nations to investigate and promote water supply and electrical demand reduction strategies, such encouraging energy efficient equipment, telecommuting and alternative work weeks, and operating large-scale industrial equipment during off-peak electrical demand periods;

3. SUGGESTS that adaptive management techniques such as timing reservoir releases to periods that are beneficial to both riparian wildlife and power users can minimize some of the impacts associated with large-scale reservoir releases;

4. RECOMMENDS the restoration of flood plains and seasonal wetland habitats, including designing flood bypass areas and seasonal agricultural easements;

5. FURTHER RECOMMENDS that these wetlands and flood bypasses be used to offset the need for dedicated flood storage in large multi-use reservoirs; and

6. EXPRESSES ITS HOPE that other alternative energy sources will be considered as supplements or alternatives to hydroelectric power generation, with the understanding that a sustainable power supply needs to be diverse and manageable in order to accommodate long-term economic stability.

Problem: With spaces there are currently 3,386 characters (including the titles). That number is 3,129 without header info. It is still dangerously LONG.

You'll not that I've added the Myopia amendment. :)

This is one suggestion to trim it down ...

The original:
BEARING IN MIND that the operation of large-reservoirs alters the unimpaired (i.e. natural) flow, water temperature, nutrient availability, and sediment load in the water downstream of the reservoir;

TAKING NOTE that since many migratory species can not tolerate significant long-term deviations in the natural variations in flow patterns, water temperature, nutrient availability, and / or sediment load, that there have been declines in many native species’ populations;

And the shorter version:
BEARING IN MIND that the operation of large-reservoirs alters the unimpaired (i.e. natural) flow, water temperature, nutrient availability, and sediment load in the water downstream of the reservoir, which has led to the decline in many native species' populations;

I'd appreciate more feedback. :) Danke!

Mitigation of Hydroelectric Plants
A resolution to increase the quality of the world’s environment, at the expense of industry.

Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses
Proposed by: Mikitivity

Description:
The NationStates United Nations,

RECOGNIZING that many large watersheds and river systems cross international boundaries, and thus represent a shared resource between riparian and coastal nations;

OBSERVING the international nature of the economic benefit to ocean and freshwater commercial fisheries of abundant and healthy anadromous fish populations, such as salmon;

AWARE that salmon represent an important source of Omega-3 fatty acids, though farmed salmon tend to have higher concentrations of dioxins and PCBs than wild salmon;

NOTING the desire to increase the maximum electrical output of existing hydroelectric plants by increasing the height of reservoirs or to design new hydroelectric power plants in order to meet growing electricity demands;

FURTHER NOTING that electrical power generation is often one of several uses of the water stored in multi-use reservoirs;

BEARING IN MIND that the operation of large-reservoirs alters the unimpaired (i.e. natural) flow, water temperature, nutrient availability, and sediment load in the water downstream of the reservoir, which has led to the decline in many native species' populations;

CONCERNED that methane emissions from decomposition in reservoirs could contribute substantially to global warming;

CONVINCED that in order for hydroelectric power to be of net beneficial use, that the environmental and commercial impacts of reservoir releases must be managed or mitigated in a sustainable way;

1. APPROVES of continued research into various large-scale reservoir mitigation measures including the design and operation of temperature control devices, construction of fish passage structures (such as fish ladders), use of pulse flows during migration and other critical periods, and maintenance and restoration of wetlands (which are important nutrient sources);

2. CALLS UPON nations to investigate and promote water supply and electrical demand reduction strategies, such encouraging energy efficient equipment, telecommuting and alternative work weeks, and operating large-scale industrial equipment during off-peak electrical demand periods;

3. SUGGESTS that adaptive management techniques such as timing reservoir releases to periods that are beneficial to both riparian wildlife and power users can minimize some of the impacts associated with large-scale reservoir releases;

4. RECOMMENDS the restoration of flood plains and seasonal wetland habitats, including designing flood bypass areas and seasonal agricultural easements;

5. FURTHER RECOMMENDS that these wetlands and flood bypasses be used to offset the need for dedicated flood storage in large multi-use reservoirs; and

6. EXPRESSES ITS HOPE that other alternative energy sources will be considered as supplements or alternatives to hydroelectric power generation, with the understanding that a sustainable power supply needs to be diverse and manageable in order to accommodate long-term economic stability.

OK, this is the draft where I've combined to preambulatory clauses. Technically speaking, I'm less pleased with this draft than the third draft. (In the real UN resolutions generally feature extremely long preambles and very short activating clauses ... but I know that many NS players don't have the luxury of a staff to help them wade through LENGTH.) ;)

Summary Stats:
w/ header info
Characters: 2,716
Characters w/ spaces: 3,140
w/out header info
Characters: 2,522
Characters w/ spaces: 2,923

It should just barely squeeze by. My government as has me to submit this proposal and to gather Delegate support sometime this week, thus I will be adding this to the proposal queue either tonight or tomorrow.

If there are any further comments, we are still open to suggestions, as my office does not feel that this proposal will reach quroum with an aggressive telegramming campaign.

OOC: I like short and sweet preambles, myself, but that's probably because I'm lazy.

My only quibbles are with leaving 'riparian' and 'anadromous' undefined. I'm not ashamed to admit that, had I not already discussed this with you previously, I'd be hunting for a dictionary right now. Which ain't necessarily a bad thing by any means, but might turn off some potential voters.

Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses


Does the UN really need to burden it's member nations with ANOTHER enviro:allbusinesses resolution?

OOC: I like short and sweet preambles, myself, but that's probably because I'm lazy.

My only quibbles are with leaving 'riparian' and 'anadromous' undefined. I'm not ashamed to admit that, had I not already discussed this with you previously, I'd be hunting for a dictionary right now. Which ain't necessarily a bad thing by any means, but might turn off some potential voters.

I'll go with the shorter version.

When I rewrote Jamalya's Ballast Water I had the luxury of having space to put into venicular what "ballast" (an engineering term) meant. In this case, nations might not have salmon, but any fish that lives in both fresh and salt water during its life cycle is __essentially__ anadromous. It is a biological term that is used internationally, but probably not until you get to the collegiate level.

As I pointed out before, I wanted to throw in a specific term or two to give NationStates educational regions something to talk about ... in other words, I *want* people to have to pull out a dictionary.

But look on the bright side, when some nimrod comes in here and screams about how we are protecting gender challenged fish we can tell them that they need to pay a visit to their nearest dictionary. In short, we'll be able to screen out people who have knee-jerk reactions to "environmental" resolutions. Call it a switch and bait. ;)

*If* this resolution passes (and I think it will), I'll use NSWiki to link to descriptions of what fish species in NationStates are "anadromous".

As for riparian, that is an English legal term, that easily dates back hundreds of years. Like anadromous, it is one of many terms I want to talk to Goober about NSWikifying. (Others are terms like "canton" which Americans might not know that it is a largely French word for state / province, telegramming campaign, queue, quorum, etc. Basically there are some diplomatic and legal terms that I want to put into NSWiki for those same teachers again.)


Axis Nova, there is no "Environmental" sub-category for protecting water quality. Don't blame me, the game moderators are aware of my issues with the environmental category (it is a very poorly designed game feature -- it is incorrect), but thus they've not had the time or interest in editing the UN proposal categories to address things like this. If your only objection is to the category, I'm very honestly interested suggestions for a more appropriate category. :)

Another example is the lack of an education category. *shrug* But if we want the moderators to change things, we *have* to force their hands by submitting quality resolutions that force them to realize we are in fact interested in water quality or educational issues. Why fix something if nobody uses it? :)

The proposal was submitted, as the fourth draft form minutes ago as "Hydroelectric Mitigation". The original title "Mitigation of Hydroelectric Plants" was too long. :(

It can be currently located here (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/59039/page=UN_proposal/start=50).

My government would appreciate it if you'd ask your UN Delegate to endorse this proposal. Feedback is still welcomed!

Approved.

Krioval will be voting against this one. We feel that the UN has pushed its way into environmental issues sufficiently well to erode a good deal of national sovereignty, and we are opposed to further concessions on our part to make other nations feel better about the state of the environment.

Approved.

Thanks very much.

I also wanted to thank you and the people of Myopia for their specific comments. I have received one very helpful telegram, which had two questions I plan to incorporate into a FAQ.

I'll have some time to really campaign for this tomorrow night. Having seen no negative comments on the proposal itself, I'm very optimstic at this point. :)

Received your telegram, and have approved. Can't promise support should it get to the floor, but I'll try to help it get there.

Received your telegram, and have approved. Can't promise support should it get to the floor, but I'll try to help it get there.

Naturally I understand! :) And thank you very much!

To give you an idea of some of the questions that will be added into the FAQ:

Q: The resolution offers alternative work weeks as a possible demand reduction stratedgy, but how can alternative work weeks be implemented and save electricity?

Q: The resolution uses the word riparian along with coastal? What does this mean?

Both are very good and important questions, to which resolutions are not suited for answers ... but naturally are exactly the types of discussions my government was hoping an international debate could focus on. :)

[OOC: In other words, there is much I could write about in the resolution itself, but with only 3000 or so characters I figured it could wait *if* the proposal actually came to the UN floor.]

The proposal is now on page 4, and is 1/3 of the way to reaching quorum.

I've started working on the FAQ, which I'll post here. This is just a draft FAQ, and is in part based upon conversations I've seen in the past about this subject.

Mitigating Hydroelectric Power

Q: What is hydroelectric power?

Hydroelectric power is typically described as any electrical power source that is generated via falling water, but it could also include other sources of power which use the energy associated in moving water to generate electricity. The most traditional and common use of the term is still for converting the energy of water released from a reservoir into electricity via a turbine.

Basically as the water falls from a height, referred to in hydrodynamics as an “elevation head” or simply just “head”, the potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. The potential energy is directly related to the head, and thus a larger amount of kinetic energy is created by higher reservoirs. The speed of the falling water is then used to push the turbine blades, which are attached to a rotor that rotates within a large magnetic induction coil, known as a dynamo. As the magnets spin through the dynamo, it generates electricity.



Q: Isn’t hydroelectric power the cleanest form of power?

Despite the common misconception that hydroelectric power is “green” and “clean”, the generation of electricity from large reservoirs is fairly destructive to the environment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_concerns_with_electricity_generation#Hydroelectric_power

Negative impacts that most people never consider include:
 Methane (a greenhouse gas) production
 Coastal and riparian erosion
 Seasonal wetland and riparian Habitat loss
 Changes to natural stream flow temperatures
 Blockages to fish passage (very important to salmon)
 Decreases in dissolved oxygen concentrations
 Decreases in sediments and soils loads used in farming
 Maintence costs associated with sedimentation of the reservoirs
 Eutrophication of the reservoir (which can spoil human drinking water supplies)

Each of these impacts is well known in the water community, but rarely are these impacts discussed in common circles. It is largely for this reason that this resolution seeks to mitigate these problems. All of these problems really stem from the alteration of natural



Q: But hydropower is described as being renewable, so why isn’t it clean?

Renewable sources of energy aren’t always clean sources of energy. A non-renewable source of energy would be oil or coal. Once the energy is mined and burned (most oil and coal plants also use steam powered turbines to generate the electricity) it is lost. Water goes through a natural cycle, where it moves through the atmosphere, until it rains and then passes overland or underground, until it reaches a river and moves towards the oceans where it eventually evaporates.

Water has been used to harness energy back to the time of the water wheel, and when used in smaller scale operations it is actually fairly clean.

The problem is that large scale reservoirs have many other negative impacts. So while the source of energy (water) will continue to be around, many of the other positive things provided by the hydrologic cycle (fish populations, healthy soil for farming, beaches to swim at, etc.) will be eventually be lost if not properly managed.

This resolution is designed to promote smart “sustainable” ways to managing water. This is not a measure designed to completely eliminate hydropower, but to encourage nations to work together to protect the other valuable economic activities supported by water resources.


Q: What does mitigation mean?

Mitigation is the process of addressing a problem, by seeking an indirect solution to the problem. In this case, the problem is caused by creating large artificial lakes that alter the natural flow of water. The problem can naturally be addressed by removing reservoirs or reducing the need for reservoirs (i.e. decreasing electricity demand), but there are other options, which are promoted by the resolution’s activating clauses. These mitigation measures include:

 Restoration of natural wetland habitat
 Reduction of “flood pool” storage in large multi-purpose reservoirs
 Designing fish ladders to allow fish passage
 Building temperature control devices
 Moving sediment to continue through the reservoir via pulse releases
 Implementing pump back operations and reducing the need for hydroelectric power

Other mitigation measures that don’t impact hydropower specifically, but simply target electrical demand in general include:

 Promoting flexible work weeks for citizens
 Staggering the electricity demand so that more reliable sources of power such as nuclear plants can meet constant demands
 Pumping back water, so the same water can be used again and again to generate electricity when it is needed most


Q: Won’t this violate national sovereignty?

The truth of the matter is all UN resolutions violate national sovereignty. If you want to complain that this resolution violates, then perhaps you either address specific issues with this resolution or make a habit of complaining about all UN resolutions (which raises the question why you are here).

However, if you look at the language used in this resolution its clauses actually provide nations a variety of options. Nothing dictates a specific law that you must impose on your people. Instead, this resolution firmly supports the “sovereign” idea that the best solutions to local problems are dealt with by creative and local solutions.

For example, a “fish ladder” might be necessary to mitigate for water flowing down the Risdan River in Mikitivity because of the number of Sober Thought Winter Run salmon that pass by, but simply encouraging less electrical use via telecommuting in Datagenesis might work better in that country.

When your nation joined the UN, it agreed to allow resolutions to impact its national laws. Recognizing this, this resolution is specifically designed to encourage sustainable and sound environmental management, but it is not so foolish to believe that the UN can run your country better than you can.

The reason there is a resolution, is because this is an international problem. It might not matter to you that your neighbor’s fish population is declining, because your people might not farm salmon. However, it is minor conflicts like these that lead to international tensions, and some cases war. In this case the UN is involved, because it can promote and highlight the importance of this topic, and hopefully allow nations to understand that sometimes things that do not look like a problem to them, might be to their neighbors and small local changes can work out better for all nations.

OOC:

My real objection to this proposal, as written, is that it reeks of legalistic language, which I personally feel doesn't need to be in every NSUN resolution. Also, it addresses a very small aspect of most nations' policies on energy, which makes the hammer that is "Environmental: All Businesses" overkill. While I know and understand that this issue is close to the area of expertise of the proposer, I'm also tempted to critique its inclusion on those grounds as well - most people don't really understand, or care about, this issue with that intensity. It would be like me, as an immunologist, going into graphic detail about a vaccination program, either trusting that people will believe my explanations without challenge or else haranguing me for making a proposal that leaves so much untouched.

In short, I don't want this to pass and then have half a dozen "additional" resolutions attached to it, each one slapping Krioval's industry around like a rag doll. If people really want to understand the mechanism behind RP'd non-compliance with UN resolutions, the "piggyback effect" might be a place to start looking. The asininity of the dolphin resolution essentially tossed on top of the whaling resolution illustrates this point rather well, I find.

Thus, I oppose this not because it's a badly written proposal; if anything, it's almost too precise. Instead, it reinforces the assumption that all members of the NSUN are identical in technology and economical basis. Krioval is future tech, for example, and as such doesn't face the same environmental concerns as most modern tech nations. Economically developing nations may be unable to afford the latest innovations that a proposal such as this would require (or encourage - the wording makes little difference to the stats, after all). Its scope is sufficiently narrow that future proposers will interpret the "Environmental: All Businesses" as appropriate for the smallest of environmental protection proposals, when it really is not. Those are my objections, or at least several of them.

OOC:
Thus, I oppose this not because it's a badly written proposal; if anything, it's almost too precise. Instead, it reinforces the assumption that all members of the NSUN are identical in technology and economical basis. Krioval is future tech, for example, and as such doesn't face the same environmental concerns as most modern tech nations. Economically developing nations may be unable to afford the latest innovations that a proposal such as this would require (or encourage - the wording makes little difference to the stats, after all). Its scope is sufficiently narrow that future proposers will interpret the "Environmental: All Businesses" as appropriate for the smallest of environmental protection proposals, when it really is not. Those are my objections, or at least several of them.


OOC: I actually find those objections rather close minded. If I could categorize the proposal as something *other* than all businesses, I would. It is hardly my fault that there is no water resources category, and I've never been one to stat wank.

As for your claim that this resolution is too specific and yet will open the door for other resolutions, I see no LOGIC in how something can be specific and yet allow for other resolutions to ride on its coat tails. It seems to me that I've also given nations a number of SOVEREIGN options (which is why a few National Soveriengty Members are pleased with this resolution) to deal with the problem as they see fit.

You stated that this resolution assumes a certain technology level ... well, it does propose that nations promote energy demand reduction policies and other mitigation measures, but a fantasy nation or future tech nation will be able to determine the finer details on their own: in other words I see no tech wanking in the resolution.

If you are voting against this because of its stats, which I half believe, that is stat wanking, and your right. If it is because of the fact that I was opposed to your attempts to repeal the Pretenma Panel, that is fair in politics. :)

But I do find it disappointed and misleading to claim that something is too specific will open the door for other resolutions *and* to fault something for being comprehensive.

I'm not asking for your support nor endorsement at this point, but I will defend what I've proposed here, and I'm rather disappointed in what remain very generalized complaints about __other__ possible resolutions. They are hardly fair.

As for the area of expertise, actually I am a registered civil engineer, who specializes in hydrodynamics / water quality modeling. It is about as close as a NationStates resolution is gonna come to an expert.

The point behind the NS UN is to be "legalistic" and "diplomatic" and "political". The reason I let your "sovereignty card" fly is that is just roleplayed politics. But your OOC analysis is frankly way off. The point of the game is to bring these sorts of issues to the forefront and allow people to talk about the general terms.

I've been honest that my goal here isn't really to stat wank. I care nothing for the game stats, because so many of the daily issues are rather silly and the voting trends for UN resolutions are such that Human Rights resolutions frequently pass, because who can say no to a "free" increase in their civil liberties (besides the RPed fascist states). ;)

It was after Fris pointed out that a *large* number of classroom regions participate in the game, and I wanted to directly challenge the MISCONCEPTION (which is furthered by this game via a daily issue) that hydropower is "clean". It rarely is. It has many negative impacts on third parties, and frankly in our life time, we will begin to see the large water supply / power supply reservoirs in North America and Europe begin to be redesigned.

Shasta already has a "test" temperature control device installed, and the US Bureau of Reclamation is open to the idea of installing other TCDs. Fish ladders are required by law in some US western states. And pump back operations are being practiced by the California Department of Water Resources, to actually *increase* electrical power reliability (which was badly needed in the California Energy Crisis under the Gray Davis administration).

Energy policy, which is what this resolution is, extends far beyond water power ... it goes straight into why the US is in Iraq.

While you might like resolutions that pass a rule, like the Definition of Marriage resolution, on all nations, via a simple paragraph, I think something as difficult as energy policy needs to be tackled in smaller parts.

That said, there is an environmental "uranium minining" category that has been unused by the game. I *do* see one day somebody using that category to come up with a similar proposal with reguard to reactor waste ... but I see no danger of Hack's "House of Cards" argument being used here, nor do I see any need to revisit coal power, since we've got a few of those resolutions on the books in other forms.

What we don't have is: Wetlands restoration, flood by-pass recommendations, and the other points here. Nor is there anything about international salmon fisheries.

One more point ...

If somebody is inclined to vote against this because of some other resolution: say Banning Whaling or Protecting Dolphins, *because* of the stats, that is ultimately their Max-Given Right (tm).

But I happen to believe it also is classic stat wanking and since we are OOC here, I'll admit it disappoints me. It is no challenge and hardly fair to the ideas that follow ... for example:

If you don't like other resolutions, repeal 'em. But you can't compare apples to oranges and then make a blanket statement and fear monger "Environmental resolutions will destroy the global economy". "I had an Arab rob me, so now I hate all Arabs." "We adopted an environmental resolution I hated, so I don't read 'em but hate them all now." Prejudiced either way you cut it. It is a judgement made on something else.


I can easily tear apart any resolution passed, including mine own, claiming:

1) It violates sovereignty
2) It opens the door for other resolutions
3) It costs nations money
4) It assumes problems that may not exist (even the prostitution, gay marriage, yada yada human rights fluffy bunny ideas are assumptions of a problem that may not exist in many of our roleplays)

I don't do this though, because that is frankly LAME. It is generic, and frankly a waste of everybody's time. We all have categories we like and categories we dislike. I've conducted a few surveys on that (NSWiki has the link to one of those papers -- look for the United Nations Association, under Publications).

The minute you avoid giving constructive advice about proposals and avoid addressing specific clauses or things missing from a resolution, you really aren't talking about the resolution at all, but just venting about a resolution category -- and the only reason to complain about a cateogry is classic STAT-WANK.

Oh, people do it all the time. "Look, it is a human rights resolution to prevent people from clubbing third graders. It is easy to read, and I think beating children is wrong. I'll let my civil rights jump up." Typically I tend to just ignore it, and it is why I'm rarely active here now. But given that I've had *one* single telegrammed comment about my inclusion of alternative work weeks and off peak hours, I'm very disappointed to come here and see the *only* negative comments on my proposal have nothing to do with my proposal, but instead to focus entirely on *other* resolutions. *throws arms up in the air*

I honestly wish people would ask the hard questions that the National Sovereignty Organization does:

- Does this resolution indentify a possible problem?
- Is this an international problem?
- Are the proposed solutions likely to work for a number of nations?
- Is it flexible?

I am always disappointed when people that come in and read just the game stat of a resolution and never state their objections with the text. And that is precisely why people complain about the UN. They read comments about resolutions that aren't about the topic, but about Max's game stats. Ugh.

If all we want to do is push buttons, the UN forum is the LAST place to be whenever a category you don't like comes up, and the FIRST place to be when a freebie, like Human Rights or Free Trade comes along to increase your Civil or Economic Freedoms.

Seriously. If all you really want to talk about is the CATEGORY of resolutions, leave and rejoin when resolutions suit your CATEGORY boosts, because to judge a book by its card catalog is just plain silly.

Frankly, Mikitivity, I'm saddened, but ultimately not surprised, by your statements. As much as you decry "statwanking" - heavens forbid people actually roleplay their nations in accord with the stat changes - the statistics are a huge part of the NSUN. If nations could, through RP alone, void the stat changes as if the NSUN were the real UN (and some resolutions could be conveniently ignored), I'd have far less a problem with the system. It'd be even more educational for the students participating here to learn that aspect of international politics, in my opinion.

But your intentions, while potentially good, are no better than mine. I'm here to roleplay a nation, and I prefer to nip certain trends in the bud lest they completely screw up Krioval's statistics, compelling an explanation on my part (at the very least). It's easy to dismiss my objections on the basis that you don't like them, and to then paint yourself as the grand educator. I feel that there are plenty of ways to "get out the message" that hydroelectricity is or isn't "clean" - by the way, flooding isn't "dirty" so much as "disruptive to the ecosystem". So it's still debatable whether the many problems listed in your proposal are as critical as they appear. But I leave that off for later.

My OOC analysis (and this continuation) is (are) not "way off" because we disagree on how the NSUN should be run, and what its primary function is. I see its purpose as being an adjunct to a roleplaying game, which may have educational purposes, but is still in existence primarily for people to have fun. Learning and fun aren't mutually exclusive, but the prissiness and legalism of the NSUN have shot up quite a bit since I joined NS (about six months ago), diminishing the fun aspect. Rather than simply wash my hands of it, I feel I deserve the right to try to undo some of the pedantic heavy-handedness of some of the recent resolutions. And the blame for this, I find, falls into the laps of many NSUN members, some of whom are unable to defend themselves currently. But names don't matter - what does is that the game of NationStates is becoming far less enjoyable for me because, in part, the NSUN is filled either with shitty proposals (~80-90%, given the day), well-intentioned but vague/vacuous statements of intent (~5-10%), or eyebusters on the brink of the character limit that require an advanced degree to interpret unless one relies on the word of the proposer without question (most of the rest). I figure something concrete can be done about the latter group more easily than the two others.

Seriously. If all you really want to talk about is the CATEGORY of resolutions, leave and rejoin when resolutions suit your CATEGORY boosts, because to judge a book by its card catalog is just plain silly.

So, basically, since you don't like what I have to say on the issue, your proposed solution is that I leave. And yet you feel you've cornered the market on the "spirit of the UN". Since the categories comprise the meat of the UN (since ultimately a blank resolution could alter stats), that's quite a statement. How about we agree that people who post either stupid, miscategorized, narrow follow-up, or other objectionable resolutions, they should leave the UN. Then the twelve nations left can have a highbrow discussion on the ramifications of a single limited issue on what should ultimately be a national energy policy. If you can't take the heat on this issue, maybe you should reconsider making this proposal in the first place. Just because one can propose something doesn't mean it should be done.

As much as you decry "statwanking" - heavens forbid people actually roleplay their nations in accord with the stat changes - the statistics are a huge part of the NSUN.

Are they now???

Here are my opinions on roleplaying -vs- statwanking:

1) there is a time for stating support / opposition and a time to hold it in:

Proposals Discussions are comments to change potential resolutions.
Resolution Debates are attempts to justify your vote (and maybe convince a few others).

You've said NOTHING constructive in this thread. And last I looked this isn't a resolution.


2) You want to claim statwanking is roleplaying, then address the text of the resolution and cite specifically why it is no good in RPed terms. Make no mistake, you've blasted this because it hurts your eyes ... that ain't roleplaying, unless of course your nation has a hang up with length. In other words, start demonstrating ROLEPLAYING.

So it's still debatable whether the many problems listed in your proposal are as critical as they appear. But I leave that off for later.

If they are so easily debatable, starting debating my proposal instead of attacking it because of *other* proposals. Also you've now labeled me the "grand educator" (you do realize what you're doing here right).

I'm convinced that you are mistaking that my objection isn't RPing a dislike of environmental proposals -- I didn't reply to your first post, because it was clearly roleplayed. I simply ignored it. But that I dislike statwanking *without* RPing, which is exactly what you're doing.


My OOC analysis (and this continuation) is (are) not "way off" because we disagree on how the NSUN should be run, and what its primary function is.

The reason your comments are unfair and way off, is because you haven't addressed the proposal.

Also, I think this is the second time you've made the charge about "legalism", what do you mean? It is a word you are using to describe something ... is it long posts? Things that don't interest you? What? If you want to attack things, please be specific.

There are so many possible solutions and statements in the resolution that you could attack it via RPing in many specific ways. Instead I'm left to deal with a mysterious "it is just too hard to read" or "well, I hated the Dolphin resolution". Essentially it is called Sour Grapes on your part, which is extremely disappointing. :(


And the blame for this, I find, falls into the laps of many NSUN members, some of whom are unable to defend themselves currently. But names don't matter -

You've already accused me of being the grand educator. You are using names, surely you can see that now, right?


what does is that the game of NationStates is becoming far less enjoyable for me because, in part, the NSUN is filled either with shitty proposals (~80-90%, given the day), well-intentioned but vague/vacuous statements of intent (~5-10%), or eyebusters on the brink of the character limit that require an advanced degree to interpret unless one relies on the word of the proposer without question (most of the rest). I figure something concrete can be done about the latter group more easily than the two others.


Eye busters? Sounds like just another way to see "I don't want to read it, so I won't."

Nobody is going to fault you for not wanting to read something that is long, but if you are going to actually address something, complaining about its length or calling its author names is frankly unfair and uncalled for. Surely you realize that.


So, basically, since you don't like what I have to say on the issue, your proposed solution is that I leave.

That is just it ... you've not said anything about my proposal other than to state that it is a category "All Businesses" that you don't like. It is too specific, and that the details left unmentioned will result in future resolutions, which is extremely illogical. Specific details don't require followups.

I was happy with you stating you would vote against the proposal and not endorse it. That is RPing. But to come out OOC and claim that it is too hard for you to read therefore should be voted down *without* actually talking about the content ...

*shakes head*


You know ... if you want to talk about the specifics of the proposal, I'll be happy to discuss them. And since this proposal is likely to only get about half way to the quorum this go around, I'm open to suggestions. I added Myopia's because after looking at what he was advocating, it seemed to fit well.

If you have a suggestion other than, "Don't submit it." I'll be much more open minded than you treated me and my idea. If all you have to say is you won't vote on it, guess what ... I'm not stupid and figured out the minute you didn't endorse it that you didn't like it. I don't mind that, but I do mind you casting me in a bad light and making it sound like others might not like this. They do. I've had many positive telegrams and I think getting over 60 endorsements in a first try with minor campaigning is pretty good. :)

Let's get one thing straight. I said you were "paint[ing] yourself as the grand educator", not that you were (sarcastically stated or not) "the grand educator". Subtle yet important difference. And frankly, I consider the "for the RL children" argument to be pandering, however unintentional, and I felt it necessary to call it out on the carpet. I've done so. Assuming it wasn't meant to be a vote-getting ploy on your part and that you're far less cynical and opportunistic than me (another side debate entirely, and one I'm completely uninterested in holding), it can now drop.

I'm used to hearing that the UN forum is semi-IC, which basically means that me mentioning my nation's stats is acceptable so long as the reasoning is borne out through roleplay. Sometimes I'd rather talk through my own voice rather than through the various characters. If that's the sole problem here, I can alter a few sentences and sign the posts with "Yuri Sokolev". Makes little to no difference to me at the end of the day.

I did address an issue of the proposal in mentioning that flooding doesn't make hydroelectricity "not clean". Some of the other things do, but I'm unconvinced that they're sufficiently problematic to merit a proposal on them. That's a valid critique, and I see it all of the time. Granted, if this were simply a draft unaccompanied by a vigorous campaign, I'd be far less likely to comment. But seeing as you've started a telegram campaign and have pushed nearly halfway to quorum, I feel that a strong statement on Krioval's views (IC or OOC - the views are what they are) are in order, even if it doesn't fit with the desired theme of the thread.

Personally, I'd never say that comments to the effect of "scrap this immediately" are unwarranted when I'm working hard to push my proposal to a floor vote. My style is to be as transparent as possible, even when it's to my disadvantage. Nobody likes to be told that their proposal is being rejected because of the stat effects, but at the same time, it's a valid concern from the point of view of gameplay, and its one that shouldn't be brushed aside just because it jibes with one's ideas on how things "should be".

Currently, our office is in favor of this environmental proposal, an unusual circumstance to say the least.

Our reasoning is thus:

1. The proposal respects sovereignty.
2. The proposal is flexible by allowing for a variety of different policy possibilities regarding the issue while suggesting possible methods of ameliorating the situation.
3. The proposal encourages nations to address matters of ecological importance to many UN nations (OOC: and could make for some excellent roleplay).

We feel that these reasons are sufficient to vote in favor of this when it becomes a resolution, despite our dislike of the affect on "All Businesses" and our attendant concern for the strength of our economy that provides the necessary employment and economic liberty for our citizens.

Deputy Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

Currently, our office is in favor of this environmental proposal, an unusual circumstance to say the least.
You remain, as always, the master of understatement.

Our reasoning is thus:

1. The proposal respects sovereignty.
2. The proposal is flexible by allowing for a variety of different policy possibilities regarding the issue while suggesting possible methods of ameliorating the situation.
3. The proposal encourages nations to address matters of ecological importance to many UN nations (OOC: and could make for some excellent roleplay).

We feel that these reasons are sufficient to vote in favor of this when it becomes a resolution, despite our dislike of the affect on "All Businesses" and our attendant concern for the strength of our economy that provides the necessary employment and economic liberty for our citizens.

Deputy Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith
Makes sense to me.

Mik and Krioval: In the course of arguing, you've each managed to completely miss the other's point. Please, calm down, and re-read each other's posts. You might see something you missed the first time around.

OOC:

You remain, as always, the master of understatement.

Why thank you!

Makes sense to me.

Thank you again. :)

Mik and Krioval: In the course of arguing, you've each managed to completely miss the other's point. Please, calm down, and re-read each other's posts. You might see something you missed the first time around.

Oooo! I have a proposal for this...

NOTING that the OOC discussion between two fellas I happen to like, Mik and Krioval, has taken a turn into the unhelpful and unconstructive.

OBSERVING that this is not good for the forum or the two fellas involved.

ENCOURAGES Mik and Krioval to attempt to find a more respectful and constructive approach to this matter under discussion, considering its importance to how we all view the game and the UN.

Hell, I even managed to respect y'alls sovereignty with the proposal. ;)

Let's get one thing straight. I said you were "paint[ing] yourself as the grand educator", not that you were (sarcastically stated or not) "the grand educator". Subtle yet important difference.

Now who is hiding behind long-winded 'legalisms' and 'semantics'? Please practice what you preach. If you disagree with semantic and legal attacks, don't insult somebody (me in this case) and hide behind those same things!!!

There is no difference in your statements. Accusing somebody as painting himself is calling somebody whatever it is you claim they are painting themselves as. That is *all* that matters. I honestly would wish you'd see that you've become the very thing you've claimed you dislike. :(



As for your second statement, this is the first time I've seen you 'mentioning that flooding doesn't make hydroelectricity "not clean"' until just now.

That just doesn't really make much sense to me ... would you care to explain? Can you be specific and explain in detail why flooding doesn't make hydroelectricity harmful to the environment??? Flooding of what? You really need to be more clear!


The proposal itself mentions in the long preamble, why large scale reservoirs (which are necessary for larger hydroelectric plants) have negative impacts.

First, I'll call your attention to the following:
FURTHER NOTING that electrical power generation is often one of several uses of the water stored in mutli-use reservoirs;

The following basically is pointing first that these reservoirs have multiple uses (which is important because it offers a management solution, that means we can still have dams and reservoirs).

Then it continues by saying
BEARING IN MIND that the operation of large-reservoirs alters the unimparied flow, water etmperature, nutrient availability, and sediment load ...

Two things of note. The qualification LARGE is key to this statement. This isn't an attack on smaller reservoirs, as they don't pose nearly the risk to the environment and economy that large reservoirs do.

If it weren't illegal, I would have put real world citations to support this notion in the proposal text. But that is against game rules (as it would be to classify this as something other than Environmental All Businesses).

Fortunately there is no such restriction here in the forums. The following might not be true in NationStates, but they certainly will defend how things work in my nation and also illustrate that this proposal is standing on VERY SOLID SCIENTIFIC GROUND.

The question is: Do large reservoirs pose a risk to the the environment and economy?

I honestly believe the answer is:
Yes. This is in fact, fairly well documented, to the degree that many RL governments have responded to the risks. I mentioned how the US Bureau of Reclamation uses a Temperature Control Device on Shasta Reservoir.

Here is a good article:
http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps1515/febmar2001/salmon.htm

SACRAMENTO--California's power crisis underscores the value of the clean, renewable energy Reclamation helps to provide the state through its Central Valley Project hydropower plants. Yet the protection of endangered fish and their river habitat, which is affected by dam and power plant operations, also is an important issue in this part of the state.

These competing values posed a major dilemma: the cost efficient operation of Reclamation dams and powerplants require massive amounts of surface reservoir water to be sent through turbines and then released downstream. At Shasta Dam on the Sacramento River, for example, those releases changed stream habitat, often making the water sent downstream too warm for salmon to reproduce.

The dilemma was legally framed by a 1989 listing of the winter-run chinook salmon in the Sacramento River as protected under the state and federal endangered species acts. Then, in 1992, the Federal Government passed the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, which elevated fish and wildlife protection and restoration to a level of equal importance with flood control, irrigation, navigation, and power production.

My point is that the Federal Government felt that it was equally important to protect the environment (in particular several salmon runs / "species") with the adoption of the CVPIA. I've already stated why medically salmon are important, nobody has provided information otherwise.

The rest of the article talks about (in common English) the temperature control device. That is a very good example of a specific mitigation measure that allows Shasta Dam to continue to produce power and supply water, while helping improve Sacramento River conditions for Salmon and Steelhead Trout.

The article even cites several other temperature control devices on other Western US dams. One example even includes a cost estimate of $80 million for the complete construction of a TCD. That isn't cheap, but it isn't the price of a California Special Governor's Election nor a war in Iraq. And it is only one of a few alternatives.

Here is an abstract for a USGS paper on the Shasta TCD:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11289458&dopt=Abstract

Warning: that is a technical article, so here is the bottom-line:


Model results indicate that greater control over reservoir limnology and release quality may be gained by carefully managing reservoir volume through the year than with the TCD alone.

I keep mentioning this project is from the USBR, so let's look at one of their own papers:

http://www.usbr.gov/research/science-and-tech/research/archive/1998-2000/2000/er0013.html

Shasta Dam.- Preliminary data analyses indicate minimal if any effects of Temperature Control Device operations on in reservoir water quality. Data analysis was limited though to highly seasonal nature of the system combined with a data collected over a relatively short time scale. Downstream analyses indicate marked increase in drift of zooplankton under surface withdrawal scenarios.

In English, zooplankton = good. They are fish food, and we want them coming down the rivers.

But my proposal also talked about mitigation of wetland habitat (clauses 4 & 5). That same USBR article also as the following conclusion about a different project:

Lake Mead.-Lake Mead data continues to be compiled for final report documenting the past ten-years of limnological monitoring. Coordinated study efforts have resulted in developing several new programs such as building artificial wetlands to reduce nutrient loading to Lake Mead and a further increased water quality awareness.

The important thing here is that nutrients in the rivers is good, while nutrients in reservoirs themselves are bad (this is a point I believe I addressed in my FAQ above).

The conclusion here is that between multiple approaches, reservoirs *can* be made viable.

OOC: *Sigh* you know your arguing is getting both of you no where, I'd sugjest you both drop it for a while andd cool off. In the mean time, watch me roleplay!

IC:

The Republic of BlueTiger is in full support of this proposel, and furthermore implores othe countries to support this as well, under the idea that doing this will improve our world's health, and therfore our citizens' health. And our citizens' health should come before our economy.

Sincerly,

Alex Johnson
Assitant UN Representive of BlueTiger

BlueTiger']OOC: *Sigh* you know your arguing is getting both of you no where, I'd sugjest you both drop it for a while andd cool off. In the mean time, watch me roleplay!

OOC: Naturally, when three respected players are saying the same exact thing I'd be the fool to not listen. Thanks! I will honor the current Texan Hotrodders proposal. ;)

BlueTiger']
IC:

The Republic of BlueTiger is in full support of this proposel, and furthermore implores othe countries to support this as well, under the idea that doing this will improve our world's health, and therfore our citizens' health. And our citizens' health should come before our economy.

Sincerly,

Alex Johnson
Assitant UN Representive of BlueTiger

It looks like the proposal will not reach quorum today, however my government will resubmit the proposal Sunday or Monday. Since we'll be given a chance to resubmit it, if there are suggestions on how to change it, we remain very open to any constructive comments.

So the question could be asked why I've stuck to US examples thus far?

That is because I'm most familiar with the US examples. :) But this doesn't mean that there aren't international examples we can also look at. China's Three Gorges Dam is probably the classic example of a HUGE project surrounded in contraversy.

Though dated, this CNN article is an interesting and quick read. :)
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1999/china.50/asian.superpower/three.gorges/

(CNN) -- It is the virtual definition of a monumental project -- a dam one and a half miles wide and more than 600 feet high that will create a reservoir hundreds of feet deep and nearly 400 miles long. The reservoir, its engineers say, will enable 10,000-ton ocean-going freighters to sail directly into the nation's interior for six months of each year, opening a region burgeoning with agricultural and manufactured products. And the dam's hydropower turbines are expected to create as much electricity as 18 nuclear power plants.

Here is the CNN map ...
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1999/china.50/asian.superpower/three.gorges/yangtze.map.reference.jpg

To be honest, when your nation has a billion plus, energy is important.

Of further concern are claims the dam might become an environmental disaster. There have been little to no attempts made toward removing accumulations of toxic materials and other potential pollutants from industrial sites that will be inundated. Experts say such materials could leach into the reservoir, creating a health hazard. The relative lack of waste treatment plants in China also could mean run-off from communities around the dam would most likely go untreated directly into the reservoir and into the Yangzi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorges_Dam

Hydro-electric power is a renewable energy source that does not generate waste, although there is new evidence suggesting that dams generate carbon dioxide and substantial amounts of methane1 due to micro biotic activity in their reservoirs.

Dams by their nature alter the ecosystem and threaten some habitats while helping other habitats. The Chinese River Dolphin, for example, is on the edge of extinction and will lose habitat to the dam.

While logging in the area was required for construction which adds to erosion, stopping the periodic uncontrolled river flooding will lessen erosion in the long run.

The above actually cites my governments riparian wildlife concerns along with _Mypoia_'s CO2 point.

Without even talking about the human rights issues (which the International River Network, a NGO, has done an excellent job of documenting), I'd like to also remind people about sediment issues associated with large scale reservoirs:

http://www.irn.org/programs/threeg/index.php?id=archive/leopold.html

China has about 83,000 reservoirs built for various purposes, of which 330 are major in size. Sediment deposition in 230 of them has become a significant problem, resulting in a combined loss of 14 percent of the total storage capacity. In some, more than 50 percent of the storage capacity has been lost.

Here is where my proposals advocacy of flood by-passes and wetlands comes into play ...

The way to control sedimentation in a dam is to at times allow flood waters to flush the reservoir. 19th and 20th century flood management are based upon the idea that floods need to be eliminated (the agriculture in Egypt's Lower Nile region is an example of why that policy is flawed). Late 20th and 21st design actually calls for pulse flows (which also help fish) and the construction of flood by-passes.

The result is your flood storage pool (the part of the reservoir devoted to flood storage) can be reduced and the high load of sediments in the water during a flood will pass through with most of the water.

It is funny to think that a dam isn't being used to stop a flood, but in this case it regulates the flood ... it keeps the downstream flows to an amount that any wetlands or flood bypasses can handle. Places like Sacramento and Valencia, Spain have made use of flood bypasses ... and Southern Lousianna is the perfect example of efforts underway to restore tidal wetlands in order to carry Mississippi River flood waters away from the city itself!

In the case of Three Gorges Dam, engineers have questioned the calculations of sediment load into the dam. :( They also warn that you can't just flush flood flows out through normal power generating penstocks. Though the proposal doesn't include this, one mitigation measure that I'd also recommend is the construction of LARGER flood spillways in concert with the restortation of downstream wetland habitats.

The proposal "Mitigating Hydroelectric Power" failed on Saturday night to achieve quorum and reach the queue to become a resolution. It has at least 89 endorsements Saturda 4 p.m. PDT, when I had to run off for the night -- official state business. ;)

Since there were no suggestions for changes, I resubmitted the proposal, but under a different name:

Mitigation of Large Reservoirs

I wanted to emphasize that this is a _mitigation_ resolution, not an outright ban *and* I also wanted to drive home that the point is really related to the depth and degree of the alteration of the unimparied flow.

You can currently find the proposal at (page 6):
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/59039/page=UN_proposal/start=25

If you are a UN member and are interested in this proposal, please help my government and ask your UN Delegate to consider endorsing the proposal.

Thanks!
Howie T. Katzman

Status: Lacking Support (requires 10 more approvals)

Fortunately the voting on Ecopoeia's resolution has managed to generated interest in this proposal, and it may be able to continue to ride on the coat tails of the Freedom of Conscience resolution. (Translation: tonight I'll be unable to conduct a final telegram campaign, but I do *not* want to burn any more bridges than possible ... this one will be close.)

Mitigation of Hydroelectric Plants
A resolution to increase the quality of the world’s environment, at the expense of industry.

Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses
Proposed by: Mikitivity

Description:
The NationStates United Nations,

RECOGNIZING that many large watersheds and river systems cross international boundaries, and thus represent a shared resource between riparian and coastal nations;

OBSERVING the international nature of the economic benefit to ocean and freshwater commercial fisheries of abundant and healthy anadromous fish populations, such as salmon;

AWARE that salmon represent an important source of Omega-3 fatty acids, though farmed salmon tend to have higher concentrations of dioxins and PCBs than wild salmon;

NOTING the desire to increase the maximum electrical output of existing hydroelectric plants by increasing the height of reservoirs or to design new hydroelectric power plants in order to meet growing electricity demands;

FURTHER NOTING that electrical power generation is often one of several uses of the water stored in multi-use reservoirs;

BEARING IN MIND that the operation of large-reservoirs alters the unimpaired (i.e. natural) flow, water temperature, nutrient availability, and sediment load in the water downstream of the reservoir;

TAKING NOTE of the fact that since many migratory species, including anadromous fish, can not tolerate significant long-term deviations in the natural variations in flow patterns, water temperature, nutrient availability, and / or sediment load, that there have been declines in many native species’ populations;

CONVINCED that in order for hydroelectric power to be of net beneficial use, that the environmental and commercial impacts of reservoir releases must be managed or mitigated in a sustainable way;

1. APPROVES of continued research into various large-scale reservoir mitigation measures including the design and operation of temperature control devices, construction of fish passage structures (such as fish ladders), use of pulse flows during migration and other critical periods, and maintenance and restoration of wetlands (which are important nutrient sources);

2. CALLS UPON nations to investigate and promote water supply and electrical demand reduction strategies, such encouraging energy efficient equipment, telecommuting and alternative work weeks, and operating large-scale industrial equipment during off-peak electrical demand periods;

3. SUGGESTS that adaptive management techniques such as timing reservoir releases to periods that are beneficial to both riparian wildlife and power users can minimize some of the impacts associated with large-scale reservoir releases;

4. RECOMMENDS the restoration of flood plains and seasonal wetland habitats, including designing flood bypass areas and seasonal agricultural easements;

5. FURTHER RECOMMENDS that these wetlands and flood bypasses be used to offset the need for dedicated flood storage in large multi-use reservoirs; and

6. EXPRESSES ITS HOPE that other alternative energy sources will be considered as supplements or alternatives to hydroelectric power generation, with the understanding that a sustainable power supply needs to be diverse and manageable in order to accommodate long-term economic stability.

I have several questions with regard to this: Firstly regarding proposition 1, what means could be suggested to mitigate the heavy cost impact these sorts of environmental provisions could incur. Having considered this, what incentives might be put forwards by governments applying such a measure in order to make in more economically viable.

Regarding proposition 4, how should such restorative matters be initiated if the surrounding areas are urbanised or otherwise developed (i.e. agriculture).

Finally, what other energy sources would be considered acceptable supplements or alternatives to hydroelectric power generation, as laid out in proposition 6.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador of the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Long live hydro-electric Compadria!

A permanent link (but late now, but here it is anyway):

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=mitigation%20of%20large%20reservoirs

EDIT: just checked... you've achieved quorum! Congrats!