Less light in Paris

It's going to be darker in Paris next time you're trying to find your way back to the hotel in the wee hours.  The Ministry of Ecology has just started implementing regulations limiting nighttime lighting.  Generally, the new rules require non-residential buildings to turn off all outside lights by 1 a.m. at the latest.  This applies to both public and privately-owned buildings.  So no more window shopping after 1 a.m.; no more brightly-lit public monuments as landmarks on the way home.

It may not be the most dramatic energy conservation measure, but the Ministry expects these lighting rules to produce significant savings.  Nationally it projects they'll cut annual electricity consumption by about 2 terawatt hours, or the equivalent of annual electricity consumption by 750,000 households.  Besides energy savings, it should reduce risks for nighttime migratory birds.  Lit-up buildings confuse and attract birds flying overhead.  Often, in cities everywhere, part of a janitor's early morning work is picking up dead birds that smacked into a building's windows or glass exterior during the night.

Still, if you're worried about France rolling up the sidewalks and turning into Omaha, you should know that the rules provide for exceptions.  The country is well-aware of what it owes to tourists.  Several parts of Paris, including the Champs-Elysées, Montmartre, the rue de Rivoli, and the Place des Vosges, can leave the lights on.  This is also true for parts of cities like Nice and Marseille and Lyon.  But now, at least when you get back to your small hotel on a side street, that neon light above the garage across the way that flashed all night long through the window, should be dark.

Plan Loire Grandeur Nature

Groups along the Loire River are beginning to discuss the content of the next Plan Loire Grandeur Nature to begin in 2014.  La Nouvelle République, the primary newspaper for Tours and the central Loire Valley, reports briefly that the Région du Centre recently held a public forum on aspects of the Plan.  Over the next few months, there will be other, similar forums most likely organized by other governmental units up and down the river valley.  Participants normally include the major interested parties -- the national government; regional, departmental, and municipal governments; water users, including homeowners, businesses, and agriculture; and environmental associations.

I'm still trying to make sense of policy-making for the Loire River basin.  But so far it's my impression that, in a country known for centralized administration, this area may be particularly decentralized.  Many of the governmental units along the river have competing interests.  Nominally -- and maybe actually -- these are "coordinated" by the préfet coordonnateur du bassin Loire Bretagne who is also the préfet for the Région du Centre.  His offices are in Orléans. 

The first Plan was prepared in 1994 and was part of a settlement after a five-year-long conflict over proposals to construct four dams on the Loire and several tributaries.  Generally the Plan sought to balance development along the river with what was then a new commitment to protect the river's special ecosystem.  Specifically, the Plan introduced a commitment to protect against flooding by moving structures out of at-risk flood zones and limiting new development in these same zones.  It also began an on-going project to revive the Atlantic salmon population.

Initially, the government intended only one 10-year plan.  However, after six years it stepped back for an evaluation and decided to make it a permanent part of river basin management.  The third Plan initiated in 2007, runs through the end of this year.  Thus the new round of discussions. 

I expect to be biking along the Loire later this year in August so I'll be writing more about this.

Infrastructure

In the early 1980s, when I worked for the National League of Cities,
we heard regularly that too little was being done to replace and modernize urban infrastructure -- roads, bridge, water systems, public transit, etc.  Thirty years later we hear pretty much the same thing.  Is this a continuing theme from the collective infrastructure lobby or is it a real problem that's getting worse?  My guess is that there's at least some truth to the former suspicion.  But my every-day experience with traffic, with electrical power failures, and with breakdowns on the Washington subway system tells me the infrastructure problem is real.

And William Galston, at Brookings, has gathered several recent reports that back this up.  He cites one with comparative country-by-country rankings showing that the U.S. ranks "18th in railroads, 19th in ports, 20th in roads, 30th in airports, and 33rd in the quality of our electrical system."  For a country claiming to be the world's leading economic power this is not good.

I'd like to think that federal, state, and local levels of government, all of them with public support, would be responding.  How can businesses operate efficiently and compete in world markets if things like deteriorating utilities and transportation systems keep raising costs?  Galston cites one report estimating that "in 2010, Americans spent a total of 4.8 billion hours stuck in traffic, wasting 1.9 billion gallons of fuel, at a total cost of $101 billion."   And from what I can tell these reports don't even include the challenges of adapting to changing climatic conditions, the kinds of massive infrastructure projects now being talked about to protect cities along coastal areas.

But at every levels of government here there's a political party dug in and insisting forever that the public sector should be shrinking, not getting larger; that taxes and public spending should be always lower.  I can only hope that some of the progressive winds apparently bringing changes in other policy areas can have an effect here, too.

A few details on Obama's climate agenda

My impression as I watched the President's inaugural speech yesterday was confirmed today by the newspaper of record: Although he touched on several policy issues, the one he stressed most was climate change and environmental protection.  The New York Times article also suggests that the White House must have given reporters some background after the speech on what the President is intending.

The article reports he’ll work through executive powers rather than propose any new legislation.  Republicans, who generally deny any human responsibility for climate change, effectively make any legislative action impossible.  So far, according to the Times, the administration's climate action will have three components.
 
1. New EPA regulations to reduce emissions from existing coal-fired power plants.  The Natural Resources Defense Council estimates that effective regulations could reduce these emissions by 25 percent by 2020.
 
2. New regulations to improve energy efficiency in household appliances, prosaic items like refrigerators, dishwashers, washers and dryers.  It will be interesting to see how this develops.  Apparently, during the previous administration, the Department of Energy was not meeting statutory requirements for updating standards.  The DOE was finally forced to act after a court settlement in 2006.  By early last year, the department had issued 17 new or revised standards; it was due to have another 11 completed by now.  We’ll have to see if the administration's plans in this sector refer to these 11 sets of standards, or whether they’ll be going further.
 
3. Department of Defense energy efficiency and use of renewables.  The DOD is among the largest energy consumers in the country.  Greater energy efficiency, of course, means financial savings.  Potentially, the department could also become a model for other federal agencies and the private sector.

This would seem a pretty modest agenda.  There is, for example, no talk of something like a carbon tax.  But even these measures are virtually certain to get congressional Republicans worked up.  They can be expected to look for ways to block the regulations and will probably make it as difficult as they can to name a new EPA director.  And the power plant regulations will probably be challenged in court.

Obama action on climate change?

I liked the President's inaugural speech.  More than liked, I was moved at several points.  It was a relatively brief speech and took force from that I think.  He spoke of equity and equality, of the need for collective effort to solve collective problems, of the country's commitment to provide security and dignity.

Different people certainly will remember this or that reference or phrase.  But what especially struck me were his references to climate change and environmental protection.

We, the people, still believe that our obligations as Americans are not just to ourselves, but to all posterity. We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms. The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But America cannot resist this transition; we must lead it. We cannot cede to other nations the technology that will power new jobs and new industries – we must claim its promise. That’s how we will maintain our economic vitality and our national treasure – our forests and waterways; our croplands and snowcapped peaks. That is how we will preserve our planet, commanded to our care by God. That’s what will lend meaning to the creed our fathers once declared.

Did he finally commit to action on this front?  It would appear so.  Now the question is what form that commitment takes.  Preparation for the next round of climate negotiations?  A carbon tax?  Federal support for infrastructure adaptation to future Hurricane Sandys?  New support for renewable energy technologies?  I'm hoping, whatever they are, the proposals will be significant -- measures that put the administration out there in a forward position.  He'll likely not get everything, but the proposals can be part of saying this is what Democrats are for the future.

Varieties of environmental action

I'm usually skimming through French and Italian newspapers on-line looking for environmental stories.  And I'm sometimes interested in how environmental organizations in those countries compare with those in the U.S.  There's a short article in yesterday's Corriere della Sera that's suggestive.  From the article, Legambiente, the largest Italian environmental organization, strikes me as seeing environmental action in rather broader terms than I imagine most similar organizations in the U.S. do.  Admittedly, it's been a while since I've been to a demonstration, so my experience may be out of date.  But I don't think of, for example, the Sierra Club, or the Nature Conservancy, or the World Wildlife Fund being out in the street with groups demonstrating for housing and smart growth.

In Rome, yesterday, Legambiente representatives joined with a number of other groups to protest the lack of affordable housing while, at the same time, the city is apparently planning to demolish several buildings to open up new development.  About 1,000 protesters carried banners through the streets for about 2 km from Piazza Vittorio Emanuele, near the Termini train station, to Piazza Santi Apostoli, just east of the Via del Corso and the Piazza Venezia.  Cristiana Avenali, the Legambiente director for the Lazio region and a candidate in the up-coming elections, told Corriere della Sera that "We're demonstrating to say no to cement projects, to say no to Alemanno's cement projects."  (Giani Alemanno, of Berlusconi's Popolo della Libertà (Pdl) party, is Rome's current mayor.)  Makes sense.

Nitrate pollution in the U.S., too

After yesterday's post, I thought I'd check on nitrate pollution in the U.S.  It turns out it's a major problem here, too.  Just yesterday, protesters were gathered outside an EPA hearing in Tampa, Florida, demanding action to deal with nitrates and phosphorous pollution.  According to the Tampa Bay Times, when the weather warms up, algae blooms in Florida waterways have become an annual problem, killing fish and closing swimming areas.  And back in November the New York Times had an article on nitrate contamination of water supplies in poorer, rural areas of the California Central Valley.

[I]n Tulare County, one of the country’s leading dairy producers, where animal waste lagoons penetrate the air and soil, most residents rely on groundwater as the source for drinking water. A study by the University of California, Davis, this year estimated that 254,000 people in the Tulare Basin and Salinas Valley, prime agricultural regions with about 2.6 million residents, were at risk for nitrate contamination of their drinking water. Nitrates have been linked to thyroid disease and make infants susceptible to “blue baby syndrome,” a potentially fatal condition that interferes with the blood’s capacity to carry oxygen.

Amazing!

I've only begun to learn about the issues involved here.  Still, I have a sense that the U.S. tends to approach the problem as one of water treatment.  I may be overstating it, but it generally seems that farmers can fertilize and operate feed lots as they wish.  Local water systems, if they exist and can afford it, will remove the pollutants.  By contrast, the E.U., with the 1991 nitrates directive, seems to be moving towards direct regulation of these pollution sources. 

Nitrates, protests and elections

France's FNSEA (Fédération nationale des syndicats d'exploitants agricoles) brought members into the street this week to protest an E.U. directive on nitrates.  The directive, adopted over 20 years ago in 1991, is intended to improve water quality by reducing the quantities of nitrates entering ground and surface waters from agricultural sources, principally from nitrogen fertilizers.  France faces E.U. sanctions this year if it fails to meet directive requirements.

The country, as required by the directive, has already identified some 18,860 "nitrate vulnerable zones."  If voluntary "best practices" haven't done enough to meet water quality standards, farmers will face compulsory reductions in fertilizer use.  On the face of it, this appears to be what the demonstrations were about.  Farmers in Le Puy, Tours, Rennes, and several other cities, voiced their opposition by driving tractors and wagons into town and dumping manure or old tires or other junk in front of  targeted government offices.

Meanwhile, as it happens, farmers across the country have just received ballots for elections to the chambres d'agriculture and need to put them back in the mail before the end of the month.  Under the law of the Code rural, the chambers have consultative, representative, and professional functions.  And they exist at the departmental, regional, and national levels.  They are a kind of corporate representation for agriculture in governmental affairs.

FNSEA, the largest farm organization, has its candidates for the chambers.  And so do the Confédérataion paysanne (which includes José Bové) and Coordination rurale.  A spokesperson for Coordination rurale was probably not being too cynical when he suggested that the FNSEA demonstrations, timed as they were, may have had more to do with mobilizing support for its candidates than it did with objections to nitrate regulations.

New environmental projects

Clearly almost anyone following Italian news right now is following stories about next month's election.  A lot is stake and there are any number of engaging angles.  But there are other news stories in Italy besides the election.  One recent bit of news with with intriguing possibilities comes from the Ministry of the Environment.
 
The vice-minister for Infrastructure, Mario Ciaccia, has just announced a "Piano Città."  The initiative means to provide 319 million euros to fund local projects to improve "aree urbane degradate" (deterioriated urban areas).  The projects appear likely to be a kind of urban renewal with an environmental orientation.  A committee comprised of government ministers, regional officials, and representatives from the Associazione Nationale dei Comuni Italini will screen the proposals.  Without being cynical, in Italy's present economic situation this kind of infrastructure spending can only be beneficial.  And if the project really do advance energy efficiency and sustainability that's all the better.

Meanwhile, Legambiante, the country's leading environmental organization, has just announced its own initiative called Italia Bellezza Futuro.  The objectives here would go much beyond those of the government's Piano Città.  But I imagine Legambient would be happy to influence the kinds of projects selected for Piano Città funding.
 
Legambiente's project starts with the premise that everyone has always appreciated Italy for it beauty -- the countryside, the historic cities, its food, fashion and industrial products, and its people.  This, the organization declares, is the country's principal resource, one to be preserved and developed, but developed in a sustainable way.

To promote the project, over the next several months the organization will be participating in events around the country.  For example, on the 19th of this month they'll be at Paestum in Campania to support broad protection for the Roman ruins there.  Over succeeding months they'll also be part of similar actions at Agrigento, Cinque Terre, Rome, Aquila, Naples, Turin, and Bari where activists are involved to protect natural resources and the country's cultural heritage.  They have also drafted a a legislative proposal meant to institutionalize means or protecting the country's cultural and environmental heritage.

More as these project develop -- and get reported on.

Panamax ports and hurricanes

We're now talking about what to do to protect U.S. coasts from the next Hurricane Sandy.  At the same time, all along the East Coast and the Gulf, port cities are, or will soon be, investing millions of dollars to dredge harbors and enlarge cargo handling capacity.  All of this is to get ready to handle so-called Panamax ships after the Panama Canal enlargement is completed in about two years.

Norfolk, Virginia, is one of the East Coast ports said ahead of the other and already prepared to handle the new generation of super-sized ships.  But what do we make of the fact that Norfolk has also been identified as one of the five cities most vulnerable to hurricane damage.  How will one of the new 14-story high cargo-handling cranes stand up (literally) in a Sandy-sized hurricane?

I'm not necessarily against large transportation infrastructure projects.  I always like to read about new rail and mass transit projects, for example.  But here, is seems, is a case of immense public and private investment in places that may face serious environmental risks.  New York, Norfolk, Miami, New Orleans, and others ports are exposed to ocean storms that are predicted to be even more serious as sea levels rise and storm surges push farther inland.  There might be some attention to local environmental impacts -- the effect of dredging on local habitats, for example.  But so far I haven't seen evidence that changed weather conditions are part of the planning for these bigger ports. 

Green in the flag but not in the elections

There are reasons to be optimistic about next month's Italian elections.  Mario Monti’s decision to get into the campaign means the country could have a real center-right party.  And it could be a party that marginalizes Berlusconi in the contest against the Partito Democratico (PD) on the left.  Also, as someone generally of the left, the strength of the PD in recent polls gives reason to hope.

But there’s also discouraging news.  Aldo Cazzullo wrote in yesterdays’ Corriere della Sera of the “disappearance of the ecologists.”  He points out that none of the major parties -- PD, PDL/Lega, or Monti’s coalition -- have anything to say about significant environmental issues, issues like land use, urban pollution, and alternative energy strategies.  At a more individual level, many, it seems, are scratching their heads, to say the least, over PD leader Pierluigi Bersani’s decision to exclude two sitting senators, known environmentalists, from the party’s list of candidates. 

2012 was the hottest

It's not awful, tragic news like the murder of children and teachers in Newtown, Connecticut.  But it should have the same mobilizing effect.  I'm referring to the news in today's New York Times, and I'm certain in lots of other papers, that 2012 was the hottest year in U.S. history.  The Times reports that the average temperature for all of last year was 55.3 degrees; it was up over the previous record, not just by a little bit, but by a full degree.  This is scary.  And, meanwhile, the temperatures in Washington, D.C. this week are in the 50s, with 60s and even 70 degrees predicted for the weekend.  It will be a good chance to get out for a long bike ride.  But I really would rather not be doing that in January.  It's weird.

Are we likely to hear anything from the Administration?  Will the President, or anyone else, take this report as a teaching moment to start talking about climate change?  Not clear.  Admittedly, Obama has been busy lately and is lining up for multiple confrontations with Republicans (and possibly some members of his own party).  But he's talked about putting climate change on the Administration's action agenda and this news, while it has peoples' attention would seem like a good time to do that.  The Guardian has a story up reporting that Obama could be considering some kind of "climate summit."  Here's hoping.

Flood control on the Loire

Early last year, on a different blog, I had a post about a face-off over a dike built along a stretch of the Loire River at Bas-en-Basset in the Haute-Loire.  You can read about it here and more here.  The next installment in the conflict is to take place next week, on 15 January, when the mayor of Bas-en-Basset, Joseph Chapuis, appears in court in Le Puy.  He's charged with failing to implement a prefecture order to dismantle the dike.  Last Saturday, 5 January, several hundred people gathered near the structure to show support for the mayor.  Organizers of the event, the Collective du Bon Sens ("Good Sense Collective") said they also had support from 4,000 petition signatures.

Loire River at Bas-en-Basset.  By Richard Mounts, 2011

 In 2011, the mayor took advantage of an impromptu offer of some clay-rich soil being excavated from a nearby construction site.  He accepted and quickly put city crews to work using the soil to build up the embankment along about a one-kilometer stretch where the river runs through the city.  It's just at this point where the city maintains a campground and recreation area with a swimming pool, tennis courts and playing fields.  For a long time, the facilities have drawn families from Saint-Etienne and surrounding areas for summer vacations and weekend get-aways.  The 496 campground spaces largely accommodate camper vans, but over the years a good many permanent structures have been added -- places to store things, or covered porches next to parking spaces.  The grounds had been flooded in 2008 and the mayor likely thought the work along the river would protect against a recurrence.

Dike and campground.  By Richard Mounts, 2011

Campground and amenities.  By Richard Mounts, 2011

The problem is that the work was done without official approval.  The mayor has argued it wasn't needed because they were simply fixing up existing protections.  Public agencies like the ONEMA (Office national de l'eau et des milieux aquatiques) and the prefecture disagreed; they viewed the dike as an illegal flood-control measure.  This is significant because, since the mid-1990s, it has been public policy to manage the threat of flooding along the Loire, not by building dams and dikes, but by preventing development in floodplain areas.  A five-year conflict over construction of a flood-control dam at a site south of Le Puy (Serre-de-la-Fare) was finally resolved with a decision not to build and to adopt this new policy.  In this part of the upper Loire Valley, this history is still fresh.  And the two sides in that conflict tend to reemerge at times like this.

Green infrastructure

Generally, the idea behind “green infrastructure” is to have land use decisions take account of natural ecosystems.  In the U.S. the idea has received some attention in "smart growth" circles and in EPA's encouragement of green approaches to storm water management.

Several northern European countries seem to have gone further with the idea, particularly France.  At the end of December, the government there published regulations aimed at implementing a broad approch to green infrastructure at the national and local levels.  They've been criticized for not doing enough, but I’m not aware of another country than has taken the idea further and done more to make it part of public policy.

In French the idea of green infrastrucure is referred to as la trame verte et bleue.  The “trame” in cloth refers to the weft, the threads woven crosswise through the woof.  In la trave verte et bleue the term is used metaphorically referring to the ecological weft that supports life.  “Verte” refers to the land portions and “bleue” to the aquatic portions.  As this little diagram indicates (looking more like something from a biology text than from weaving), the idea of green infrastructure in this sense goes beyond individual nature preserves or park-like greenways.  It’s meant to take account of the fact that animals and plants may have patterms of movement or migration that go beyond isolated areas.  Thus, environmental planners try to identify these patterns and indicate corridors between preserves.

From: http://www.greeninfrastructure.net/content/definition-green-infrastructure

In France a national committee has been charged with developing a framework planning document, "Orientations nationales pour la préservation et la remise en bon état des continuités écologiques.” (National approaches for preservation and restoration of ecological continuities).  Similar documents are to be developed at the regional level.  Once these have been drafted, and subjected to public review and comment, things will get interesting.  The ecological networks identified are meant to be taken into account in national infrastructure projects, things like highways, TGV lines, etc, as well as in local land use planning.  The implications are considerable, to say the least.

Ungersheim -- post petroleum laboratory

We imagine France as a country where everything comes from Paris.  There’s truth to that, but only some.  Outside the capital, regional and local governments innovate more than we might expect.  Take for example Ungersheim a town of about 2,000 in Alsace, close to the German border.   Le Monde reports that two days after Christmas, the town inaugurated a solar-powered electric generating station.  At 2.2 MW, it's quite small in comparison to, say, the the Agua Caliente Project in Arizona, where photovoltaics generate 200 MW.  Still, it's estimated to be enough to supply 800 households and Ungersheim will receive rent and a small portion of operating revenues from the operator.

Photo by Grégoire Gauchet, Dernieres Nouvelles d'Alsace

 The solar power plant is part of “21 actions for the 21st century," a project lead by Ungersheim’s mayor of 20 plus years, Jean-Claude Mensch.  Mensch, a former miner and union activist, aims to bring new ideas to a region that still remembers hard times after the mines closed.  In meetings with local residents, he and members of the local council worked out ideas for “sustainable development.”  Thus, besides the solar power plant, the municipal swimming pool is now heated by solar panels.  Municipal lighting levels have been reduced to limit light pollution and lower costs.  A new “éco-hameau” residential area will have no cars and target zero carbon emissions.  The town regained control of water treatment and distribution and operates with rates 5 to 20 percent below those of nearby communities.  And more.  Le Monde refers to it as a “post petroleum laboratory.”

I'm interested to follow implementation of all of these 21 actions and to see whether Ungersheim and the aptly-named Mayor Mensch have a wider influence.

State of the Chesapeake Bay

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) has just issued its new State of the Bay report for 2012.  The last one was two years ago and covered 2010.  

Overall, the Foundation found a modest improvement.  Based on thirteen indicators, it increased the measure of the Bay’s health by one point to an overall score of 32 out of 100, still, a D+ in school terms.  At this level CBF judges the Bay to be “dangerously out of balance.”  It would need to reach a score of 50 before being considered “stable” and 70 to be considered “saved.”

Under CBF's methodology five indicators were up, seven were at the same levels, and one, the health of underwater grasses, declined.  The report expressed a little optimism in noting that despite 2012’s small improvement, the score is up by 4 points over the last five years.  Even so, by my quick calculation, at this rate it could take nearly 50 years to reach the level at which CBF considers the Bay to have been saved.
 

 A big part of the problem is the complexity of Bay governance.  The federal Environmental Protection Agency can do a certain amount to set regulatory standards and provide funding to states and localities.  But the real will to improve Bay conditions lies with the six states in the Bay watershed (see map above) -- New York, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia.  Each of these by their water pollution control efforts affects the quality of the water entering the Bay.

The report was also featured on the front page of today's Washington Post.

A French dam -- Poutes on the Allier

A committee monitoring modifications to the Poutes Dam is reported to have had another productive meeting back in early December.  About 30 representatives of local governments, environmental groups, and others met in Le Puy-en-Velay under the direction of the préfet of the department of the Haute-Loire.  They were reviewing details of a project to transform a 17-meter-high (about 56 feet) structure that currently blocks access to spawning grounds for Atlantic salmon, into one about 4 meters high (about 13 feet) with up-to-date fish ladders.  Since construction in the midst of World War II, the dam has directed water through pipes to turbines downstream at Monistrol d'Allier generating about 82,000 megawatts of electricity annually.  It’s expected that, even with the dam at a quarter of the former height, electricity production should only fall by about 10 to 15 percent.

Existing and modified Poutes dam.  Source: zoomdici.fr

The Poutes dam is on the Allier River in the department of the Haute-Loire, about 35 km south of Le Puy-en-Velay.  It's a remote and mountainous part of France known, if at all, for the Beast of the Gevaudan, a giant wolf said to be responsible for the deaths of many peasants in the mid-18th century, and for Robert Louis Stevenson's travels in the area in 1878 with his donkey Modestine.
 
In advance of the expiration of EDF's (Électricité de France) operating license in 2007, environmentalists began trying to persuade authorities to deny renewal.  They argued that dismantling the dam would be an important step in restoring salmon to the river.  Dams and over-fishing had nearly eliminated the fish from the Loire and Allier until, in the 1990s, the government, prompted by environmental organizations, committed to a long-term restoration project.

Local government officials and some union organizations in the area expressed concern about losing EDF’s tax payments and undermining economic development efforts.  Generally, opponents argued, removing the dam would only marginally help the fish since they need to travel so far to get there and there are many other obstacles encountered along the way, so many, in fact, that relatively few salmon make it to Poutes.  They also argued that hydropower, as a clean form of energy, should be encouraged.

The government finally resolved the issue in July 2011 when it agreed to renew EDFs’ license based on the company’s proposed design for the lower version of the dam.  Generally, both sides expressed approval.

This is not as dramatic an environmental issue as many I’ve highlighted here.  It involves a smallish dam in a remote part of France.  But I have a couple of reasons for my interest.  One is personal; I visited Le Puy and the Haute-Loire in 2011 and one day I drove out to see the dam.  Since then, I’ve been trying to follow implementation of the redesign.  The second reason is more general.  There are lots of rivers in France, in the U.S. and in other countries with similar old dams producing relatively small amounts of power.  The issues involved in the Poutes conflict are probably relevant to the future of most of these dams, essentially restoration of a natural habitat vs maintaining a source of clean electricity.  The solution at Poutes, one that’s largely technical, seems like it could be relevant in other places.