Last week, media across the country reported on a study from WSU researchers claiming methane emissions from dams and reservoirs is greater than previously believed. In Washington state, dam opponents quickly picked up the narrative, saying the study showed they harmed the environment and did not reduce carbon emissions. There was a problem...the study still hasn't been released.

It is due to be released this week, but rather than wait one week so everyone could read the study and assess its implications, the authors chose to spin the narrative before publication rather than offer more nuanced comments in the light of the actual study results.

Rather than following a standard of academic transparency, the researchers encouraged reporters to write about the story before others could double check the data in the study or put the research in context.

In Washington state, there was a rush to apply the study to hydroelectric dams on the Snake and Columbia rivers, implying methane emissions from those dams made tearing them down more acceptable. There are a number of problems with that claim, however, and questions that are still unanswered.

• The study is not about dams, but about reservoirs of all kinds. This is important because the impact from long-existing dams and newly flooded areas are different.
• So, what is the relative impact from existing dams as opposed to new dams? The Washington Post story seems to indicate new dams are the focus, saying “additional reservoirs that are constructed will have a greater greenhouse gas impact." When new reservoirs are created, plants that are covered by water decay and create methane. If most of the methane comes from new dams, the application of this study to Washington dams is limited at best.
• Another argument is that runoff from human activity gathers behind dams and encourages algae growth, which generates methane. The Seattle Times notes, “dams tend to be located closer to human presence, where nutrient loading…boosts production of algae and other organic life in the water.” Does this effect dissipate where there are no dams? For example, the same effect is evident at the mouth of the Mississippi River where nutrients collect. What is the additional contribution, if any, from dams?

There are other questions. Sadly, the study is not publicly available and WSU isn’t answering questions. I tried to reach them, but this was the result.

One week later, that remains the situation. That hasn’t stopped opportunistic politics from filling the information vacuum. One has to wonder if that was the reason the Harrison and the other WSU researchers decided to withhold the study while they spun the story they wanted.