More than 1000 years
have passed since the settlers have set foot on the promising shores
of the river Þjórsá. But now the river area is threatened. Part of
the Icelandic people believe that the Þjórsá's power will improve
the quality of life of the inhabitants by taming it and using its
energy for power production. Three hydropower plants are scheduled on
lower Þjórsá, Urriðafossvirkjun near the river's mouth, followed
by Holtavirkjun and Hvammsvirkjun.
We, the signing farmers on the banks of Þjórsá wish to point out the following facts: extremely powerful volcanoes, Hekla, Tungnafellsjökull and Bárðarbunga, are situated in the projected river's neighbourhood. In case of a natural disaster in the area of Þjórsá and Tungnaá following power plants are at risk:
Búrfellsvirkjun 270 MW
Sultartangavirkjun 120 MW
Hrauneyjafossvirkjun 210 MW
Sigölduvirkjun 150 MW
Búðarhálsvirkjun 95 MW
Vatnsfellsvirkjun 90 MW with Kvíslaveitum
That is 935 MW out of a total of 1893 MW, that energy provider Landsvirkjun's hydroelectric power plants produce in Iceland. With the aid of a hydroelectric power plant at the lower Þjórsá the total production volume of hydropower increases to 2183 MW. Of this, 1225 MW or 57% of the amount of energy that Landsvirkjun's hydropower gains, derives from Þjórsá's drainage.
Landsvirkjun gains about 97% of its national energy yield from hydropower.
If the projects are implemented, three dams will be erected on Þjórsá. They will cut flourishing landscapes on both river banks, where farmers currently are running profitable agricultural activities. The dams will hold huge reservoirs, swallowing much topsoil and land on the banks where they are supposed to expand. Pastures will disappear under dam walls and in the water. For example it is planned that for the lowermost dam1.5 million cubic meters of soil will have to be removed in order to dam the waterfall Urriðafoss. This material is to be distributed to the adjacent settlements on both sides of the river.
We, the signing farmers on the banks of Þjórsá wish to point out the following facts: extremely powerful volcanoes, Hekla, Tungnafellsjökull and Bárðarbunga, are situated in the projected river's neighbourhood. In case of a natural disaster in the area of Þjórsá and Tungnaá following power plants are at risk:
Búrfellsvirkjun 270 MW
Sultartangavirkjun 120 MW
Hrauneyjafossvirkjun 210 MW
Sigölduvirkjun 150 MW
Búðarhálsvirkjun 95 MW
Vatnsfellsvirkjun 90 MW with Kvíslaveitum
That is 935 MW out of a total of 1893 MW, that energy provider Landsvirkjun's hydroelectric power plants produce in Iceland. With the aid of a hydroelectric power plant at the lower Þjórsá the total production volume of hydropower increases to 2183 MW. Of this, 1225 MW or 57% of the amount of energy that Landsvirkjun's hydropower gains, derives from Þjórsá's drainage.
Landsvirkjun gains about 97% of its national energy yield from hydropower.
If the projects are implemented, three dams will be erected on Þjórsá. They will cut flourishing landscapes on both river banks, where farmers currently are running profitable agricultural activities. The dams will hold huge reservoirs, swallowing much topsoil and land on the banks where they are supposed to expand. Pastures will disappear under dam walls and in the water. For example it is planned that for the lowermost dam1.5 million cubic meters of soil will have to be removed in order to dam the waterfall Urriðafoss. This material is to be distributed to the adjacent settlements on both sides of the river.
During the power
plant's operation period the alluvial sediments, such as glacial mud,
must be dredged from the reservoirs above the dams with a certain
regularity, because the material brought in by the flow from the
highlands, sinks to the reservoir's ground.
The amount of volatile
material, which is then distributed to the adjacent lands, will be
millions of cubic meters. The reservoirs are all built in an
earthquake zone, where the land is full of cracks originating from
earthquakes long time ago.
The construction of the power plants on lower Þjórsá will cause the river flow to decrease over long distances below the reservoirs from currently 340-360 cubic meters per second to 10 cubic meters per second. In the many tens of meters wide river bed, which takes 2000 cubic meter per second, water then will barely flow. Urriðafoss is one of the areas where the water will completely disappear. Urriðafoss is Iceland's strongest waterfall and important for the district's nature. One can easily reach the fall, as it is at the bridge over Þjórsá, less than one kilometer away from Ringroad 1.
By damming lower Þjórsá almost all fish species in the river basin are endangered. Since the last environmental impact study from 2001 and 2002, the salmon migration has increased, spawning grounds and nurseries have multiplied. The fish yield on Þjórsá increased gradually. In 2010, more than 9000 salmons have been caught there, making about 17% of the total wild salmon fishing in Iceland.
The construction of the power plants on lower Þjórsá will cause the river flow to decrease over long distances below the reservoirs from currently 340-360 cubic meters per second to 10 cubic meters per second. In the many tens of meters wide river bed, which takes 2000 cubic meter per second, water then will barely flow. Urriðafoss is one of the areas where the water will completely disappear. Urriðafoss is Iceland's strongest waterfall and important for the district's nature. One can easily reach the fall, as it is at the bridge over Þjórsá, less than one kilometer away from Ringroad 1.
By damming lower Þjórsá almost all fish species in the river basin are endangered. Since the last environmental impact study from 2001 and 2002, the salmon migration has increased, spawning grounds and nurseries have multiplied. The fish yield on Þjórsá increased gradually. In 2010, more than 9000 salmons have been caught there, making about 17% of the total wild salmon fishing in Iceland.
We hear now of countermeasures to save the ecosystem, but it is not clear, how they will work. If the reservoirs fill up quickly, which often happens every year, the water flow grows up to 1000% and may fall just as quickly. The probability of survival of fish spawn and fry might not be particularly high under these circumstances. During flooding times they will be flushed onto dry land and remain there when the water level drops again. It now appears, however, as if the contractor's vague countermeasures are set to eliminate all sorts of problems.
Nevertheless, so far it
has not been demonstrated that the measures on offer also show
success. Rather, it has to be proved that the announced solutions are
also reliable. The slightest deviation can have far-reaching
consequences and inflict long-term damage on the river's fish
population.
Landsvirkjun's management actually admitted that the company is unable to maintain the ecosystem of Þjórsá in a condition that fish can thrive there. This was done by contracting into buying up the fishing rights on the river.
In 1991, a fish channel had been constructed at the waterfall Búða because of the negative impact of Landsvirkjun's construction projects at Búrfell and Hrauneyjarfoss on Þjórsá. There are good spawning grounds and enough food for the fry above Búða. Today the salmon is born in a new area above Búða, and in the last two decades salmon migration has increased, both in Þjórsá as well as its river branches, such as Minnivallarlæk, Þverá, Sandá/Hvammsá and Fossá. The proposed reservoir of Hvammsvirkjun will disrupt about 68% of these fishing grounds above Búða, the possible trails to the sea aspiring salmon will be cut, and so far have unknown effects on the local population of both trout and arctic char.
Over the past decade the Icelandic parliament Alþingi had legalised the so-called energy master plan, a process that has cost a lot of money. In this whole process there has always been prerequisite and starting point for the project work that the power plants in no way may limitate the living conditions of migrant fish in the river. The power plant ideas on lower Þjórsá were therefore always propelled with the restriction that the fish population must not be jeopardized.
It is generally known that all independent fish experts unanimously believe that the negative effects of power plants on the lower Þjórsá on the arctic char and the salmon can not be prevented by any countermeasure. It must therefore be demanded from politicians and Landsvirkjun's management to consider the present factual and technical information on the big and lasting environmental damage the power plants would cause to lower Þjórsá. Pursueing a short-term goal is not enough here.
Over the past 10 to 15 years farmers' hands along Þjórsá have been hogtied when it came to the pursuit of operational objectives and constructions, whether regarding agriculture, floriculture, food production or tourism, as the power plant projects and their impacts remained uncertain, and neither the state nor Landsvirkjun supplied information.
Many residents have real interests, because the land along the lower Þjórsá proves valuable. These parties demand that the land is not devalued by the power plants. The roots of the idea to Hvammsvirkjun, Holtavirkjun and Urriðafossvirkjun date back to politicians, who believed that heavy industry is a complete solution for the people in this country.
We should deal respectfully with the nature of the country and exercise a moderate use of its resources. Lets be considerate to future generations and at the same time be a good example for them.
Landsvirkjun's management actually admitted that the company is unable to maintain the ecosystem of Þjórsá in a condition that fish can thrive there. This was done by contracting into buying up the fishing rights on the river.
In 1991, a fish channel had been constructed at the waterfall Búða because of the negative impact of Landsvirkjun's construction projects at Búrfell and Hrauneyjarfoss on Þjórsá. There are good spawning grounds and enough food for the fry above Búða. Today the salmon is born in a new area above Búða, and in the last two decades salmon migration has increased, both in Þjórsá as well as its river branches, such as Minnivallarlæk, Þverá, Sandá/Hvammsá and Fossá. The proposed reservoir of Hvammsvirkjun will disrupt about 68% of these fishing grounds above Búða, the possible trails to the sea aspiring salmon will be cut, and so far have unknown effects on the local population of both trout and arctic char.
Over the past decade the Icelandic parliament Alþingi had legalised the so-called energy master plan, a process that has cost a lot of money. In this whole process there has always been prerequisite and starting point for the project work that the power plants in no way may limitate the living conditions of migrant fish in the river. The power plant ideas on lower Þjórsá were therefore always propelled with the restriction that the fish population must not be jeopardized.
It is generally known that all independent fish experts unanimously believe that the negative effects of power plants on the lower Þjórsá on the arctic char and the salmon can not be prevented by any countermeasure. It must therefore be demanded from politicians and Landsvirkjun's management to consider the present factual and technical information on the big and lasting environmental damage the power plants would cause to lower Þjórsá. Pursueing a short-term goal is not enough here.
Over the past 10 to 15 years farmers' hands along Þjórsá have been hogtied when it came to the pursuit of operational objectives and constructions, whether regarding agriculture, floriculture, food production or tourism, as the power plant projects and their impacts remained uncertain, and neither the state nor Landsvirkjun supplied information.
Many residents have real interests, because the land along the lower Þjórsá proves valuable. These parties demand that the land is not devalued by the power plants. The roots of the idea to Hvammsvirkjun, Holtavirkjun and Urriðafossvirkjun date back to politicians, who believed that heavy industry is a complete solution for the people in this country.
We should deal respectfully with the nature of the country and exercise a moderate use of its resources. Lets be considerate to future generations and at the same time be a good example for them.
Jón Árni Vignisson and
Erna Gunnarsdóttir, Skálmholt
Guðmunda Tyrfingsdóttir, Lækjartún
Kristjana Ragnarsdóttir and Örn Ingvarsson, Sauðholt
Renate Hannemann and Arnar Jónsson, Herríðarhóll
Sverrir Kristinsson, Gíslholt
Oddur Bjarnason and Hrafnhildur Ágústsdóttir, Stöðulfell
Tryggvi Sveinbjörnsson, Heiða
Bjarni Gunnlaugur Bjarnason, Skeiðháholt
Þórbergur Hrafn Ólafsson, Forsæti 1
Ágúst Valgarð Ólafsson and Kolbrún Berglind Grétarsdóttir, Forsæti 3
Ólafur Sigurjónsson, Forsæti 5
Sturla Þormóðsson, Fljótshólar
Albert Sigurjónsson, Sandbakki
Axel Páll Einarsson and Elísabet Thorsteinsson, Krókur
Sævar Örn Sigurvinsson and Louise Anne Aitken Arabær
Bragi Ásgeirsson and Petra Nicola Deutrid Selpartur
Sigríður Kristjánsdóttir, Grund
Aðalheiður Kr. Alfonsdóttir, Ferjunes 2
Guðfinnur Jakobsson, Skaftholt
Valgerður Auðunsdóttir and Guðjón Vigfússon, Húsatóftir 1
Ástrún S. Davidsson and Aðalsteinn Guðmundsson, Húsatóftir 2
Erlingur Loftsson, Sandlækur 1
Elín Erlingsdóttir, Sandlækur 2
Sigrún Bjarnadóttir, Fossnes
Úlfhéðinn Sigurmundsson, Hagi
Sveinn Sigurjónsson, Galtalækur 2
Svanborg R. Jónsdóttir, Stóri-Núpur
Kristinn Marvinsson, Miðhús
Veiðifélag Kálfár
Guðmunda Tyrfingsdóttir, Lækjartún
Kristjana Ragnarsdóttir and Örn Ingvarsson, Sauðholt
Renate Hannemann and Arnar Jónsson, Herríðarhóll
Sverrir Kristinsson, Gíslholt
Oddur Bjarnason and Hrafnhildur Ágústsdóttir, Stöðulfell
Tryggvi Sveinbjörnsson, Heiða
Bjarni Gunnlaugur Bjarnason, Skeiðháholt
Þórbergur Hrafn Ólafsson, Forsæti 1
Ágúst Valgarð Ólafsson and Kolbrún Berglind Grétarsdóttir, Forsæti 3
Ólafur Sigurjónsson, Forsæti 5
Sturla Þormóðsson, Fljótshólar
Albert Sigurjónsson, Sandbakki
Axel Páll Einarsson and Elísabet Thorsteinsson, Krókur
Sævar Örn Sigurvinsson and Louise Anne Aitken Arabær
Bragi Ásgeirsson and Petra Nicola Deutrid Selpartur
Sigríður Kristjánsdóttir, Grund
Aðalheiður Kr. Alfonsdóttir, Ferjunes 2
Guðfinnur Jakobsson, Skaftholt
Valgerður Auðunsdóttir and Guðjón Vigfússon, Húsatóftir 1
Ástrún S. Davidsson and Aðalsteinn Guðmundsson, Húsatóftir 2
Erlingur Loftsson, Sandlækur 1
Elín Erlingsdóttir, Sandlækur 2
Sigrún Bjarnadóttir, Fossnes
Úlfhéðinn Sigurmundsson, Hagi
Sveinn Sigurjónsson, Galtalækur 2
Svanborg R. Jónsdóttir, Stóri-Núpur
Kristinn Marvinsson, Miðhús
Veiðifélag Kálfár
No comments:
Post a Comment