On Monday, the Associated Press published a story outlining the results of a U.S. Geological Survey study, which examined the likely effects of removing four dams on the Klamath River. The upshot? It’s a good idea.
As AP reporter Jeff Barnard explains, federal scientists believe the $1 billion dam-removal project would restore the ecosystem, improve commercial fishing harvests and boost regional farm revenues:
Overall, the benefits far outweigh the costs, by as much as 47.6 to one, the report found.
(If you’d care to peruse all 399 pages of the report, click here for the pdf.)
Today, the San Francisco Chronicle‘s editorial board called out an “Amen!,” encouraging Congress to “heed science over politics” and tear those suckers down. Oregon and California support dam removal, as does PacifiCorp, the company that owns the dams, along with a broad coalition of enviros, tribal leaders, fishermen and ranchers.
Stakeholders have signed two major agreements, the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement and the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement, but a deal authorizing removal of the dams got hung up last year in the foul, fetid waters of Congress.
“There are no other sensible options,” the Chron editorial states. “Leaving the dams in place deepens the river’s decline. … Tear down the dams now.”
Previous NCJ coverage:
This article appears in Unspoken Dangers.
I don’t know whether to “support” dam removal or not. It is obviously an important decision, to so dramatically change the behavior and consequence of such a large, independent volume of fresh water. It makes one wonder how much has already changed on account of having removed such a supply of water for any period of time, completely at the whim of select hairless apes, for whatever animal reason.
My predicion is that over a very short period of time, dam removal would only succeed in furtherer proving the increasing loss of natural precipitation…the consequential damage of what has already been done decades ago, and the worst of which has yet to surface, especially considering the same entities responsible for the initial environmental damage continue to damage the environment. Removing the dams, if helpful, would only “help” for a short period of tme, before reconciling to the larger decline of the global environment.
Anything other than uncompromised restoration and rejuvination of all natural environment needs , be it a grassy parking lot or a murky harbor. What existed in that same environment 200 years ago needs to exist there again, or as close as humanly possible…as it is entirely humanly possible to entirely destroy the same natural habitat forever.
The largest dam removal project in American history is almost complete on Washington’s Elwha River. The benefits to the ecosystem and the native people are already undeniable, the same would be true on the Klamath.
No brainer, IMHO. We came very close to a downstream dam too–see my Jan 15 2009 column.
http://www.northcoastjournal.com/outdoors/2009/01/15/undamming-klamath/
I posted “uninformed” above. After very little reading, it seems obvious to remove the dams. Thanks, barry, for the link as well. Only so many important issues one can focus on at a time…after so long I was due for some schooling on this one.
Woes be the plight of man 50 years from now, eh?
I posted “uninformed” above. After very little reading, it seems obvious to remove the dams. Thanks, barry, for the link as well. Only so many important issues one can focus on at a time…after so long I was due for some schooling on this one.
Woes be the plight of man 50 years from now, eh?
When I initially commented I appear to have clicked the -Notify me
when new comments are added- checkbox and from now on each time a
comment is added I recieve four emails with the exact same comment.
Is there a means you are able to remove me from that service?
Thanks a lot!