New Posts

Fish or Foul on the Klamath River

by Steve Foley on April 23, 2012

The Department of Interior plans to destroy four dams on the Klamath River in Northern California so salmon can swim further than 180 miles up the river

Fish habitat or human habitat? The Department of Interior plans to destroy four dams on the Klamath River in Northern California so salmon can swim further than 180 miles up the river. But these dams provide water and flood protection to thousands of humans who also live along the river. Clean energy from these hydro dams supply electricity to 70,000 residents in the area. Despite a lack of scientific evidence that dam removal will help the fish, or any study on the human impact of dam removal, the DOI is pressing forward to have the dams destroyed. When their own scientist, Dr. Paul Houser, questions the science – he gets fired.

0 Recommend This

Tom Chandler

View April 23, 2012

There are a lot of lies broadcast for such a short video.

First, Grace Bennett should know better; the dams provide no irrigation water to ranchers in Siskiyou County (the upper Klamath basin irrigators *support* the KBRA dam removal agreement) and prior to the dams being built, the lowest historic flows were in the 800 cfs range — hardly a dry river as she suggests.

The salmon did just fine.

And I heard repeated assertions that the dams are good for fish, and that government scientists were hiding that fact. You know what? Prove it. Let’s see that peer-reviewed science we keep hearing about. Because all I’ve seen is a petition to de-list the coho salmon, contending they aren’t native to the Klamath.

Yet when I inspected the SCWUA petition to delist the coho, I discovered outright fabrication or (at best) speculation. In one instance, a key quote from an 1895 US Fish & Game Service publication — which seemed to confirm that coho *weren’t* native — was actually truncated to flip its meaning (in its original state, it *confirmed* the presence of salmon), two words were added by dam removal opponents, and it was misattributed to a 1913 publication (which gave it more impact).

In truth, the coho are native; pictures from the museum in Klamath Falls and documents earlier than even the 1985 Fish & Wildlife service circular document their existence.

Oops. And you folks accuse the government of junk science?

What’s also left out is that these are privately owned dams whose owner has decided that removal is cheaper than retrofitting to meet modern standards (about half as much), so in effect, dam removal opponents are fighting to force a private company to retain private dams — which will operate at a $20 million annual LOSS if relicensed.

Sounds kinda socialist to me.

In the video, special interests (ranchers, etc) kept saying they were best positioned to take care of the Klamath and its environment, yet the coho are on a downward spiral to extinction (the summer steelhead run is about to join them), and even in their best years the Fall and Spring chinook salmon runs are less than 10% of their historic numbers.

If that’s their definition of stewardship, I think it’s time someone else took a turn.

What’s astonishing is that the impacts to Siskiyou County are minimal; the dams provide no water or flood control to residents, and yet the Siskiyou County supervisors keep whining about the “economic devestation” of a plan that will *create* 4600 jobs to the county and increase the sustainable recreation/outdoor adventure industry.

Like or Dislike: 0 0