Sun. May 22nd, 2022

By Samuel Strait – Reporter at Large – March 4, 2022 – Picture Credit to wildsalmoncenter.org

One would think that the Yurok tribe had Christmas come early, or late
depending on how you look at it.  The Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) has released a draft impact statement for examination
regarding the removal of four dams on the lower Klamath River.  This is
a prelude to the final version scheduled to be released in September
2022, along with the surrender of the licensing for the Dams.  According
to the Klamath River Renewal Corporation, (KRRC) this will allow the company to
begin the “Great Drain” of the reservoirs behind each of the four dams
slated for January of 2024. Now that the FERC has acted, the KRRC is in
a great rush to get the project moving, barring any legal maneuvering to
halt the project, and be on to the renewal part. The FERC is currently
accepting public comment through April 18th.

This is the part that makes this story interesting.  The dam removal
according to the impact statement “is expected to improve water quality
and temperature conditions on the Klamath River and allow declining fish
populations to recover”.  While the statement claims to have come to
this conclusion based on information provided by the Yurok Tribe, the
Karuk Tribe, American Trout Unlimited, Institute for Fisheries
Resources, and other groups, much of that “information” is largely
regurgitated data from the original Department of the Interior study
early on.  This data and the accompanying conclusions was roundly panned
as biased and inaccurate.  Ooops, looks like the FERC is depending on
information that may not coincide with any of the projected out comes.

While it is likely this project will blunder forward at a current
estimate of $434 million of a budgeted $450 million, we can almost be
assured of between $50 and $90 million in cost over runs.  The current
budget is funded by $200 million from PacifiCorp surcharges on its
customers, and $250 million is coming from a California water bond.  A
water bond that was supposed to increase water supplies in California
not decrease them.  Funny how that works when the Democrats in
Sacramento and Environazis get together.  Never fear, it will accomplish
None of the goals set out and is likely to actually reduce the returns
of fish on the river.

This project is ill conceived from the start, as the removal of the four
dams will mean the elimination of two hatcheries responsible for a bit
over 20% of the current returns to the river.  Following that, the river
will likely not support any fishery for a three to five year period
following the release of the stored water.  The Yurok and Karuk don’t
care because they plan on being subsidized during that period by the
government with taxpayer dollars.  And finally all parties in favor of
dam removal will be roundly disappointed when very little if any
recovery of fish stocks occur until the actual problem is solved.  And
it has nothing to do with the four dams slated to be removed.

Anybody who is actually paying attention to the returns over the last
three or four decades will have noticed a sharp decline in returning
fish.  The dams have been in place for in two cases 100 years.  The
substantial decline in fish stocks began to occur years after the dams
were operational and for nearly sixty years no noticeable decline in
returning salmon was evidenced.  Dams… Fish population decline… not
likely.  And on to the “white elephant” in the room.

After the Second World War, populations of Countries on the eastern side
of Asia began to explode to well over one and a half billion people
live in China alone.  Over 30% of the world’s population lives in
Countries that border that side of the Pacific Ocean.  Food has become a
problem and the Communists in China are not too picky about where it
comes from.  A major source of protein comes from the Ocean for most of
these Countries and they have exploited the Pacific Ocean and its fish
stocks since then. Studies have shown that nearly all fish populations
in that Ocean have been reduced to any where from between 1% to 3% of
their 1970’s populations.  The fish thought to be returning to West
Coast rivers and streams are among those populations that have been
reduced.

Other rivers and streams have had similar dam removal projects go
forward, none on the scale of this one, with NO evidence that fish
populations have recovered inspite of in some cases over a decade of
time has passed.  The tribes and enviros have been sold a bill of goods
that does no one any favors, except to fatten the wallets of those that
are operating the KRRC.  Be prepared for a dismal future in the river
until the real problem is fixed… if that is even possible.  Likely the
cost over runs will prevent few, if any habitat restoration, and the
taxpayer in California will be on the hook for even more money. 
PacifiCorp, Warren Buffet, the KRRC, and all the sub contractors will be
walking away, pockets stuffed with cash and all the government
propaganda will never be called out.  Guess the tribes can add one more
grievance to the growing list….

14 thoughts on “Klamath River Dam Removal”
    1. So your “research links” one leads to nowhere and the other is about the impacts of “cannabis farming”. Unfortunately, nothing leads to anything about the “benefits” of dam removal, or any evidence that it leads to stream restoration. Come back when you have something that equates to legitimate information, or even science that supports your position. As to “plenty of evidence”, where is it? Opening up one’s mind means that there is something there that can process that which you may not like….

      1. Nearby, on the coast, the ocean air in Crescent City, CA, is no longer pungent with the smell of working fisheries. In the last 40 years, the quaint seaside town has seen a 96 percent loss in fisheries. A little further north, Brookings, OR, also has witnessed the loss of almost all of their fisheries. There just aren’t enough salmon to keep them running.

        1. Kind of shot your argument down with this bit. No fish in the Ocean, no fish to go up stream to spawn, no restoration of fish population…. Something like what I have been saying all along. Notice, even the timing matches what I and others have been saying ever since “dam removal” was offered as a “solution” to the problem. The dams were in place for sixty years before the decline of fish populations began. Coincidence? Not likely. It is something other than the dams Bucky, unless you have some more irrelevant stream data to offer. Keep trying though, and maybe the actual reason the salmon runs have declined will wash out your dirty mouth.

    2. Just a heads up, Steelhead, you may wish to use a more reliable source than American Rivers dot Org.

        1. Seen it all before. Anything relevant or new? More dam removal propaganda. I have yet to see anything addressing what happened to fish populations in the ocean that mysteriously began sixty years after the dams on the Klamath were installed. Nice language by the way.
          As far as dam removal, your envirofascism will no doubt get your desired results, just don’t count on the “planned” revival of the salmon populations anytime soon. As I have said all along, I could care less whether or not the dams are removed. I’m merely pointing out the foolish notion that spending $450 million based on deeply flawed science will entirely satisfy the religious zealots of the Church of Klamath River Dam Removal.
          Notice I do not have to justify my behavior or defend the language used in my response as you should. Sadly it reflects more on your charater than the point you are attempting to make. And, yes I am aware of certain “claims” of salmon population restoration on the feeder streams of the lower Columbia, yet somehow that “restoration” has yet to manifest itself on increasing population numbers returning to the streams themselves. Funny how that works……

    1. Wow, the Legacy just may have helped one person find “temporary housing” going on a year and a half. What a stunning success! Now if it can only find a permanent solution for that solitary soul and the other four hundred or so others without a roof over their heads. At least without spending a small fortune in the process. I am sure that most “small impoverished, rural communities” have a few hundred million laying around in their general funds to “fix” the homeless problem….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.