I've never understood the reasoning behind all the proposals to take down dams. They've been talking for years, if not decades, about taking down the Hetchy Ketchy Dam (username humboldtlib, password blogspot) over by Yosemite. They want to restore the Hetchy Ketchy Valley back to the Yosemite- like park it once was.
Hey, lakes are nice, too, and we do need the water.
I can see the concern of the dams on the Klamath, as they supposedly interfere with salmon migration. I was always under the impression that fish ladders were an integral part of dams, at least on rivers where migratory fish were a concern. I guess not, as I've read that PacifiCorp is balking at having to pay the costs of building ladders.
Still, we need the water. The fish ladders should be the option, whoever ends up paying for it. Besides, if the dams store water, they could release water during years of drought to keep the river high for the salmon. If the dams weren't there we wouldn't have that option.
This state needs all the water it can get. Desalination is an expensive option. Dams, and their associated lakes, have multiple uses. I don't see why we should be tearing them down. We should probably be building more of them.