Klamath Dams: I Won
I hadn't intended on starting a debate when I commented on a Humboldt Herald post announcing a forum on the removal of the Klamath Dams. No one else had yet posted when I commented I've yet to hear a compelling reason for removing the dams. I've brought that up here before at least a couple times.
Just as happened here when I've brought up the issue earlier, no good reasons were given. I was a bit surprised that all I got were the same generalities I've heard before: Algae and dying fish. My bringing up the recent record runs of salmon on the Klamath despite the "fish killing dams" was cast aside by at least one or two intent on tearing down the dams.
I let the dambusters have the last word back at the Herald by leaving their last comment (as I write this) unchallenged as it speaks for itself:
"So, there you have it, all is well, no problem exists. I guess some people just love dams, and detest rivers as God gave them to us."
Uh, huh. I detest the rivers. I'd say I won that one if that's the best they can do.
Addendum: A couple recent Times- Standard stories illustrate the benefits of the surplus water that dams provide. This one tells of an effort by Friends of the Eel River to mount a fish watch on the Eel River and its tributaries. The concern being that low water flows might result in a fish kill.
Data gathered might result in more water being released from the Potter Valley Dam to raise water levels in the Eel. The raising of the water levels to assist fish migration wouldn't be possible without a dam to provide that water.
I thought I'd read a similar story about the time the T-S story was published that specified the Van Duzen River as having fish in it that might end up stranded. I don't believe the Van Duzen has a dam of any kind upriver so the fish there might well be damned (no pun intended) if rain doesn't raise the water level for them.
Labels: Klamath Dam removal