The Klamath Agreement: A Compromise

The plan to tear down the Klamath Dams has been in the news again. The Santa Rosa Press- Democrat seems to think it's a great idea all parties agree on. No surprise there. The Sacramento Bee's Dan Walters takes a more cynical view, focusing on who would end up paying for it.

I found the comment by an Oregonian to the SRPD editorial enlightening. He claims polls and votes taken in the Klamath Basin show 70 to 82% disapproval of the agreement. Seems to me even some so- called progressives should disapprove of the way the planned dam removal is funded with the owner of the dams, PacifiCorp, paying for only a small portion of the removal. Taxpayers, some through a California water bond, pay for most of it.

I offer a compromise: Why not leave the dams in place and, rather than spend at least a billion dollars on a questionable removal, just spend a few million and install fish ladders to allow salmon migration? That way we'd be able to pretty much have it all: The fish can migrate. We get the water storage capacity of the dams, their power generation and save millions of dollars, as well.

Seems to me everybody wins under an agreement like that, even if we use part of the California water bond to pay for it.

Near Record Chinook Run On Russian River

The Santa Rosa Press- Democrat reports on what seems to be a near record run of chinook salmon in the Russian River. They even mention how the local water authority uses information on salmon numbers to manage water releases from Lakes Mendocino and Sonoma, something they couldn't do without the dams in place as I brought up here not long ago.

Am I great, or what?

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.