The salmon are headed for extirpation in so many places if not extinction with climate change and measures like this dam removal are badly needed. If the salmon disappear we lose an entire ecology and so many more species that depend on them.
This is like saying climate change will lead to extinction of chickens. Salmons are factoty farmed and are an integral part of the food supply. They are not at risk of extinction.
1) Our societies are obsessed by individuals. Individuals don't matter on ecology.
Ecology Is mostly about energy transference. Each animal is just a small piece in the system. It does not matter that a machine still have 20 screws remaining. If it was designed to have two thousands screws, it needs those amount to not collapse.
> Salmons are factory farmed and are an integral part of the food supply. They are not at risk of extinction.
2) A good example of what I would call pixellisation of ecology. Ecology is complex and we need to increase the grain in our pictures and models to show this complexity according.
Salmon using this Californian river are not even in the same species as the domestic Atlantic salmon.
3) This fishes are critical for the survival of other species that are rare or endangered and to boost the nutrients available for trees also, so the system needs plenty of them. The californian vaquita (the most critically endangered cetacean in the world), could be affected by this move for example (salmons travel) and we will want to include this in our plans on advance.
I am not sure that dam removal is the right decision for every dam, but it seems like there is a movement in that direction. A lot of what I hear locally when people push for dam removals seems like emotional activism rather than rational thinking. Losing hydroelectric power, facing renewed flooding seasons, losing easy navigation, etc. may not actually be an overall positive change.
And the goals feel arbitrary - like when people say they want to “restore the environment”, I wonder why it makes sense to restore it to any particular particular point in time when all these rivers have changed over time. In other cases, where the goal is restoring fish populations, there are alternative methods of helping the fish population and a dam removal seems like a very expensive method with other risks.
Many of the primitive hydropower dams built a century or more ago have a production capacity which is negligible by modern standards. The two dams removed from the Elwha river here in Washington were the lowest and third-lowest producers in the state; the capacity lost by decommissioning them was utterly overwhelmed by the new wind and solar capacity added in a single year.
I don't recall precisely how much power the Klamath dams generated, but when I looked it up, though the numbers were larger, the overall situation was similar: the hydro capacity California lost was inconsequential given the growth in other renewable sources.
It's not so much that the river needs to be restored to a particular point in time as that the river needs to actually be a river and not a lake, if it is to support a river-dependent ecosystem. Water temperature, flow rate, presence of shallows, shade, woody debris, and so forth are all environmental elements which have a large effect on the viability of a habitat for keystone species like salmon. You can't just fake it with fish ladders.
I agree- but I don't think anyone is saying it is right for every dam. However, a lot of dams probably just aren't worth it on net when you do consider all of the factors, and massively decreasing prices of alternatives.
There aren't really solutions for migratory fish that support the kind of populations the rivers supported without dams... especially the ancient and poorly designed dams already in place. For example historical estimates are that ~16 million salmon migrated in the Columbia river despite being a major food source for a large number of Native Americans over a massive area. Nowadays, with every practical measure in place, lot of hatcheries, and almost no fishing those numbers are only up to ~1 million.
Obviously we're probably not going to return to ~16 million, but the impacts of not doing so are widespread and far lasting- for example salmon coming upstream are historically a major source of nitrogen for the forests in the northwest, and without them long term, the forests will be something substantially different and diminished - with far reaching impacts on the entire ecosystem and many other resources of value to humans[1].
Gradual loss of the deep soil and peat from those forests also causes flooding and drought as the soil no longer stores large amounts of moisture that is slowly released over the dry season- e.g. ecological changes from dams may in the long term actually make flooding and drought more severe rather than less.
[1] "total annual growth per unit forest area (m2·ha−1·yr−1) was more than three times higher at spawning sites relative to reference sites"
You should check out Cadillac Desert. Many dams in the US were built with no rationale beyond capturing federal infrastructure funds by local politicians and resume driven development on the part of the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Land Reclamation.
AIUI these dams have a limited lifetime either way. Giving the natives and activists what they've been fighting for is a sort of consolation prize for something that was a cheaper option than proper repairs/maintenance.
What I wonder is how long before new dams are being built in their place. Maybe after all the ailing bridges have been fixed, and there's another pile of federal money desperate for "green infrastructure" projects to be spent on...
Since the time that many of those dams that are worth demolishing for poor repairs/maintenance the federal government has also made it harder to get permits to build new dams. They require more environmental studies up front. They require more study of downstream effects. Things like salmon, which are very sensitive to changes in river conditions, now have to be taken into effect earlier in planning stages and it is a growing requirement that any river to be dammed that include salmon hatcheries now has to plan for sub-projects like salmon runs (or with certain exceptions salmon cannons).
> A lot of what I hear locally when people push for dam removals seems like emotional activism rather than rational thinking.
It's more maintenance and liability transfer, but environmentalism gets more clicks. A lot of these dams are small, old, and poorly designed even by the standards of the day. They provide a negligible amount of electricity by today's standards. And, if they fail, they'll do a lot of damage.
Removing them isn't really up for much debate. The question is always "Who pays for the removal?"
I lived and worked in Oregon in the early 90s, and this is huge news. I’ll admit I’d gradually let cynicism overtake hope this outcome was possible. Now on East Coast, interesting to me that I’m first reading about this from BBC News and not US east coast media, which I believe has never appreciated the scale or importance of these land use decisions.
There's a song written by Humboldt based Outlaw Country artist Brett McFarland to commemorate the largest dam removal in US history called 'Klamath'.[0]
Readit News
Hope we see a lot more of this in the future.
1) Our societies are obsessed by individuals. Individuals don't matter on ecology.
Ecology Is mostly about energy transference. Each animal is just a small piece in the system. It does not matter that a machine still have 20 screws remaining. If it was designed to have two thousands screws, it needs those amount to not collapse.
> Salmons are factory farmed and are an integral part of the food supply. They are not at risk of extinction.
2) A good example of what I would call pixellisation of ecology. Ecology is complex and we need to increase the grain in our pictures and models to show this complexity according.
Salmon using this Californian river are not even in the same species as the domestic Atlantic salmon.
3) This fishes are critical for the survival of other species that are rare or endangered and to boost the nutrients available for trees also, so the system needs plenty of them. The californian vaquita (the most critically endangered cetacean in the world), could be affected by this move for example (salmons travel) and we will want to include this in our plans on advance.
Deleted Comment
And the goals feel arbitrary - like when people say they want to “restore the environment”, I wonder why it makes sense to restore it to any particular particular point in time when all these rivers have changed over time. In other cases, where the goal is restoring fish populations, there are alternative methods of helping the fish population and a dam removal seems like a very expensive method with other risks.
I don't recall precisely how much power the Klamath dams generated, but when I looked it up, though the numbers were larger, the overall situation was similar: the hydro capacity California lost was inconsequential given the growth in other renewable sources.
It's not so much that the river needs to be restored to a particular point in time as that the river needs to actually be a river and not a lake, if it is to support a river-dependent ecosystem. Water temperature, flow rate, presence of shallows, shade, woody debris, and so forth are all environmental elements which have a large effect on the viability of a habitat for keystone species like salmon. You can't just fake it with fish ladders.
There aren't really solutions for migratory fish that support the kind of populations the rivers supported without dams... especially the ancient and poorly designed dams already in place. For example historical estimates are that ~16 million salmon migrated in the Columbia river despite being a major food source for a large number of Native Americans over a massive area. Nowadays, with every practical measure in place, lot of hatcheries, and almost no fishing those numbers are only up to ~1 million.
Obviously we're probably not going to return to ~16 million, but the impacts of not doing so are widespread and far lasting- for example salmon coming upstream are historically a major source of nitrogen for the forests in the northwest, and without them long term, the forests will be something substantially different and diminished - with far reaching impacts on the entire ecosystem and many other resources of value to humans[1].
Gradual loss of the deep soil and peat from those forests also causes flooding and drought as the soil no longer stores large amounts of moisture that is slowly released over the dry season- e.g. ecological changes from dams may in the long term actually make flooding and drought more severe rather than less.
[1] "total annual growth per unit forest area (m2·ha−1·yr−1) was more than three times higher at spawning sites relative to reference sites"
https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1890...
What I wonder is how long before new dams are being built in their place. Maybe after all the ailing bridges have been fixed, and there's another pile of federal money desperate for "green infrastructure" projects to be spent on...
It's more maintenance and liability transfer, but environmentalism gets more clicks. A lot of these dams are small, old, and poorly designed even by the standards of the day. They provide a negligible amount of electricity by today's standards. And, if they fail, they'll do a lot of damage.
Removing them isn't really up for much debate. The question is always "Who pays for the removal?"
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=op4AKv-lWVI
Water is the life blood of the region everything depends on.
Dams force water back into the aquifers and ground water, which happen to be running out across the world.
But I guess more rainfall is the future, so lucky it will get better and fix the fact the aquifer recharge is now gone.
> 2,200 acres (890ha) of land
This is nothing, it's like one medium farm.
> By 2061, it is estimated that the chinook salmon population will have recovered by an average of 81%.
That makes it all worth it I guess. How many other animals will have died off by then.