Klamath River Dams Redux: Removal is Either Real Expensive, or Real Cheap, or…
By Tom Chandler on Mar 27, 2007 in Environment, News
The PR wars over the four PacifiCorp-owned dams on the Klamath River — the same dams that are largely throttling the life from the river’s salmon runs — continues with a new volley from the California Energy Commission (CEC).
The Klamath River last summer. Ummmm, good.
I snarked PacifiCorp’s salvo in a previous post, but I’m going to play this one wholly on the straight and narrow. You can trust me this time. Really.
From a fairly confusing Los Angeles Times article comes:
SACRAMENTO — Firing the latest salvo in a battle over the future of the Klamath River, the California Energy Commission on Monday reaffirmed its stand that removing four hydroelectric dams that block salmon migration would cost less than trying to keep them.
For those who have been trying to keep up, here is the Trout Underground’s snark-free, journalistically accurate, thirty-second synopsis:
PacifiCorp: “You want us to remove those dams? Hell, tell you what — we’ll send Frank over in a pickup and he’ll grab some of those salmon and drive ‘em up above the dams. That’s cheaper than fixing ‘em. Whaddya say?”
California Energy Commission: “You PacifiCorp guys are hilarious. Fucking hilarious. We just shot Coca-Cola out our noses. Trucking? It’s never worked. We got some numbers that say taking the dams down is $100 million cheaper than trying to fix them. Here’s a shovel. Get to work.”
PacifiCorp: “Yeah well, your mother wears boots. Your numbers are wrong, and the consultants you hired say so. We say it’s cheaper to keep ‘em to the tune of $46 million, and now we’re gonna stick fish ladders on ‘em, even though we said before that the dams are too tall for fish ladders.”
CEC: “You guys are slaying us here, really. We laughed so hard we almost wet ourselves. We ran your numbers and they tell us it’s $114 million cheaper to just take the things out. Your mother says to take the dams down, she told us that last night in the sack.”
As you can see, it’s all been very grown up and dignified, right down to the part where the protagonists engaged in a beer-drinking contest and smashed the empties against their foreheads.
Where are we at now? More from the Los Angeles Times:
In recent weeks, the state Energy Commission’s consultant ran the numbers anew, taking in numbers PacifiCorp said it ignored. The results were far different from PacifiCorp’s.
The commission’s latest report said that dam removal would be even more cost-effective than its consultant originally determined — about $114 million less than relicensing the dams and installing the fish ladders.
California Energy Commissioner John Geesman said in a statement that the new analysis, which used PacifiCorp’s numbers, “clearly indicates” that the utility’s electrical customers would save money with dam removal.
OK, we’re back pretty much where we started.
They’re arguing over the costs associated with keeping or removing the dams without truly considering the economic impacts the dams are having on commercial and sport salmon fisheries (not to mention significant water quality issues).
Last year, the direct costs to commercial fishermen of the salmon closures were estimated at $16 million, and that number ignores the opportunity costs of a far more vibrant salmon fishery and the economic benefits of a stronger sport fishery, which would likely boost that number significantly.
But for now, that’s all just water over the dam.
Still, know that the Trout Underground will continue to report on this issue in a straightforward, unbiased way that delivers nothing but crystal clarity to its readers.
You’re welcome. (Save a Salmon. Eat a Dam.)
Technorati Tags: pacificorp, klamath, klamath river, klamath dams, california energy commission, cec, salmon
Jim Webb | Mar 27, 2007 | Reply
Several weeks ago I went up to Roseville, Ca. from my homey little digs here in Encino. I told my daughter “Grab a book; we’re going fishing” [Although she can cast a fly rod about as well as her dad, she really isn’t interested in fishing.]
Anyway, I went to the North fork of the American, way out to the east of Roseville. It was one of the most beautiful rivers I’ve ever seen. Water was crystal clear, and flowing fast; the latter tells me Spring runoff is happening, so the clarity of the water was surprising. There are two dams between where I was and the Pacific, the Nimbus dam and the Folsom dam. Without them, that river would be one incredible salmon/steelhead fishery. As it is, they have a hatchery at Nimbus, and get the fish to swim up a ladder into holding tanks, where they take the eggs and milt, raise salmon and put them back into the river. The article you referenced about Salmon a few days ago, Tom, makes the point that this has the effect of perhaps genetically altering the fish. Boy, oh boy. What next?
The point of all this is that those of us confined to the beautiful environs of Los Angeles really can’t appreciate what is at issue until we actually see the river (or rivers). A river that beautiful just causes your imagination to soar.
I can’t wait to read the next installment of “The Beer Battle Between Pacificorp and CEC”.
Mark Latham | Mar 27, 2007 | Reply
I like to see protagonists going at it, as much as the next guy. Especially if I’m supplied with enough adult beverage and the correct fly. Perhaps Pacificorp and the CEC are the antagonists. In today’s world, if you’re not part of the solution, there’s good money in prolonging the problem. But I’ll bet that four dams could be reduced to rubble, and we could get a new movie out of the deal, for somewhere between 40 and 100 million.
I’m thinking Force 10 from Navarone. I know what you’re thinking, that a remake of The Dam Busters would do better than Force 10 in the theaters. Maybe it would. I love movies with Lancasters too. Out of the 23 surviving Lancasters, 12 are in Canada or the U.S. Twelve would do it. Maybe it would only take 10.
Or maybe, just maybe, some talented writer could interweave both movie plots into a stunning 70mm saga. The Lancasters have the Commando’s backs in a new millenium. With rubble as a bonus. Force 10 Redux. Kinda has a ring to it. It’s certainly stands a better chance, of being more believable than real life government, in this case.
isaac roman | Mar 28, 2007 | Reply
money money money– for the right PRICE$$$$$ I know someone who will drop a few nukes and rid this world of this world
Tom Chandler | Mar 28, 2007 | Reply
Hold on! I believe Undergrounder Latham has stumbled on the answer.
Hollywood is always looking for “The Big Stunt” to build their next
woodenly writtencarefully scripted blockbuster around, and what could be better than the simultaneous demolition of four dams?That’s gotta be worth what… $30 million to PacifiCorp? Problem solved!
Still, while Force 10 and Dam Busters are classics (the original Star Wars was largely built around Dam Busters), I’m afraid Latham’s naivete is showing.
Both movies lack a certain mass appeal.
In short, we need sex. And lots of it.
Something like “Terrorist Fur Bikini Bomb Squad” — a sobering tale about Ultra-Nationalistic Russian Supermodels who seduce key members of the US Air Force Command and steal the latest American bomber technology.
Their intent is to take out four key hydroelectric facilities (bordering nude beaches, of course) and then blame it on the Canadians, at which point the two countries will stand on the brink of war.
I could go on (hell, this baby practically writes itself) but why give the
painfully obvioussuspenseful ending away?You’ll just have to wait for the movie.
Bravo Undergrounders! We’ve solved yet another problem.
Jim Webb | Mar 28, 2007 | Reply
See what I meant about “imagination”?
Jorie | Oct 8, 2007 | Reply
i am doing a school project on the klamath river dam. we have to go in front of judges (our teachers) and debate on weather we want the dams up or down. i take place as a native american woman from the yoruk tribe named kevin costner. i did not know about the klamath dam until this school project. can anyone give me any sort of information on it? i dont care if its why the dams should be up or down.
Ed W. | Mar 28, 2008 | Reply
i hope they do remove the dams along the klamath river so 10 years from now when the lower river is in much worse shape…..the indians have claimed the river from i-5 to the oregon border as their native ritual site….no one will be allowed to fish that stretch of river and the salmon will still be gone because no one will address the real issues…i will be laughing my ass off watching all the “experts” scratching their heads saying “well that did’nt work”
Tom Chandler | Mar 28, 2008 | Reply
Ed: Why don’t enlighten us as to the “real” issues.
If you mean keeping enough water in the river to support salmon is one critical issue, then I’d agree.
If you’re suggesting that the Indians are the cause of the problem, then perhaps you’d like to prove it.
Ed W. | Mar 28, 2008 | Reply
i do not think the indians are the problem at this point.
it appears that roughly 2% of the smolt released from irongate hatchery return as adults.if this is correct then what happened to the other 98% ? predation,native american harvests,returning to a different location.these things may explain a portion of it,but certainly not 98%.how about foreign fishing vessels? whats their take? i dont know…maybe nothing…maybe more than we can believe.
all i am saying is that if the salmon aren’t making it back to the hatchery,how is removing the dams going to improve things.
Tom Chandler | Mar 28, 2008 | Reply
Ed: Forgive me then. I’m seeing a lot of “blame the indians” from dam removal opponents, and don’t find it very attractive.
As for the return rates, it’s clear that water quality is playing a big role in the loss of the salmon runs. Removing the dams opens up the spawning habitat and has the added benefit of improving the truly awful water quality below the lower reservoirs.
Water problems are hammering the fish, so even the few that make it into the river from the hugely degraded Scott and Shasta rivers are suffering in the main stem of the Klamath.
There are a host of problems, and I’m as guilty as anyone of focusing solely on dam removal as the solution, but it does deal with two of the worst issues.
As for your return rates, I’m not sure where the 2% figure comes from or how much the wild fish returns figure into that, but a huge majority of the fish aren’t supposed to make it back.
Besides, what’s important are the “wild” fish numbers, and those are in terrible shape too.
Still, the overall numbers do seem to be in an decline, and the fishery is clearly ailing.
Like a lot of environmental problems, this one’s the result of a lot of smaller issues, which — when added up — result in a population teetering on the brink. Add in one more thing (drought years, dewatering, poor ocean conditions, etc) and the whole thing falls down.
As for “experts” I had lunch with one. He laid out the problems, but thought the Klamath Recovery plan probably would bring salmon populations back, provided we haven’t screwed up the oceans somehow.