I found this bit interesting: And then these two quotes from a tribal perspective made me both sad and happy at the same time: ...
I found this bit interesting:
When demolition is completed by the end of next year, more than 400 miles (644 kilometers) of river will have opened for threatened species of fish and other wildlife. By comparison, the 65 dams removed in the U.S. last year combined to reconnect 430 miles (692 kilometers) of river.
And then these two quotes from a tribal perspective made me both sad and happy at the same time:
“The river is our church, the salmon is our cross. That’s how it relates to the people. So it’s very sacred to us,” said Kenneth Brink, vice chairman of the Karuk Tribe. “The river is not just a place we go to swim. It’s life. It creates everything for our people.”
...
“When the river gets to flow freely again, the people can also begin to worship freely again,” he said.
I live in Washington and visited Elwha River dam before during and after the removal. The natives and locals in the area had swag made up that said "The last dam summer" It was pretty amazing to...
I live in Washington and visited Elwha River dam before during and after the removal. The natives and locals in the area had swag made up that said "The last dam summer"
It was pretty amazing to see the process of removal and the beginnings of revitalization.
Also so much silt was brought down the river that it created a new sandbar at the mouth of the river extending out into the Straits of Juan De Fuca. I haven't been back in years but I'm excited to see it now 10+ years later.
That video was interesting to watch! The control they had over how the river flowed during dam removal was impressive. I also live in Washington, and remember it's removal, but haven't visited the...
That video was interesting to watch! The control they had over how the river flowed during dam removal was impressive. I also live in Washington, and remember it's removal, but haven't visited the river since before the removal. Did you ever see this interactive Seattle times piece, Elwha: Roaring back to life from 2016?
I only hope the people doing these projects understand that you need to be pragmatic and not just destroy dams in order to restore ecosystems or tribal lands. We live in a world where global...
I only hope the people doing these projects understand that you need to be pragmatic and not just destroy dams in order to restore ecosystems or tribal lands.
We live in a world where global warming is threatening to increase flooding across the country, and dams are our best source of stabilizing what will be increasingly sporadic and intense storms. Use blind ideology to destroy the infrastructure our fathers and grandfathers built you'll learn why they built them within a decade.
This is vague and dire, and seems to assume that people of the past made decisions that were inherently good. We generally know why rivers were dammed - for water use and control, for power...
This is vague and dire, and seems to assume that people of the past made decisions that were inherently good. We generally know why rivers were dammed - for water use and control, for power generation, for convenience, etc. It sounds like flooding is not as much an issue in this area, and the environmental effects of the river being dammed have been pretty significant.
Id rather ecosystems be able to function - and the replanting of this one should be good for biodiversity (and often can help retain soil, reduce heat, etc), and the overall health of the land.
I support fewer people living on floodplains (similar to not living on ocean cliffs) and less controlling of those floods.
This is what created the problem in the first place "make the land work, un-utilized land is a sin, etc..." The removal of the Klamath Dam has taken decades, miles of red tape, and an incredible...
blind ideology
This is what created the problem in the first place "make the land work, un-utilized land is a sin, etc..."
The removal of the Klamath Dam has taken decades, miles of red tape, and an incredible amount of advocacy to happen. It's not like this makes it open season on all dams across the american west. Unlike our fathers and grandfathers we have incredible tools at our disposal to better understand the trade-off between economic benefit, ecological impact, social considerations, and community engagement. No one who lives in the american west is advocating the removal of all dams but what needs to be advocated for is better water policy. If you have interest and time I really recommend the book "The Dreamt Land" that covers the development of water infrastructure in California. If you don't quite have the bandwidth for that I'd suggest the water episode of the Californian Century. Both deal with the early development of dams, reservoirs, and complete alteration of the landscape in the population boom of the American West.
There are options where we can provide consistent drinking water, water our extensive farm systems, and provide enough water for ecosystems to thrive; they just aren't in line with our current regulations.
Burying the lede on that one when the previous sentence says - And that's at full capacity, not drought stricken reduced capacity. Plus, the low water levels were already causing bacterial fish...
Burying the lede on that one when the previous sentence says -
Along the Klamath, the dam removals won’t be a major hit to the power supply; they produced less than 2% of power company PacifiCorp’s energy generation when they were running at full capacity
And that's at full capacity, not drought stricken reduced capacity. Plus, the low water levels were already causing bacterial fish kills and they'll likely make more money off tourism dollars by being a primo salmon spot than they would off an over fifty year old dam causing ecological harm.
I buried the lede and went with the raw numbers because I felt that the 2% didn't really mean anything. Yes, only 2% of Pacificorp's power comes from these dams, but that's almost 30% of the power...
I buried the lede and went with the raw numbers because I felt that the 2% didn't really mean anything. Yes, only 2% of Pacificorp's power comes from these dams, but that's almost 30% of the power they produce from hydroelectric. The majority of their power comes from coal or natural gas.
You brought up an excellent point about the cyanobacteria which can kill mammals and fish alike, and have been found in high concentrations in the the dam's reservoirs.
I found this bit interesting:
And then these two quotes from a tribal perspective made me both sad and happy at the same time:
...
I live in Washington and visited Elwha River dam before during and after the removal. The natives and locals in the area had swag made up that said "The last dam summer"
It was pretty amazing to see the process of removal and the beginnings of revitalization.
Also so much silt was brought down the river that it created a new sandbar at the mouth of the river extending out into the Straits of Juan De Fuca. I haven't been back in years but I'm excited to see it now 10+ years later.
Also this timelapse: https://youtu.be/bUZE7kgXKJc
That video was interesting to watch! The control they had over how the river flowed during dam removal was impressive. I also live in Washington, and remember it's removal, but haven't visited the river since before the removal. Did you ever see this interactive Seattle times piece, Elwha: Roaring back to life from 2016?
I had not seen that but I loved it! The before and after slider photo especially!
I only hope the people doing these projects understand that you need to be pragmatic and not just destroy dams in order to restore ecosystems or tribal lands.
We live in a world where global warming is threatening to increase flooding across the country, and dams are our best source of stabilizing what will be increasingly sporadic and intense storms. Use blind ideology to destroy the infrastructure our fathers and grandfathers built you'll learn why they built them within a decade.
This is vague and dire, and seems to assume that people of the past made decisions that were inherently good. We generally know why rivers were dammed - for water use and control, for power generation, for convenience, etc. It sounds like flooding is not as much an issue in this area, and the environmental effects of the river being dammed have been pretty significant.
Id rather ecosystems be able to function - and the replanting of this one should be good for biodiversity (and often can help retain soil, reduce heat, etc), and the overall health of the land.
I support fewer people living on floodplains (similar to not living on ocean cliffs) and less controlling of those floods.
This is what created the problem in the first place "make the land work, un-utilized land is a sin, etc..."
The removal of the Klamath Dam has taken decades, miles of red tape, and an incredible amount of advocacy to happen. It's not like this makes it open season on all dams across the american west. Unlike our fathers and grandfathers we have incredible tools at our disposal to better understand the trade-off between economic benefit, ecological impact, social considerations, and community engagement. No one who lives in the american west is advocating the removal of all dams but what needs to be advocated for is better water policy. If you have interest and time I really recommend the book "The Dreamt Land" that covers the development of water infrastructure in California. If you don't quite have the bandwidth for that I'd suggest the water episode of the Californian Century. Both deal with the early development of dams, reservoirs, and complete alteration of the landscape in the population boom of the American West.
There are options where we can provide consistent drinking water, water our extensive farm systems, and provide enough water for ecosystems to thrive; they just aren't in line with our current regulations.
The article mentions this dam, when running at full capacity, powered about 70,000 homes.
Burying the lede on that one when the previous sentence says -
And that's at full capacity, not drought stricken reduced capacity. Plus, the low water levels were already causing bacterial fish kills and they'll likely make more money off tourism dollars by being a primo salmon spot than they would off an over fifty year old dam causing ecological harm.
I buried the lede and went with the raw numbers because I felt that the 2% didn't really mean anything. Yes, only 2% of Pacificorp's power comes from these dams, but that's almost 30% of the power they produce from hydroelectric. The majority of their power comes from coal or natural gas.
You brought up an excellent point about the cyanobacteria which can kill mammals and fish alike, and have been found in high concentrations in the the dam's reservoirs.