Some dams may be shown to have more public value demolished than remaining, but that value has to be determined through a sound economic and public use analysis rather than ideological positions.
Jim Cook: Behind the dams on the Klamath River
Jim Cook and Marcia H. Armstrong -
Published 12:00 am PDT Tuesday, September 18, 2007
There is a clamor on the Klamath River for the removal of dams. As representatives of the region that encompasses all three California dams on this important river and the people who will be most affected by dam removal, we have serious doubts that this is the best environmental strategy, or even the best solution to enhance our fishery resource, the driver of this policy choice.
Unfortunately, this has become one of those issues in which reasoned discussion and scientific due diligence has given way to the power of important political interests, ideological stances and romanticized visions of run of the river results.
This debate has intensified, and is now coming to a head, as a result of a request by PacifiCorp for a new federal license to continue to operate its California and Oregon hydro-electric facilities on the Klamath River. Despite the fact that PacifiCorp has agreed to invest more than $300 million to provide significantly greater protection for Coho salmon and other fishery resources, opponents are nonetheless insisting on dam removal.
Yet, there is a very important reason why PacifiCorp has made it absolutely clear that it will not bear any responsibility for taking out dams. They have no clear idea as to what is in the tons and tons of sludge and sediment that have been collecting at the bottom of these structures for more than 50 years or how to remove the material safely. Quite simply, they are scared stiff by the prospect of so much legal liability.
