Dam and Fish Thoughts

The Klamath’s dams have been removed, at least some of them.  Articles have popped up describing the spectacle of fish being seen many miles above the dam sites, stating that the fishery has started to recover.  I think these articles express bits of naivety and wishful thinking.  The fact that anadromous fish (fish born in fresh water, mature in the ocean, then return to fresh water to spawn) are moving above the demolished dam sites shouldn’t really surprise anyone—they excel at navigating swift water and finding appropriate habitat.  Whether anadromous fish populations are rebounding cannot be determined in a year or two.  The news states that this year’s run is larger than in recent years but we need to keep in mind that all of the returning fish were born in the drainage while dams still existed—their numbers have nothing to do with dam removal.   

Years ago, when dam removal was being considered, I had several thoughts: First, dam removal MIGHT improve anadromous fish populations.  Second, dams have very nice electricity generation characteristics that would be tragic to lose.  Third, what comes AFTER the dam’s removal?  Here are my views:

Dam removal isn’t a guaranteed solution to anadromous fishery problems.  Many streams in the Pacific Northwest have no dams and their anadromous fish are not thriving.  In other words, there are other factors impacting the fish besides just dam presence.  A huge factor is ocean conditions.  Because anadromous fish spend most of their lives in the ocean, the ocean’s conditions are extremely important.  There are large variations in ocean productivity from year to year, as shown by the percentage of young fish entering the ocean that are able to grow to maturity.  In other words, when comparing various periods of time, survival of these fish while in the ocean is highly variable.  Mankind might not have the ability to understand the ocean’s variability or improve upon its condition.

I wonder about the future of power generation.  Each power source has its own generation idiosyncrasies and environmental impacts.  Solar has drawbacks—there is reduced power generation on cloudy days and none during nighttime.  The impacts from mineral production that go into solar panels are considerable.  Coal- and oil-fired generation facilities take a long time to get powered up, so need to be kept running constantly, regardless of demand.  Of course, coal and oil burning produce greenhouse gases.  Wind generation produces power only when there is wind (which is not very predictable or dependable) and also kills birds. Dams block fish passage and affect water quality but have unique generation characteristics.  Reservoirs act as giant storage batteries.  Water stored in reservoirs, within limits, can be released to generate power when we wish.  In some cases, when there are pronounced peak demands for electricity such as during hot or cold spells, more water can be released from dams, resulting in more power generation.  This flexibility is not possible with other means of power generation.  Can we afford to lose this flexibility? 

My next thoughts pertain to what comes NEXT?—As I mentioned, fish blockage is not the only factor affecting the Klamath’s fish.  How about agricultural water diversions, or livestock impacts to streamside zones and water quality?  Will more restrictions be placed on irrigation or livestock management?  Will ranching and farming be impacted?  What about the other dams in the drainage that still exist?  Dwinell Dam is a total barrier. Will it also be proposed for removal?  Potentially, these next steps could be catastrophic for farming and ranching in the Klamath Basin, Shasta Valley and Scott Valley. 

Finally, with regard to the Klamath’s fish, we always need to consider the possibility of uncertainty or “unintended consequences.”  As an example, in the case of the spotted owl, the government’s original notion of how to save the species was by protecting its habitat.  Later, an unexpected factor popped up—the invasion of the spotted owl’s cousin the barred owl.  The ante has been raised–many invading owls will be euthanized in addition to the original plan of habitat preservation.  It is very possible that unexpected eventualities might occur regarding the Klamath’s fish, prompting a different or more complex strategy.  

Before I sign off, I need to bring up an uncomfortable aspect of environmental issues that will also apply to the Klamath’s fishery restoration efforts.  Each environmental issue creates an “industry” with abundant funding and many workers.  Government employees, tribes, consultants, environmental groups, engineers, and contractors are utilized and make money.  (Full disclosure: I have been the beneficiary of such funding much of my life.)  Nobody working on these projects wants their job to end.  The pull of job survival is difficult to halt.  (The spotted owl “industry” has existed for going on a half century, with no end in sight.)   With that in mind, you can be sure that we will be hearing about the dam’s removal and Klamath’s anadromous fish recovery work for many many years.