Opponents of Klamath River Dam removal often suggest it’s “insane” to tear down four perfectly good hydro-electric dams.
The problem is, the aging structures on the Klamath River bear little resemblance to “perfectly good” dams — especially if you value salmon, steelhead, water quality and a healthy river.
This editorial in the Redding Record-Searchlight apparently agrees:
Rep. Tom McClintock, whose district includes the upper reaches of the Klamath Basin in Modoc County, has repeatedly argued that “to tear down four perfectly good hydro-electric dams at enormous cost is insane.” Well, yes, it would be insane if they were perfectly good dams. They are not. It was in 2007 under that den of environmental radicals known as the George W. Bush administration that federal resource agencies, in compliance with the law, insisted that relicensing Pacific Power’s four dams on the long-troubled river would require installing fish passages. It was the Federal Energy Regulatory Agency, which is not a sub rosa branch of the Sierra Club but routinely renews dam licenses, that found that the dams would be money-losers if they complied with today’s laws. It was Pacific Power the dams’ corporate owner, which has a bigger stake than anyone in keeping them operating that decided its best bet was to let their license lapse and dismantle them. Perfectly good dams? If they were, they’d have been relicensed long ago, as so many of PG&E’s dams are. These are dams with obvious problems.
Rep. Tom McClintock, whose district includes the upper reaches of the Klamath Basin in Modoc County, has repeatedly argued that “to tear down four perfectly good hydro-electric dams at enormous cost is insane.”
Well, yes, it would be insane if they were perfectly good dams. They are not.
It was in 2007 under that den of environmental radicals known as the George W. Bush administration that federal resource agencies, in compliance with the law, insisted that relicensing Pacific Power’s four dams on the long-troubled river would require installing fish passages. It was the Federal Energy Regulatory Agency, which is not a sub rosa branch of the Sierra Club but routinely renews dam licenses, that found that the dams would be money-losers if they complied with today’s laws. It was Pacific Power the dams’ corporate owner, which has a bigger stake than anyone in keeping them operating that decided its best bet was to let their license lapse and dismantle them.
Perfectly good dams? If they were, they’d have been relicensed long ago, as so many of PG&E’s dams are. These are dams with obvious problems.
With the privately owned Iron Gate, Copco1, Copco2 and J.C. Boyle dams set to operate at a $20 million annual loss — and that’s assuming PacifiCorp (a business) would be willing to pay upwards of $300 million more to upgrade them than remove them — the decision to take them out is based on economics and the health of a fishery.
Not the relatively meager amounts of power they generate (estimated at a paltry 62 mwh annually if relicensed).
