Largest Dam Removal Project in the US-Klamath (Washington Post)

Salmo_g said:
That is a really good question. Good enough that each dam should be evaluated on a case by case basis. In the instant case of the Klamath dams, the lower 3 don't store much water. The upper dam that backs water into Oregon is a shallow, but large in acreage reservoir. I'd have to look up its storage if we want to go there. I've read that Klamath irrigation water is mainly used to grow hay. I'm not sure how much is used to grow crops for direct human consumption. I have no idea if it's true, but I read that the hay is exported to Japan (and maybe elsewhere) to feed race horses. Nonetheless, growing hay should rank lower than human food crops. (Raising Wagu beef is a long ways from saving humanity.)

We should note here, that in CA, a state of 40 million people, 80% of all water used, is used by agriculture. Municipal and industrial (M&I) use accounts for 20%.

Comparatively, removing the Klamath dams won't reduce the energy supply noticably or the water supply for human use at all. Water for irrigation will be reduced, but I don't know what the impact will be. A lot of the farmers use flood irrigation, the cheapest and least efficient method. Upgrades to irrigation methods would ensure that the loss of crop production would be less than the proportionate loss of water available to irrigation. And as Mr. Smith pointed out above, the Klamath dams are responsible for detrimental effects on water quality.

Moving south, we have the perimeter "ring dams" of CA's Central Valley on the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries. Many of these dams have reservoirs that store huge amounts of water. I feel confident that, fish or no fish, none of these major storage dams are going to be removed. Some of them produce significant amounts of energy, and they provide a huge amount of water for agriculture, M&I use, and numerous drinking water supplies beyond the M part of M&I. That water supply is critical to the survival of CA, making it worthwhile to spend ridiculous amounts of money on fish passage and features like multi-level water intakes that improve water quality where needed. Similarly, farmers will be paid to install more efficient irrigation systems so they can sell surplus water they create to M&I users. I can envision a future where CA farms use Israeli style irrigation - Israel grows food in a desert. I think it's safe to say that they know a thing or two about efficient irrigation.

Long answer to your question, but yes, it matters how much water a dam stores, and it probably matters even more where that water reservoir is located. And it will matter how efficiently that water can be used for energy production, irrigation, and M&I use. It shouldn't be a one size fits all, but rather a case by case evaluation of costs and benefits and the values we place on those benefits. Will society value Japanese race horses over native spring Chinook?
Click to expand...
You bring up one of my pet peeves. No raw materials derived from natural resources should leave the United States.. hay, timber, etc..
 
Zak said:
You'll be singing a different tune when Zak's Cricket Flour is the only consistently available source of protein in the post-apocalyptic regional food supply.
Click to expand...


1. There is no post Apocalypse. ( just being technical and light hearted)

2. If I had to eat cricket flour I'd certainly buy yours.

3. I am eating beef til I die and feel no guilt whatsoever because there is nothing to be guilty for. The UN can shove it if they think they have authority others what we eat..
 
Last edited:
Drifting away from fish - the forgotten casualty of the KBRA is a guaranteed water supply to the Klamath Basin Refuges Complex. Historically, the Klamath Basin was one of the world's most significant spring and fall staging areas for migratory waterbirds. At this moment, there is no guaranteed water supply for the refuges which in an normal year would have 30,000 plus acres flooded and host 5 million waterfowl during the fall migration.

During the settlement negotiations, we (CA DFW) worked with our USFWS counterparts and hatched a plan to purchase a ranch property with cold, spring fed water downstream of Iron Gate Dam in the Shasta Valley. The water rights would be returned to the watershed (Klamath River via Shasta River) and a 10,000 acre Cooperative Management Area (jointly managed by state and feds) would have been established. We got as far as completing an initial study, a preliminary project proposal, an appraisal, visits by the Director, USFWS, USFWS Chief of Refuges, politicians, etc. Our idea was to acquire and trade cold, clean water for dirty, nasty Klamath Lake water which instead would go directly to the refuge. We worked two years on this and the whole deal fell through in the bottom of the ninth. We were unable to get a guarantee on the funding ($25,000,000) from the fed share and the landowner (under a lot of pressure from the local community) withdrew from the deal.
 
Zak said:
You'll be singing a different tune when Zak's Cricket Flour is the only consistently available source of protein in the post-apocalyptic regional food supply.
Click to expand...
I will definitely use your cricket powder to feed my food, which I will then eat (y)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zak
At current costs desalination is cost prohibitive for agricultural purposes. a few municipalities have gone to recycling wastewater, been done in Europe for years and is probably safer than most groundwater in California which is main source of drinking water for a majority of the state. Theres a lot of meat on the bone as to saving water in California and, I suspect, much of the west. We still ship water south for golf courses, fountain and water features (lake at SoFi Stadium), and other wasteful endeavors.
 
Doesn't desalination end up with a bunch of brine? Where does that go? We're probably going to end up with a buch of desal plants while we're still watering almond groves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top