28 United States The Economist July 10th 2021
Green-on-greenbattles
Dammed if you do
H
ereisadilemmaforenvironmental
ists: more salmon or a continued flow
of hydroelectric power? This question has
been at the heart of a battle over the scenic
Klamath river, which flows from Oregon
through a long stretch of northern Califor
nia. On the river’s upper inland reaches,
four hydroelectric dams produce enough
power for 70,000 homes, and are capable
of generating twice as much. But, detrac
tors say, the dams prevent salmon and oth
er migratory fish from reaching spawning
grounds farther upstream. They argue that
the dams must therefore be torn down.
Barring a surprise, that argument has
prevailed. On June 17th the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (ferc) granted a
crucial approval needed for what will be
the biggest damremoval project in Ameri
can history. Jared Huffman, a proremoval
Democratic congressman whose district
includes the Klamath river’s undammed
lower stretch, says the ferc’s decision
means the opposition’s chances to derail
the project are now an “extreme long shot”.
The energy company, PacifiCorp, which is
based in Portland, Oregon, plans to replace
the hydropower by increasing electricity
production elsewhere. Twothirds of Pacif
iCorp’s generation is powered by fossil fu
els, mostly coal.
Indigenous groups who fish salmon
have led the charge for the dams’ removal.
Barry McCovey, a scientist who is head of
fisheries for the Yurok tribe, which lives
along the Klamath’s lowest stretch near the
Pacific Ocean, says the number of salmon
that enter the river to spawn has tumbled
sinceoutsidersfirstarrivedenmassein the
1850s. Salmon fishing, even for sport, is
now sharply restricted.
The salmons’ decline has accelerated of
late. Reduced rainfall is partly to blame.
This has lowered and warmed the river, a
predicament exacerbated by sunlightab
sorbing artificial lakes behind the dams. As
a result, fish parasites and blooms of toxic
algae that devour oxygen have flourished.
Sam Gensaw, a Yurok who guides tours in
traditional canoes carved from redwood
trunks, says living downstream from the
dams “is like slowly being spoonfed poi
son”. A municipal official in Arcata, a
coastal city an hour south of the river’s
mouth at the Yurok town of Klamath, sums
up the local sentiment: remove the dams to
“flush the ick out”.
Dambusting
The demolitions are set for 2023. How
much this will boost salmon numbers,
however, is debated. Some argue that lava
flows now submerged by the dams have
stopped many salmon migrating farther
upriver since time immemorial. This is
why salmon don’t appear in upriver ances
tral stories of the Shasta Nation, an indige
nous group in the area, says its chief, Roy
Hall. He attributes the dwindling salmon
more to global warming, and calls the re
moval of the dams “environmental mad
ness”. Once the lakes are drained, he fears
that Shasta burial sites now underwater
will be desecrated by pottery hunters.
Of the four dams, only the one highest
upriver has a fish ladder for migratory spe
cies. PacifiCorp describes it as “antiquat
ed”. Proponents of saving the dams have
pushed for the other three to be fitted with
ladders or even “fish cannons”—tubes that
shoot salmon over dams elsewhere. But
proposals to install such aids have failed to
gain traction. Cost is not the only reason.
As Mr McCovey, the Yurok fisheries offi
cial, puts it, the goal is to restore nature,
not build “more anthropogenic bullshit”.
Sentiments of the sort are echoed by
other Yurok, a tribe that considers itself
California’s largest. Amy Cordalis, a lawyer
for the the Yurok, describes the dams as “a
beacon of colonisation”. Frankie Myers, a
senior elected Yurok official, calls the
dams “monuments to genocide”. Mr Myers
says that as a young man he would sneak
into outsiders’ logging camps to “monkey
wrench” operations by, for example, spirit
ing away diesel. Taking down the dams, he
says, is “a slap in the face” for what he
deems the pursuit of material gain at the
expense of indigenous ways of life.
Upriver, attitudes differ. Referendums
in conservative logging, ranching and
farming counties inland reveal over
whelming support for the riverine status
quo. These areas are hotter and drier than
coastal redwood forests, so wildfires are
common. Firefighting aircraft can scoop
up water from the reservoirs without land
ing, notes William Simpson, whose ranch
near one, Copco Lake, was saved from a re
cent fire. He calls dam removal “reckless”.
The political battle has become a micro
cosm of polarisation in America. So says
Craig Tucker of Suits and Signs, a small po
litical consultancy hired by the Yurok to
tilt public opinion and negotiate with gov
ernment, corporations and other stake
holders. Mr Tucker, who is based in McKin
leyville on the coast, describes some in
land counties as “a hotbed” of “antigov
ernment patriot groups”. In liberal beach
towns like Arcata, where hipsters, some in
pyjamas, visit a marijuana dispensary in
the downtown shopping district, support
for the dam removals is strong. Betsy Mu
sick, proprietor of a dinercumgallery in
Trinidad, a picturesque coastal village near
Klamath, describes the conservativeliber
al dichotomy as “lumber and pot”.
PacifiCorp, for its part, has played the
controversy brilliantly, at least as far as its
beancounters are concerned. Though the
dams are structurally sound, the ferc
made it clear that licence renewals would
be subject to “maximum conditions”, says
Scott Bolton, PacifiCorp’s point man for the
dams. Building fish ladders and jumping
through other ferchoops would cost per
haps as much as $650m, he reckons. It will
therefore be cheaper to tear down the
dams. PacifiCorp has managed to secure
$250m of the project’s $450mcost from
taxpayers. The remainderisbeing raised
with higher electricity bills.n
A RCATA AND KLAMATH
How native tribes defeated hydroelectric power in the Pacific north-west