In a dire warning for planned dam removals across the American West, journalist Theodora Johnson reveals the dark truth about the Klamath Dam removals in Northern California.
I've seen the map of Agenda 21, now Agenda 30 or something. The Evil Ones keep moving up the date of completion. The map shows NO ONE living between Healdsburg, CA, and Eugene, Oregon. Healdsburg is a playground for the wealthy.
The Evil Ones want the people outta there. They won't let the people or a whistleblower or two stop them. I don't know how to stop the Evil Ones and their damn agenda.
Having been responsible for the operation of the FERC Licensed Box Canyon Dam which created Lake Siskiyou, (circa 1969) in the early 2000’s which was built as a multiple use resource to include impoundment for recreation and flood control on the Sacramento River, this writer can support the notion that dam removal is a bad idea. It is part of the larger Watermelon Elites idea of saving the earth. Green on the outside red on the inside. They will gladly march anyone along to their death when their revolution comes, or kill everyone with say a lab generated pandemic. Kill the people and save the land. Interestingly their financial resources come not from the locals, rather very rich and guilt ridden watermelons in Sacramento, San Francisco and Los Angelos. EVERYTHING they touch is ruined in the short and long term. They use the Native American Nations as useful idiots and the Native Americans out of psychological and emotional gas and lacking resources, go along. If one has ever dealt with the tribal councils it is heart breaking, and the Watermelons don’t care, once their work is done they move on to the next bad idea that multi millions of tax shielded wealth support. The same watermelons tell everyone things will be better, but the plight of our indigenous people is not any better with dam removal and the regions which are affected. Dam removal has gone on in the Northeast at the rapid rate. It is harmful, it won’t produce a kilowatt of electricity and it devastates regions already devastated by loss of industry and tourism. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission which oversees FERC controlled energy assets is a house of lawyers and experts who know absolutely nothing about anything, but once on a project they are flies on rice. The Nature Conservancy, Sierra Club, Trout Unlimited, etc., etc., are all in, think of it, a minuscule bunch of people with HUGE financial resources dictate to the many how they are going to live. Having run many FERC Licensed dams in the Northeast and Box Canyon in California this writer is more than happy to debate anyone on dam removal and the “Science” behind it, because after all “they are the science” like French Kings, who were the sun, they live a canard, and expect everyone around to listen and obey. This is the same group that have destroyed MILLIONS of acres of forest in the Pacific Northwest and Northern California. Dead standing timber, a small tactical nuclear bomb worth of woody biomass waiting to explode. No? Can’t be so? Really. The watermelons wait for the 1000 year cycle of old growth forests to return, but rather than face reality and say travel to Finland to see how dams and forests are conserving nature, they spend more millions and continue on their destructive way. It’s like a US Navy Aircraft Carrier at flank speed, trailing a huge wake of devastation behind them, never seeing, never caring, the mission comes first. They have to destroy civilization to save it. Sort of like Vietnam, we had to destroy the villages to save them. How’d that work out.
Item 2(c) is weighted by what appears to be political considerations. I would be very interested in seeing the accruals and the standards imposed to affect them. If you have any links that might assist in that pursuit, please share.
The iron law of bureaucracy obtains, and the manipulation of incentives can be highly instructive.
The article titled presents a misleading and factually incomplete narrative about the ongoing Klamath River restoration effort. While the piece highlights some of the short-term challenges that are expected in any large-scale ecological project—such as sediment release and temporary water quality issues—it fails to acknowledge the extensive scientific planning, tribal leadership, and early successes already emerging from this historic restoration.
Contrary to the article’s title and central claim, the removal of the four Klamath dams has not “devastated” the river. Water quality is improving, with clearer, cooler flows and fewer harmful algal blooms. Over 6000 fish returned to formerly blocked spawning habitat just months after dam breaching, and long-term projections indicate a potential 80% increase in Chinook populations. This is a major ecological win for an imperiled species and for the thousands of people who rely on the river’s health.
Moreover, the article disregards the central role played by Klamath Basin tribes in securing dam removal—efforts that spanned over two decades. For these communities, restoration is not only ecological but spiritual and cultural, as thousands of acres of land have now been returned and ceremonial sites revived. These dimensions deserve acknowledgment, not omission.
Economically, the dams were aging, costly to retrofit, and generated only about 2% of PacifiCorp’s energy portfolio. Their removal was both financially and environmentally justified.
In short, while short-term challenges were real and expected, the Klamath River is now on a path to long-term recovery. Presenting the project as a failure ignores the overwhelming evidence of success already underway and undermines the hard-won progress led by tribal nations, scientists, and local advocates.
Klamath River Renewal Corporation. (2022). Reservoir Area Management Plan (RAMP). Klamath River Renewal Corporation.
McMillen Jacobs Associates. (2021). Sediment Transport Modeling Report: Klamath River Renewal Project. Prepared for the Klamath River Renewal Corporation.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. (2011). Hydrology, Sediment Transport, and Reservoir Sediment Studies for Klamath Dam Removal.
Klamath River Renewal Corporation. (2019). Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR): Klamath River Renewal Project.
Nothing wrong with openly a frankly pursuing self-interested advocacy, but deflection, trivialization and obscurantism, informed by unsupported assertion, is the hallmark of motivated reasoning.
As Timmy Taes says upthread, "follow the money."
To that, I would add "wherever it leads, and remember that influence correlates with accrual of wealth."
Paticulay droll, is the implication that research funding isn't an investment demanding a predetermined return.
I like how you immediately discount anything you don’t like as not being ‘evidence’. This article was well-written and advanced a very important perspective, but not the only one. The commenter pushed the other side- both are important. We could also consider the treaties the federal government signed with tribes along the Klamath and our obligations under those treaties- that’s important too, right? This is a complex issue and anyone (including yourself) who pretends otherwise is clearly being foolish.
Mind reading, appeal to emotion, appeal to expert, unsupported assertion and ad hominem; all are rhetorical devices resting on logical fallacy, none are arguments, none add verisimilitude to otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative.
Complexity requires analysis, not rhetoric. There is a substantial difference between rhetorical flourish and rhetorical device.
If you wish to buttress another's assertions with verifiable facts and assertions supported by evidence of sufficient documentation to be elevated to proof, by all means do so. It's an open thread and Ms. Covello moderates with a very light touch, so nothing inhibits such presentation.
I would also like to point out, for the record, that you have done nothing but disparage the well-documented and cited views of others while presenting absolutely no evidence of your own. I responded in kind and never sought to present any documentary or scientific evidence but merely point out that you were being foolish in your claims that other perspectives and research lacked merit without doing any work to disprove those claims. I congratulate you on proving my point by being so obtuse that you couldn’t even recognize it.
Your claim that ‘appeal to expert’ is a logical fallacy is particularly rich in response to an article arguing explicitly that one expert should have been trusted because of their conflict with the consensus of their peer experts. And somehow you’re also claiming this in response to a comment that cited papers you clearly chose not to read… Bud, you don’t understand what a logical fallacy is or the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning that makes that a spurious claim in this situation anyway. You should really dial down your rhetoric if you want people to take your views seriously, because writing like a college freshman who just took their first philosophy class is just sad.
Most of your comment applies to Johnson's opinion piece. It is largely speculative, riddled with emotionally charged and biased language, and factual inaccuracies.
Came by way of XTwitter. Excellent write-up. Thank you for sharing. Best to you and your family. My cousin has a place on the river in the Trinity Alps area. It's lovely up there. California public policy must be to improve the lives of Californians and to sustain the supply of water to our farmers and to ensure the best ag products to the rest of the country and the world.
I had heard there were these things called fish ladders. 🪜 But I see you mentioned them in the article. Government seems to do what it wants regardless of what experts they hire have to say.
Incredible and important piece. Thank you Theodora for breaking the media silence on what has happened to the Klamath after dam removals.
The dark side of dam removals…. Most of the general public is totally clueless… and most are in disbelief of the hardships now…
Oh, but it is for the salmon.
Great article. I hope the DOI takes note of this for subsequent proposed dam removals.
I hope the DOI isn't totally corrupt.
Wonder how many years, if ever, For this environment to become clean of toxins etc.
Maybe an Ice Age will clean it up.
"Dam removal itself seems to have been the singular aim, regardless of the environmental and human cost."
How about:
Environmental and human cost have been the singular aim of dam removal itself.
Good article. I had no idea. Thank you.
I looked up the Klamath River Renewal Corporation. To get their finances, I requested a 990 form which KRRC says they will send me within 24 hours.
The 990 forms are what non-profits file with the IRS about the non-profit's financials.
I want to know who is funding KRRC.
It's always about the money.
I've seen the map of Agenda 21, now Agenda 30 or something. The Evil Ones keep moving up the date of completion. The map shows NO ONE living between Healdsburg, CA, and Eugene, Oregon. Healdsburg is a playground for the wealthy.
The Evil Ones want the people outta there. They won't let the people or a whistleblower or two stop them. I don't know how to stop the Evil Ones and their damn agenda.
Having been responsible for the operation of the FERC Licensed Box Canyon Dam which created Lake Siskiyou, (circa 1969) in the early 2000’s which was built as a multiple use resource to include impoundment for recreation and flood control on the Sacramento River, this writer can support the notion that dam removal is a bad idea. It is part of the larger Watermelon Elites idea of saving the earth. Green on the outside red on the inside. They will gladly march anyone along to their death when their revolution comes, or kill everyone with say a lab generated pandemic. Kill the people and save the land. Interestingly their financial resources come not from the locals, rather very rich and guilt ridden watermelons in Sacramento, San Francisco and Los Angelos. EVERYTHING they touch is ruined in the short and long term. They use the Native American Nations as useful idiots and the Native Americans out of psychological and emotional gas and lacking resources, go along. If one has ever dealt with the tribal councils it is heart breaking, and the Watermelons don’t care, once their work is done they move on to the next bad idea that multi millions of tax shielded wealth support. The same watermelons tell everyone things will be better, but the plight of our indigenous people is not any better with dam removal and the regions which are affected. Dam removal has gone on in the Northeast at the rapid rate. It is harmful, it won’t produce a kilowatt of electricity and it devastates regions already devastated by loss of industry and tourism. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission which oversees FERC controlled energy assets is a house of lawyers and experts who know absolutely nothing about anything, but once on a project they are flies on rice. The Nature Conservancy, Sierra Club, Trout Unlimited, etc., etc., are all in, think of it, a minuscule bunch of people with HUGE financial resources dictate to the many how they are going to live. Having run many FERC Licensed dams in the Northeast and Box Canyon in California this writer is more than happy to debate anyone on dam removal and the “Science” behind it, because after all “they are the science” like French Kings, who were the sun, they live a canard, and expect everyone around to listen and obey. This is the same group that have destroyed MILLIONS of acres of forest in the Pacific Northwest and Northern California. Dead standing timber, a small tactical nuclear bomb worth of woody biomass waiting to explode. No? Can’t be so? Really. The watermelons wait for the 1000 year cycle of old growth forests to return, but rather than face reality and say travel to Finland to see how dams and forests are conserving nature, they spend more millions and continue on their destructive way. It’s like a US Navy Aircraft Carrier at flank speed, trailing a huge wake of devastation behind them, never seeing, never caring, the mission comes first. They have to destroy civilization to save it. Sort of like Vietnam, we had to destroy the villages to save them. How’d that work out.
Here is an interesting section of the money trail:
https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_757.734
Item 2(c) is weighted by what appears to be political considerations. I would be very interested in seeing the accruals and the standards imposed to affect them. If you have any links that might assist in that pursuit, please share.
The iron law of bureaucracy obtains, and the manipulation of incentives can be highly instructive.
Stinnkng report. Words fail me.
I believe Scott Dam is in the same boat with the same people.???
The article titled presents a misleading and factually incomplete narrative about the ongoing Klamath River restoration effort. While the piece highlights some of the short-term challenges that are expected in any large-scale ecological project—such as sediment release and temporary water quality issues—it fails to acknowledge the extensive scientific planning, tribal leadership, and early successes already emerging from this historic restoration.
Contrary to the article’s title and central claim, the removal of the four Klamath dams has not “devastated” the river. Water quality is improving, with clearer, cooler flows and fewer harmful algal blooms. Over 6000 fish returned to formerly blocked spawning habitat just months after dam breaching, and long-term projections indicate a potential 80% increase in Chinook populations. This is a major ecological win for an imperiled species and for the thousands of people who rely on the river’s health.
Moreover, the article disregards the central role played by Klamath Basin tribes in securing dam removal—efforts that spanned over two decades. For these communities, restoration is not only ecological but spiritual and cultural, as thousands of acres of land have now been returned and ceremonial sites revived. These dimensions deserve acknowledgment, not omission.
Economically, the dams were aging, costly to retrofit, and generated only about 2% of PacifiCorp’s energy portfolio. Their removal was both financially and environmentally justified.
In short, while short-term challenges were real and expected, the Klamath River is now on a path to long-term recovery. Presenting the project as a failure ignores the overwhelming evidence of success already underway and undermines the hard-won progress led by tribal nations, scientists, and local advocates.
Any evidence for your point of view?
1 Discussions with engineers, hydrologists, and fisheries biologists who are working on the project.
2. Actually spending time on the river and seeing the gradual changes in the river from when the dams were breached versus now.
3. All the documentation that supports the reasons why the dams were removed, and why PacifiCorp made a business decision to decommission the dams.
Here is a short list of reading materials:
U.S. Department of the Interior. (2022). Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Klamath River Renewal Project. Klamath River Renewal Corporation. Retrieved from https://klamathrenewal.org/ferc-releases-final-environmental-impact-statement-for-klamath-dam-removal-project/
Klamath River Renewal Corporation. (2022). Reservoir Area Management Plan (RAMP). Klamath River Renewal Corporation.
McMillen Jacobs Associates. (2021). Sediment Transport Modeling Report: Klamath River Renewal Project. Prepared for the Klamath River Renewal Corporation.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. (2011). Hydrology, Sediment Transport, and Reservoir Sediment Studies for Klamath Dam Removal.
Klamath River Renewal Corporation. (2019). Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR): Klamath River Renewal Project.
Regarding the 6000 fish above the IGD dam site:
https://caltrout.org/news/thousands-of-salmon-return-home-to-the-klamath
More concisely, the answer is "no."
Nothing wrong with openly a frankly pursuing self-interested advocacy, but deflection, trivialization and obscurantism, informed by unsupported assertion, is the hallmark of motivated reasoning.
As Timmy Taes says upthread, "follow the money."
To that, I would add "wherever it leads, and remember that influence correlates with accrual of wealth."
Paticulay droll, is the implication that research funding isn't an investment demanding a predetermined return.
I like how you immediately discount anything you don’t like as not being ‘evidence’. This article was well-written and advanced a very important perspective, but not the only one. The commenter pushed the other side- both are important. We could also consider the treaties the federal government signed with tribes along the Klamath and our obligations under those treaties- that’s important too, right? This is a complex issue and anyone (including yourself) who pretends otherwise is clearly being foolish.
Mind reading, appeal to emotion, appeal to expert, unsupported assertion and ad hominem; all are rhetorical devices resting on logical fallacy, none are arguments, none add verisimilitude to otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative.
Complexity requires analysis, not rhetoric. There is a substantial difference between rhetorical flourish and rhetorical device.
If you wish to buttress another's assertions with verifiable facts and assertions supported by evidence of sufficient documentation to be elevated to proof, by all means do so. It's an open thread and Ms. Covello moderates with a very light touch, so nothing inhibits such presentation.
I would also like to point out, for the record, that you have done nothing but disparage the well-documented and cited views of others while presenting absolutely no evidence of your own. I responded in kind and never sought to present any documentary or scientific evidence but merely point out that you were being foolish in your claims that other perspectives and research lacked merit without doing any work to disprove those claims. I congratulate you on proving my point by being so obtuse that you couldn’t even recognize it.
"Well documented and cited?"
A 404 and a link to a general information page do not support the assertions made.
Ad hominem duly noted and cordially dismissed. The second effort at mind-reading is no more accurate than the first.
Your claim that ‘appeal to expert’ is a logical fallacy is particularly rich in response to an article arguing explicitly that one expert should have been trusted because of their conflict with the consensus of their peer experts. And somehow you’re also claiming this in response to a comment that cited papers you clearly chose not to read… Bud, you don’t understand what a logical fallacy is or the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning that makes that a spurious claim in this situation anyway. You should really dial down your rhetoric if you want people to take your views seriously, because writing like a college freshman who just took their first philosophy class is just sad.
Reiteration with further ad hominem is not an argument.
If you have an argument, you are free to present it.
Most of your comment applies to Johnson's opinion piece. It is largely speculative, riddled with emotionally charged and biased language, and factual inaccuracies.
Environmentalism is a cult.
Came by way of XTwitter. Excellent write-up. Thank you for sharing. Best to you and your family. My cousin has a place on the river in the Trinity Alps area. It's lovely up there. California public policy must be to improve the lives of Californians and to sustain the supply of water to our farmers and to ensure the best ag products to the rest of the country and the world.
California government policy has nothing to do with the general public. The coastal elites run the state along with the government unions.
I had heard there were these things called fish ladders. 🪜 But I see you mentioned them in the article. Government seems to do what it wants regardless of what experts they hire have to say.
Wow, this is great!