It happens that Warren Buffet owns Pacificorp which owns the hydro dams on the Klamath River, Through age, pressure from Injun tribes, and the enthusiasm of environmentalists... the dams would be removed gradually...the land and river would recover...salmon and steelhead runs would be restored. Not much was said about where 60 to 100 years of clay sediments would be handled...other than a staged plan was in place to control the amount of sediment and water released. The US Geological Survey was to monitor turbidity, water quality, nitrates, phosphates and our friends...heavy metals ongoing as water was released.
Welp, a week before the first USGS report was due to be made public, the corporation formed to do the dam removal scrapped the controlled release timetable and opened the floodgates of hell and cut her loose. (note the timing, before the USGS report on heavy metals and contaminants was due to be released) 250 miles of wild river turned into liquid muck...fishkill by the ton, maybe the entire food chain destroyed, enough mud to kill crawdads, a silt plume visible from space out into the Pacific. At least 11 deer have had to be shot, hopelessly mired. Dozens of people living in the Klamath canyon downstream are suffering from well contamination, a few people near the dam sites are being supplied domestic water from water trucks.
Not even one word from the media. If anyone is interested at all, there are some chilling photos and a narrative on Youtube...I believe the title is "Dam Removal part 3." You most likely are not interested...but it would be good to have this lesson in what not to do if the govt is talking about dam removal near you.

The river will fix itself quickly, just like the Elwha did.

You enviro twits love to quote the Elwha...the difference is the Elwha is 45 miles long...55 inches of rain a year. The Klamath is 263 miles long, 29 inches of rain. The Elwha sediment bed was sand and coarse alluvials....only 2 to 3 feet deep. The Klamath reservoir beds average 3X that and are the very finest of clays, the kind that suffocate life...impermeable clay when dry.
Stick with airplanes.

Sad stuff that is. Most people in the USA haven't a clue about water resource management and its impact on all aspects of our lives.

IMO, the contractor should be hung.

If the general public had a clue, they would clamor for the elimination of all the protected feral horses ruining so much rangeland out west. The protection of these vermin is completely idiotic.

+1 on the feral horses and add those burros/donkeys too.

Well, this is an interesting take on it.

https://www.opb.org/article/2024/02/18/klamath-reservoir-drawdown-water-quality-discussion/

The claim that dam removal would help salmon is now completely voided by the fact that no young salmon can survive the suspended silt now in the river. It's likely that none will make it alive to the ocean, and thus none will ever return. They've killed the Klamath. LINK

So, who are the geniuses that thought that this method of dam removal was wise.

Just makes me shake my head...

Somebody didn't want to pay for the removal/treatment of contaminated silt built up behind the dam. Buffet comes to mind.

He doesn't know airplanes either.

If you can't trust Warren Buffet, who can you trust??

L.W.

The river will self correct lots sooner than the lake area that was dammed up with heavy metal in it's bottom.

If the heavy metals are that concentrated...wanna bet they mine it under environmental reclamation?

Just a thought.

Exactly, videotape of excavator operator throwing muck into the river instead of the dump truck to haul to a neutral site...as the contractor was paid to do. Not that a few hundred buckets of muck a day would make that much difference to 2,000 acres of reservoir bed.

Guys, truly, I hope the environmentalists are right....and this all works out well in the end, but given all the factors...international fishing, pinniped protections, Injun netting, years of droughts, ag chemical runoffs...I fear the salmon is going the way of the buffalo.

jetjockey, you're going to have to define your use of "quickly". And then put your money where your mouth is. Because "quickly" in this case might be measured in geologic terms.

A few months, or even a few years? Not a chance.

The bigger question is what of the heavy metals etc are soluble in water.

Is it true the Colorado is dry before it gets to the ocean?

Maybe they shouldn't have screwed it up in the first place.

Man being man.

Cheap green energy.

What does that have to do with the topic at hand?

Start a new thread.

Good one, back when Flint Mich water was in the headlines I was curious...just to name a few...arsenic, lead, mercury, chromium (this county is rich in chromium deposits and not a heavy metal but we are also blessed with abundant asbestos). So the deposits are here, they are natural...that's the way it is, but what I didn't know, the silt and algae collect and sequester these minerals, and when the reservoirs were operating the water going downriver below the dams was cleaner than the water entering. But now, by disturbing the clay silt we are reintroducing the 60 to 100 year collection of nasties back into the water in a very short time span. The numbers are very high, we'll see what effect that may have on salmon rearing starting in April and then the big runs return in September. Peoples drinking water? Time will tell.

Where's the facepalm emoji when we need it, eh?

But soluble...that is the question. Lead is in bullets you shoot game with and eat...but you still eat the meat.

At least he did start a new thread.

The minerals I named are water soluble according to innanut.

What a horrible mess. Just turned all that slop loose into the river.

What is inannut?

Please post a link.

And I should say, soluble at the pH level of the river...not in a lab.

this breaks my heart. some of the best days of my youth were spent catching Steelhead just up river from the bridge in Orleans.

Seems like the dams:
1. Shouldn’t have been made in the first place.
2. Shouldn’t have been torn down once they were made and in place for as long as they have been.
3. Shouldn’t have been torn down in the manner they were (assuming they had to be torn down).

Considering the Toutle was hammered by up to 600 feet of sediments and at almost 44 years the fish are back I suspect Chicken Little had something to do with the reporting...

California needs water and power.

Where will they get it?

Unicorns.

And Rainbows.

BMT

Well, I guess that could work in some different reality.

Its California, doesn't that count?

Why were these dams built in the first place? May I assume hydroelectric was part of it? If so, it seems pretty foolish to get rid of them.

I know, "foolish" is California's go-to play.

I watched a tv documentary a while back and learned something new as always. What happens is if salmon make it through dams via fish ladders, they can make it to their destination to lay their eggs. When the hatched salmon start downstream they enter these large bodies of waters (dams) and are eaten by the larger fish with a very low survival rate. It seems most times mankind alters things , there comes a price. I was against the dam removals since they provided some value. I think there could have been a compromise but I’m not educated enough to make those decisions. I think the biggest culprit is Gov Newsome as he is all about pleasing victims groups . There will things learned from this, good and bad. Flintlocke, I’m very impressed with your gathering of knowledge. You are a great asset to the Fire and mankind. Cheers, Alan

In the real world, no.

But on a happy note your great great grandchildren will probably be able to buy some nice land.

I’m not a radical environmentalist but I do know that Mother Nature has a unique ability to overcome the mess that we create. The dams were a huge contributing factor in the destruction of our historic runs of salmon and steelhead.

The Elwah might not be an apples to apples comparison but it is a great example of how much the “ex-spurts” DON’T know! The same arguments were made before the Elwah came down and they said the very same thing about fish recovery but what the Elwah did prove was that not only are the ex-spurts absolutely clueless regarding the ability of fish to temporarily “adapt” to unfavorable river conditions but how fast the river itself was able to rehabilitate itself. The amount of information that came out of the Elwah removal is staggering, the amount of information that the “scientists”… aka professional bullshit purveyors don’t know is equally as staggering. The ability of the fish to survive in rivers, like the Elwa with high sedimentation surprised everyone.

The river will remediate the abortion that man and greed created, the fish will recover in time and all the naysayers and doom and gloomers will be deafeningly quiet. If the choice is between continuing to kick the can down the road while the fish and habitat suffers simply because the bullshit purveyors don’t “think” it’ll work and/or it’s far easier to do nothing than to fix this mess or to ignore the bullshit purveyors and remove the biggest impediments to fish recovery then the choice is EASY…..ignore the bullshit artists.

If the “scientists” were half as smart as they think and tell everyone they are we would not even be having this conversation but their abject failures over decades has led to these drastic measures today! I’ve watched the dumbfucks with their cushy government “biologist” job manage our fish and game into virtual extinction, at least compared to the pre-hydro days. I have less than ZERO faith in the scientific community and anyone with more than 2 brain cells bumping around upstairs knows how pathetically biased and agenda driven that collection of dumbfucks are.

We will NEVER recover our runs until we recover our habitat! Overfishing cannot even enter the debate UNTIL we have suitable habitat for the fish to return to! There’s a large segment of “ex-spurts” within the tribes and the “scientific community” and the commercial fishing industry that have come to the foregone conclusion that wild fish are all but extirpated and hatchery fish are the future, I don’t agree but I do know for a FACT that without habitat we’re all fighting to be the guy that caught the last fish.

My comments are NOT directed at anyone specific and are based on 45+ years of fishing in a state that has managed our fish into a state of oblivion….the total destruction of what were once jaw dropping runs with huge fish are all but gone and that’s all thanks to the scientific experts. If I sound angry and dubious of “scientific” experts it’s probably because I AM! If I give them impression that I don’t trust the bullshit artists in the “scientific community” that have hidden behind “science” while ignoring the facts…it’s because I am!

Anyone that has been awake for the last 50+++ years while “science” has been mandating whatever political agenda they’ve been ordered to follow AND they still trust the “scientific establishment” should be automatically relegated to the imbecile category. The cult of scientific ignorance has wrought destruction on virtually every facet of our modern life…from the vehicles we drive to the stoves we can buy NONE of it is based on “science” but rather it’s based on MONEY, POWER and POLITICS!

Not with science. It works the same.

Give it a bit, gonna be bad for awhile.

Northcoast rivers are notorious for extremely high turbidity levels during the rainy season, due to the local geology. Granted the dam removal in the manner used might not have been optimal and the high turbidity levels may impact the fish for awhile, the fish will likely recover in time. Besides the dams, and their removal, there are other issues the fish will have to deal with, as they have for over a century.

I fully expect there to be spawning runs back up above where the dams existed in just a couple of years.

Interesting in that I haven't seen mention of the effect of all that sediment on the estuary, the mouth of, and the immediate ocean area near the Klamath. Probably be some changes there for a bit too.

The first damn dam was built in 1908...this is and was a remote mountainous area...there was no reliable fuel for steam plants, at that time hydro was the only way to go. In succeeding years, more dams were built as the population increased...it was all working well, the salmon were returning in astonishing numbers in spite of the dams (I saw this with my own eyes as did thousands of motorists because Highway 99 ran on the north bank of the Klamath for 5 miles, the river was black with fish in late summer). The last dam and hatchery, Irongate was completed in 1964, it was a success by any measure, the magnificent runs continued for another 40 years or more (13 or 14 generations of the Chinook's 3 year life cycle) so we know the hatchery was not hurting the population.
Then the runs began to decline. The finger pointing began. Whatever the reasons, the fish were declining...and the finger pointing stopped on the Klamath dams. No credence was given to international overfishing, domestic overfishing, drought and resultant higher water temps in the river which causes disease, protection of pinnipeds, protection of fish eating birds, the meltdown of a reactor in Japan which elevated radiation markedly across the Pacific on the same current path that the salmon ride in their life cycle. But it's a done deal, and how I wish I am wrong.

Whatever happens, these actions are irrevocable. If it turns out to be a catastrophe, I hope there are legal paths to hold those responsible, including high politicians.

Deerstalker - Would that have been in the Willoughby river in Orleans county Vermont?

Funny you should mention civil liability...The Karuk and Yurok tribes have been pushing the dam removal from the very beginning, loudly. If the dam removals are successful and salmon runs are restored...everybody wins.
If on the other hand, it turns out to be a boondoggle, and the tribes sue Pacificorp, the removal corporation ie: Klamath River Restoration Corp, Pacific Federation of Fishermens Assoc., Kiewit Const., Knight-Piesold Engineering, and possibly Federal Energy Regulatory Commission who OK'd the whole thing....we are going to see a very very large pie split among 9,000 enrolled tribal members. Unfortunately, I fail to see where a huge wealth transfer will do the river any good.

One point that needs to be made about big runs....hatcheries worked just fine. But the "conservation biology" idiots (a spinoff of Earth First ideology, I have the paper trail) wormed themselves into agencies with the idea that only natural fish doing natural things were acceptable in the grand scheme of things. Hatchery fish were somehow inferior and evil.

Okay, maybe a hatchery fish isn't optimal, isn't as cool as a grumpy old hog fish. But, it's a fish. And when it comes to inferior, I think that ANY salmon that makes it to saltwater and then claws its way back upriver has earned its right to reproduce.

And by the way, I've never seen any research on the topic, but hatchery salmon imprint on the smell of home and literally will swim up the pipe if given the chance, they do swim into holding pens for recovery. So here's my question for you geniuses.

What if salmon could be started in a hatchery, meaning fertilized and viable and then planted in a streambed, which might, if necessary, be prepared to have the right conditions? Bull trout imprint on their home redd. But can you imagine a targeted program of capture, milk, fertilize and release to wild redds, or is that the real problem here? Nobody in "biology" has tried it, I've never heard of it. But given the success of hatcheries before they became politically incorrect, this could work really well at a reasonable cost.

No, don't gripe to me about habitat quite yet.

Aces and Eights and Valsdad, I think you guys make some strong arguments for recovery and optimism...and here's one more arrow for your quiver, unique to Siskiyou County and the Sacramento system and it's tributaries. The salmon and steelhead populations did survive and adapt...with a history of hydraulic gold mining from 1849 to 1884. We literally turned mountains to mud and flushed them down every major river on the Sierra. The salmon survived.

Friggin horses haven’t hit a lick of the damage done by dumbass twits with all the hollering and bulls hit they bring up!!

Dave, It's all way over my head...but I think the Feds, maybe NOAA, have something like that going to restore the San Joaquin River.

It will be a wasteland for quite some time, and will never be the same.

I've seen and lived some dead rivers. The passaic. The saddle. They come back. But bank on the fact that they are ruined in terms of ever being in their "natural" state, as was the plan.

Utter disaster.

J, cripes.

I've read your posts before, you know better than this. HS biology.

Well said

Newsome will provide. He's Godlike, don'cha know.

Interesting to see there were still some flooded trees standing after all those years.

I bet the fishermen with sonar knew they were there.

This is off the top of my head, so corrections by more worthy may be in order:

First, salmon will return to their natal river, wild fish or "tame" (hatchery).. I believe the smolts/fry at a certain stage in their life can be introduced to non-hatchery rivers and they will return to that introdutory river, rather than their hatchery. The Kasilof River locally has a king hatchery on it, which produces fishable runs. The hatchery fish have clipped adiposes - you can keep them. Any intact adipose fish is consider "native to the river" and must be released without removing from the water. It's a certainty (to me), that un-caught hatchery fish are now contributing offspring to the "natural, fish, but it is all the same river water.

There are some salmon runs in Alaska (Pebble Mine area) that spawn in Glacial streams with high turbidity. They just do it after the glacer silt goes way down in mid-winter, after the glaciers quit melting. This may not apply to the question, however. Just that fish are adaptable, over time, to varying conditions..

They, like other animals, can also expand home ranges naturally, albeit slowly. Native fishermen wanting to get rich, or go MAGA on their dog and winter food stocks, many years ago entirely corked off the mouth of the Cosna River (my cabin site) , over several consecutive years, completely destroying the coho run that had been there. A few years ago, one of my upstream neighbors spotted a pair of spawners above my place, tho that is the only sighting I am aware of.

Red Dog Mine, north of Kotzebue is a huge zinc and heavy metal mine. Before that was in place, there were no fish living in RD Creek. Since they have been doing mitigation to keep leakage - mined and natural leaching - out of the creek and fish have established themselves without any help. I don't know if it is just residence, or if successful spawning is occuring. I still wouldn't eat them tho.

Pebble Mine Prospect (copper, gold, heavy metals) is a world class catastophe in the making, if it ever proceeds. The potential to decimate (at the very least) the largest salmon-producing watershed in the world is a near certainty to happen. Just one of the clues is a proposed huge toxic tailing lake behind the biggest earth-fill (I think) dam ever constructed (Aswan bigger? ) that has to last virtually forever, on pourus substrate, earthquake zone. The mine itself , by foreign owners, will be played out in 75 years. And the owners will be gone, gone, gone.

There are thousand (or more) year old Roman mining sites in Britain that, every high water, still produce fish kills downstream from "flushing"effect , I am told. I wouldn't eat those fish either- meaning live ones in those streams.

It sounds lije that dam removal was a deliberat clusterf'k, and damn the potential consequences. The river will recover, somewhat at least.

Eventually- who knows how long.

Probably.

Water is the ultimate solvent.
Almost everything in nature is water soluble given time. Look at stalagmites.

What doesn’t dissolve, can be eroded by what’s suspended in the flowing water.

Little difference between something dissolved or particles so small they stay in suspension with little agitatiion.



The Conowingo dam on the Susquehanna is so silted in as to almost not exist. They considered dredging, then realized it is best to not stir up what has washed in from half of Pa, and some of NY rivers for over half a century.

The West Coast salmon fishery has been in decline for a long time. The Eel River and it's tributaries are classic examples, and there are others.

Update...I suspect you guys are tired of the Klamath dam removal topic.
I'll keep it brief...Fall Creek hatchery/rearing ponds in the area adjacent to the removed dams released 830,000 juvenile salmon into the river last week. In a news announcement, Calif Dept of Fish and Wildlife sadly announced that all 830,000 fish have died. The very brief report goes on to say, turbid silt laden water was not the cause, it was gas bubble disease caused from pressure variation while the fish were transiting the lower dam tunnel.
What was not explained was why the hatchery release hasn't been a problem in previous years...the hatchery and ponds were built in 1919, and used on and off since then.

The cause of gas bubble disease is typically nitrogen super-saturation of the water. Super saturation is caused when water and air are put together under high pressure, like in a tunnel, pipe, or aquifer. If the inlet of the tunnel is far enough under water that no water is entrained with the water going down, then there will not be any super saturation. If water sucks in air on the way down, like when the inlet is just barely underwater but a whirlpool sucks in air, then the water can super saturate.

Also, if the receiving water is very deep, super saturation can have little or even absolutely zero effect (deep water holds more nitrogen, so it takes MUCH more nitrogen to be super saturated).

The water level at the intake and/or the outflow could be different (I have no local knowledge) after they breached the dams. Even something like a slower flow rate through the tunnel could be the difference between their eyes popping out, or not.

As Dutch points out, there are a lot of variables.

A simple test run with a few hundred or a thousand of those fry, a few days ahead of the scheduled release and monitored below the dam, would likely have provided a clue as to what the results would be.

Someone, Dave Skinner I think, mentioned placing fertilized eggs into redds in other streams. It's been, and probably is still being, done. I've even seen info on school kids doing it in streams nearby their schools. Some go as far as to place screen enclosures over the redds to prevent predation and such. If not mistaken, it's shown some success. I haven't followed it for years, so I'm not sure if programs along those lines have had any long term success.

flint, yeah, there was a lot of that going on. Unfortunately, there's evidence some of that hydraulic mining is still having a negative effect on some portions of the rivers/creeks so mined. Sometimes there's adequate habitat above or below the reaches that are heavily impacted. Given enough of that, and enough returning adults, and good water years, and good ocean conditions, and so on, any given stock may or may not provide good numbers for following generations to continue.
Oh yeah, I think they have tried some of that placing fertilized eggs in man made redds in the San Joaquin watershed. Not sure how that's working either as I haven't lived down there for years and gave up trying to follow it all. Doesn't work well if they do get fry to hatch and make it to the ocean when some years the river bed is dry and the fish can't get back up.

Odds are good the situation in many places is not going to get better. More people = more pressure (in many ways) on natural resources and people still keep coming to Cali and the population still keeps growing in places (not Modoc, thankfully to the chagrin of the Chamber of Commerce though.)