Busted!

The argument between Armstrong and Galusha on the one hand and Tucker and Schuchat on the other is about the environmental consequences of removing four Klamath River dams. Is anyone surprised that those favoring dam removal find no serious consequences and those who want to keep the dams in place find all sorts of consequences?
 

Those in favor of removal appear to have credible studies behind their assertions. Marcia Armstrong asserts that her fears are based on review by a Siskiyou County "consultant". But that consultant's report has not been released - something KlamBlog again calls on her to do. And as for Galusha’s assertions – KlamBlog is currently checking them out and will report our findings.
 

When the dams come down - because they can't comply with water quality standards - it will have been after many additional studies and an environmental impact analysis. Even then there may be unknowns. After all, science does not supply absolute answers. And that is one among many good reasons that PacifiCorp should not be absolved of all liability if a removal deal is struck.
 

Will there be negative impacts from dam removal? Of course there will be. Will these impacts be "significant"? The credible studies on the table so far suggest they will not be significant.
 

While dam proponents are exaggerating the negative consequences likely if the dams are removed, dam removal advocates exaggerate the benefits of removal. Removing four Klamath River dams is critical to restoring the River and Klamath Salmon; but that action is no silver bullet that will magically restore the once-magnificent Klamath salmon runs. And the plan being put forward by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to actively reintroduce Spring Chinook into the upper basin – reportedly using Rogue River fish – is downright foolhardy!
 

More on that in another post.