California's Successful Dam-Removal Project Continues (msn.com) 120
The Los Angeles Times checks in on America's largest dam-removal project, which they say is now "revealing a stark landscape that had been underwater for generations."
"A thick layer of muddy sediment covers the sloping ground, where workers have been scattering seeds and leaving meandering trails of footprints. In the cracked mud, seeds are sprouting and tiny green shoots are appearing." With water passing freely through tunnels in three dams, the Klamath River has returned to its ancient channel and is flowing unhindered for the first time in more than a century through miles of waterlogged lands. Using explosives and machinery, crews began blasting and tearing into the concrete of one of the three dams earlier this month... The emptying of the reservoirs, which began in January, is estimated to have released as much as 2.3 million tons of sediment into the river, abruptly worsening its water quality and killing nonnative perch, bluegill and bass that had been introduced in the reservoirs for fishing. Downstream from the dams, the river's banks are littered with dead fish. But tribal leaders, biologists and environmentalists say that this was part of the plan, and that the river will soon be hospitable for salmon to once again swim upstream to spawn... [The dams] blocked salmon from reaching vital habitat and degraded the river's water quality, contributing to toxic algae blooms in the reservoirs and disease outbreaks that killed fish...
Workers have been drilling holes in the top of the Copco No. 1 Dam, placing dynamite and setting off blasts, then using machinery to chip away fractured concrete. The dam, which has been in place since 1918, is scheduled to be fully removed by the end of August. The smaller Copco No. 2 Dam was torn down last year as the project began. Two earthen dams, the Iron Gate and the John C. Boyle, remain to be dismantled starting in May. If the project goes as planned, the three dams will be gone sometime this fall, reestablishing a free-flowing stretch of river and enabling Chinook and coho salmon to swim upstream and spawn along about 400 miles of the Klamath and its tributaries. Meanwhile, teams of scientists and workers are focusing on restoring the landscape and natural vegetation on about 2,200 acres of denuded reservoir-bottom lands...
River restoration advocates are optimistic. They say undamming the Klamath will demonstrate the potential for restoring free-flowing rivers elsewhere in California, and point to initial plans to remove two dams on the Eel River as another promising opportunity.
"A thick layer of muddy sediment covers the sloping ground, where workers have been scattering seeds and leaving meandering trails of footprints. In the cracked mud, seeds are sprouting and tiny green shoots are appearing." With water passing freely through tunnels in three dams, the Klamath River has returned to its ancient channel and is flowing unhindered for the first time in more than a century through miles of waterlogged lands. Using explosives and machinery, crews began blasting and tearing into the concrete of one of the three dams earlier this month... The emptying of the reservoirs, which began in January, is estimated to have released as much as 2.3 million tons of sediment into the river, abruptly worsening its water quality and killing nonnative perch, bluegill and bass that had been introduced in the reservoirs for fishing. Downstream from the dams, the river's banks are littered with dead fish. But tribal leaders, biologists and environmentalists say that this was part of the plan, and that the river will soon be hospitable for salmon to once again swim upstream to spawn... [The dams] blocked salmon from reaching vital habitat and degraded the river's water quality, contributing to toxic algae blooms in the reservoirs and disease outbreaks that killed fish...
Workers have been drilling holes in the top of the Copco No. 1 Dam, placing dynamite and setting off blasts, then using machinery to chip away fractured concrete. The dam, which has been in place since 1918, is scheduled to be fully removed by the end of August. The smaller Copco No. 2 Dam was torn down last year as the project began. Two earthen dams, the Iron Gate and the John C. Boyle, remain to be dismantled starting in May. If the project goes as planned, the three dams will be gone sometime this fall, reestablishing a free-flowing stretch of river and enabling Chinook and coho salmon to swim upstream and spawn along about 400 miles of the Klamath and its tributaries. Meanwhile, teams of scientists and workers are focusing on restoring the landscape and natural vegetation on about 2,200 acres of denuded reservoir-bottom lands...
River restoration advocates are optimistic. They say undamming the Klamath will demonstrate the potential for restoring free-flowing rivers elsewhere in California, and point to initial plans to remove two dams on the Eel River as another promising opportunity.
Success? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Does California now have even less water available?
Yes, the affected areas presumably have no dam water.
Re:Success? (Score:5, Insightful)
>> presumably have no dam water
The dam was heavily silted up and the water was contaminated with algae bloom pollution.
Re: (Score:2)
>> presumably have no dam water
The dam was heavily silted up and the water was contaminated with algae bloom pollution.
Which dam? Using the singular here makes me wonder about your level of familiarity with the region. There are four dams being removed, and several others that are not.
Heavily silted up? Not any more than any other dams of their age. Silting is just a fact for dams -- rivers carry sediment. Sediment settles out when river water hits the slow water beind a dam.
The algae blooms are seasonal and primarly in the large lake (Upper Klamath Lake) being the Link River dam. Yeah, naming is weird. Link River is
Re: (Score:2)
>> presumably have no dam water
The dam was heavily silted up and the water was contaminated with algae bloom pollution.
Man, it's like you and the mods all missed the joke....
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the affected areas presumably have no dam water.
So they're damned if they do, damned if they don't? Well, I'll be damned.
Re: Success? (Score:2)
Nope. Same amount of water falls from the sky. Same amount spills down the mountains. Same amount of water available.
Re: (Score:2)
The rain falls in the winter.
Water is needed in the summer.
Re: (Score:1)
You mean runs down to the ocean and is gone.
In your universe there was never any reason to have reservoirs.
reservoir /rez(r)vwär/
noun
a large natural or artificial lake used as a source of water supply.
Nope, no need to have a water supply.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, no need to have a water supply.
Good job those dams were holding reservoirs then, isn't it?
Re:Success? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Success? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This river is in a very sparsely populated part of the state all the way up North where it rains regularly even during draughts down south.
Re: (Score:1)
No need to pump that water to places it's needed. Instead we can just further drain the Colorado into dust.
Re: (Score:2)
That wasn't happening anyway. You're just concern trolling about things which are completely irrelevant to the situation.
It's funny how the right hate California so much. I think the resentment comes from it being big, rich and blue.
Re: (Score:2)
The state's population has DOUBLED since the last reservoir was built in the late 70s. That's over 40 years of no new capacity.
They are, however, planning on a newer reservoir build in 2026. Hopefully.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, so what would you have said if California instead said that they were spending billions of dollars to obtain the right-of-way to extend the aquaduct system to do exactly what you say?
My guess: "OMG WHAT A WASTE OF TAX DOLLARS, CALIFORNIA GOING TO HELL, GURGLE GURGLE REEEEEEEE"
Re: (Score:1)
You're talking to the guy wrong. I've been posting on /. for years that over 90% of California water goes to water based cash crops grown in the desert.
Have a nice day.
Re: (Score:2)
This river is in a very sparsely populated part of the state all the way up North where it rains regularly even during draughts down south.
Half right. It is sparseley populated, at least relative to the metropolitan areas I suspect most Slashdotters posting here live - maybe 125k people in the region.
Where is this idea coming from that the Klamath basin is not going through drought? Long lasting major drought in the region. Fish people aren't happy they aren't getting the water they want. Farmers and ranchers aren't happy they aren't getting the water they want. Fish and bird die offs. Wells drying up as ground water levels sink. Very
Re: Success? (Score:3)
Water is not our problem up here, power is. You can't get new or upgraded service because PGE refuses to upgrade the lines coming into town, and they vetoed offshore wind here the time before last that it was proposed. It was approved the last time, but it hasn't been built yet like it would have been.
Power is out in my whole town right now, probably due to a tree down on a line but the outages page doesn't say. There is some risky dink sawdust to power plant at the mill but that's not enough to run the tow
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Success? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Success? massive die-off of salmon (Score:2)
https://www.sfchronicle.com/ca... [sfchronicle.com]
Hundreds of thousands of young salmon are believed to have died this week at the site of a historic dam removal project on the Klamath River, after an effort to restore salmon runs on the newly unconstrained river went awry
Re: (Score:2)
Success!
Re: (Score:3)
Does California now have even less water available?
This makes no change to the amount of water available. These dams had nothing to with water supply.
Re: (Score:3)
The dams weren’t built to store water for drinking, irrigation, or to stop floods. They generated electricity for PacifiCorp, a subsidiary of Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Energy, producing less than 2% of its customers’ power supply. [calmatters.org]
Salmon ladders? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Ooh .. so clever. You posed a question then made up an answer. You could instead do some research into why the fish ladder approach that was investigated 20 years ago proved infeasible if you really were interested. Post the results when you do the work.
Re: (Score:3)
Does California now have even less water available?
Technically there is more water available anually. Reservoirs lose a significant amount of water by evaporation due to the amount of additional water surface area they create.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh... so all the other water just runs in a loop and doesn't drain out into the oceans where it's just gone until the next rain fall?
Re: (Score:2)
Water in rivers is actually required by ecosystems running all the way down to the salt water beyond the estuaries. California captures half of all the water that falls in the state for direct human use but the other half is needed to keep the natural environment running. You can't capture all of the water just so some almond growing corporations can make a few more bucks.
Re: (Score:1)
I have always dramatically opposed growing water based cash crops in a desert. California is essentially exporting water to China via the huge number of almonds China buys from California. Madness.
That being said, destroying all the reservoirs is also crazy. Yes, some of them are old and need serious repairs/maintenance or no longer serve their original purpose but if you listen to these people, they want to destroy all of them. Reservoirs are evil, blah blah blah.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody wants to destroy all of the reservoirs.
On the other hand, if we would refill aquifers we could store more water underground, where there aren't the evaporative losses, and then we wouldn't need as many surface reservoirs.
Re: (Score:2)
I have always dramatically opposed growing water based cash crops in a desert.
Like putting on stage plays about it, or what?
Re: (Score:2)
You know that California is like 900 miles long, and the Klamath River is at the northern bit that doesn't have water problems, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Success? (Score:4, Insightful)
And continue the effort to drive the middle class entirely out of the state, reserving it for the obscenely wealthy and their indentured servants.
Re: (Score:1)
I know you are, but what am I?
Re: (Score:1)
I'm crushed that some anonymous loser afraid to put even a nickname to his post has insulted me. No, really, crushed. I hang my head in shame, and will commit suicide as soon as I finish laughing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Success? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Clueless. Those 3 dams combined are like 1-2% of the Shasta capacity and 8% of the klamath lake capacity . Plus that area is pretty sparsely populated and doesn't really need that much water. These dams are way too far from the areas that really need the water anyway. The stake holders around those areas reached compromise so they're doing what they think is best for the area.
Doesn't matter, it's California so it must be bad.
CA could cure cancer and they'll still claim they're trying to drive out the middle classes or something.
Re: (Score:2)
California brings water from a lot farther than that -- the Aqueduct runs about 500 miles to service Los Angeles. (And has turned the formerly-lush Owens Valley into a desert.)
Destroying the first dam was environmentally catastrophic, and produced a massive fish kill. Ooops.
https://californiaglobe.com/ar... [californiaglobe.com]
Re: Success? (Score:4, Informative)
Not only is California no longer in a drought, the area of the Klamath river was never under drought.
California is bigger than L.A. That's really hard for people to understand sometimes.
Re: (Score:3)
Not only is California no longer in a drought, the area of the Klamath river was never under drought.
California is bigger than L.A. That's really hard for people to understand sometimes.
Uhh, are we talking about the same Klamath River Basin? It has been considered in drought status for the past two decades. Farmers and ranchers are not getting the water they need. Wells are going dry. Fish and bird die offs are occuring due to the increased water temperatures (and assorted unpleasant growths that come with that) in the area wetlands, reservoirs and rivers.
Data (Score:2)
Let's go see! [weather.gov] The five year data look mixed. Kinda in the middle, 10 year data look a little under, but not sure that's severe drought. Now, caveat 1, any year can be a drought year. Use the data and cherry pick one! And 2, It's a big basin though and the boundaries aren't all that clear from the selection of map bases. The basin is partly in oregon flowing southwest through northernmost california. Do your own research! I'm doing my part! Squash out drought misinformation! Like and susibe.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's go see! [weather.gov] The five year data look mixed. Kinda in the middle, 10 year data look a little under, but not sure that's severe drought. Now, caveat 1, any year can be a drought year. Use the data and cherry pick one! And 2, It's a big basin though and the boundaries aren't all that clear from the selection of map bases. The basin is partly in oregon flowing southwest through northernmost california. Do your own research! I'm doing my part! Squash out drought misinformation! Like and susibe.
Sure. Went back to 2005 (2016 is missing) with the screen centered roughly on the main basin. In calendar year mode. In inches deviation from normal mode. As I went year to year I wrote down my first impression of the predominant color. Then looked at the color key. 18 years of data. 2 years above normal. 6 years normal to a bit below. 10 years of well below normal. But it is not just our interpretation of what a map shows us, how about:
https://www.opb.org/article/20... [opb.org]
https://www.opb.org/article [opb.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In this area there is no shortage of water. Almost everything is soggy AF basically all year. The same coastal proximity that gives the area mild weather gives it regular precipitation and fog, and we still have enough redwoods here that a significant portion of the fog is harvested and stored in the soil. Most communities are on former riverbeds, and some of them (like Ferndale) are basically in current ones.
Tremendous Accomplishment (Score:5, Interesting)
https://news.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]
The Portland-based utility — part of billionaire Warren Buffett's conglomerate Berkshire Hathaway — agreed to remove the aging dams after determining it would be less expensive than trying to bring them up to current environmental standards. The dams were used purely for power generation, not to store water for cities or farms.
The dam will never produce so much as a watt of clean power ever again.
Vid (Score:3)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So on the one hand they are tearing out hydroelectric dams, and on the other hand they want more power for AI server farms and EVs.
The fruits and the nuts really need to talk to each other.
Re: (Score:2)
Ooh... ignorant, arithmetic challenged, or both?
These dams produced 0.25% of California's electricity, and in the year that they are removed California is adding almost ten times as much actual generation (not just capacity) in the form of solar power. Gosh who would have suspected that California had thought about this and had a plan?
Re: (Score:2)
So on the one hand they are tearing out hydroelectric dams, and on the other hand they want more power for AI server farms and EVs.
I'd rather not have the server farms up here in the North where we are removing the dams; if they are going to go in the state at all they should be further south where they can have better access to solar power. As for EVs, we have refineries here in California, and the energy it takes to make gasoline can propel an EV about as far as the gasoline would an ICEV so guess where the energy is going to come from?
Re: (Score:3)
I’d rather have the wilderness as it was compared to an antique 20MW generating station.
Re: (Score:1)
That's nice, but you'll get neither.
Re:Tremendous Accomplishment (Score:5, Informative)
clean power
I don't think you know what that means, which is a real achievement given the quote which immediately precedes it.
Throwing the word "hydro" at something doesn't make it clean. Not producing CO2 doesn't make something clean. That was the reason it was decommissioned in the first place.
All 7 dams combined produced less than 170MW at peak, and hydro dams don't operate at peak. The entire river and all dams combined produce barely 716GWh / year, which is ~80MW average, a metaphorical piss in the river of power that is California's 29GW continuous average consumption.
There are small dispatchable gas peakers larger that this entire project, there are reasons it was deemed too costly to bring up to spec.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No. It doesn't make any sense to build hydro producing such pitiful energy for the required expense of a dam. Someone else can build something actually suitable to meeting California's power production.
Power generation needs to be viewed holistically, it's not a case of keeping every single green electron generating device spinning without looking at the whole impacts and cost / benefits. The reason this didn't get fixed in the first place is that it wasn't cost effective to do so. It's equally not cost eff
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it wasn't generating much power and doing a lot of damage to the river ecosystem. In this case the "designated winners", i.e. wind would do a much better job.
Based on the numbers upthread, you'd need 7 wind turbines for each dam removed to match the power generation capacity, which would have a vastly smaller environmental impact, which would be about $2 million worth of wind turbines at most.
The dams were old and just not very good.
Re: (Score:2)
First no you wouldn't. Because those quaint
Take a fairly run of the windmill turbine, such as the SWT-3.6-120. Standing next to the 40m high Copco dam, the turbine would dominate the view, standing 120m tall. There are many words to describe modern wind turbines, but "quaint" is not one of them.
I can only assume from your use of language that you've never actually seen one.
windmills
Turbines. Mills are for grinding grain.
meanwhile hydroelectric with reservoirs is fully 100% dispatchable
They are not. The Cop
Re: (Score:2)
The "designated winner" are the ones most suitable for the task when a cost benefit assessment is made. I don't know why you have such a hardon of a large dam, but there are plenty out there that actually make sense to operate and will keep operating and keep being maintained. There's more to power generation that having a green thing spin a spinny thing and generate an electron.
Re: (Score:2)
This is an idiotic comment, though it got voted up to 5.
Buffet would have profited most from just leaving the dam in place, preventing salmon spawning, and collecting the revenue from power generation. He was given a choice to fix the problem. Are you surprised he picked the cheapest way? And in fact removing the dam and returning the land to its original state is by far the best option for restoring salmon spawning. Not sure why you care so much about Buffet keeping his dams.
Salmon ladders (Score:3)
Re: Salmon ladders (Score:3)
Fish ladders don't work.
Fish cannons kind of work but only for paltry numbers of fish.
The natives managed the salmon populations for ten thousand years, they know what they are doing.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They looked into that 20 years ago and salmon ladders would have cost more than the dam removal, and would not have worked as well even if built. These were not good sites at which to build salmon ladder (no good terrain were the artificial water channel could be built at reasonable cost).
The power company (Warren Buffet) had the option of doing that and chose the most cost effective, and generally effective, approach. Why do you have a problem with that? Think of the dams!
Clash of the enviro titans (Score:2)
A: Hey, we destroyed a dam!
B: Yay!
A: It was a hydroelectric dam!
B: ?????
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately not every political persuasion requires its adherents to view everything as simplistic black and white choices, where things like hydroelectric dams must be viewed as purely good or purely bad. Of course if you treat politics as cheering for a sports team, you end up forced into absurd choices.
Clean and reliable energy? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't removing any generation capacity. These dams combined are pathetically small (given they were from the early 1900s) They represent less than 0.2% of California's average demand. For the record CA added 2GW of production capacity last year, which means if you average power produced over the year the "loss" of this production capacity will be replaced in 14 days.
Not every hydro damn is a massive base load producer. To use a typical media report, all 7 dams combined can power less than 100 Californi
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Not every hydro damn is a massive base load producer. To use a typical media report, all 7 dams combined can power less than 100 California homes.
Where do you get this number?
The dams removed had a generation capacity of around 160 megawatts. Name plate. The largest of them, JC Boyle, according to even an advocate for removal (Hydropower Reform Coalition) had an average annual generation of 239k megawatt hours. Figure around 11k kilowatt hours as the average annual consumption of a US home that is 22,000 homes for the one dam. Assuming the same ratio of nameplate to reality, the other dams would add power for perhaps another 12,000 homes.
Yes, sm
Re: (Score:2)
Where do you get this number?
I think the poster had an editing error and intended to write "less than 100,000 homes" (which is correct). As evidence is his roughly correct figure that these dams produced on the order of 0.2% of California's power. One can surmise that he probably does not think that California only has 50,000 houses.
Re: (Score:2)
Where do you get this number?
One can surmise that he probably does not think that California only has 50,000 houses.
I spend too much time facepalming (and attempting to provide rationality) to flat earther claims. I no longer have a bottom on what I surmise humans think.
Re: (Score:2)
California already has brown-outs, and existing dams could generate clean base-load electricity.
Two false ideas.
You think California "has brown-outs" because there was one day in August 2020 CALISO (the California Independent System Operators - private companies) failed to contract for sufficient power because their forecast models only used market data and not weather data. This meant they had insufficient power to supply the day of a peak heat wave, even though plenty of power was available in the west to import. And the right-wing blogosphere beats this as a drum continuously and so you assume it m
Beavers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully, this will help restore the beaver population.
Hopefully not. Miserable rodents.
I trap them and nutria in a stream alongside my driveway when populations move upstream from a wetlands about a mile away. Although flooded driveway was always a very good excuse for not being able to drive into work.
Talking fish (Score:2)
"Boo..." - a bluegill
Small reservoir (Score:3)
The reservoir was around 2,200 acres, which is a smallish one in the scheme of things. For example it wasn't even large enough to make this list [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
The reservoir was around 2,200 acres, which is a smallish one in the scheme of things. For example it wasn't even large enough to make this list [wikipedia.org].
Which reservoir? There were three that have been drawn dawn as part of this project. Ahh, reading the article I think that number is the total surface of all the reservoirs being drawn down.
Not making a list of the largest reservoirs in the United States is far cry from being 'smallish' when there are around 80k to 90k dams in the country. Looks like Copco Reservoir was the 71st largest in California with an actual storage capacity at 77k acre feet.
Re: (Score:2)
It's also sort of irrelevant, since the reservoirs weren't used for water - they were for power generation only.
Re: (Score:2)
It's also sort of irrelevant, since the reservoirs weren't used for water - they were for power generation only.
Agreed. Been weird seeing one group holler about drought in the context of reservoirs not being used for water supply, and the other side claiming that area is not suffering from water supply issues. Humans.
Although news is reporting that some locals are reporting well issues since the reservoirs were drawn down. Not sure how fast an acquifer would draw down in such a situation...
Re: Deserve the Results you Get (Score:2, Flamebait)
I'm sorry you're poor. Maybe California isn't for people like you who don't know how to be productive.
But no wait! You're a lying piece of shit. Because there is currently no drought on California.
Check your facts you worthless troll.
https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu... [unl.edu]
Re: (Score:3)
But no wait!
Also, the dams aren't used for water storage anyway. So even if it was in a drought, this wouldn't make a difference.
Re: (Score:2)
You look at more than a late winter snapshot of California drought conditions after one abnormally (and delightfully) wet winter? Do note that the area in California being discussed has a nice big yellow oval over it. Yes, yellow does not explicitly use the drought word, but is labeled as 'abnormally dry' and is the lowest drought level in this dataset. 'None' indicates no drought.
Also note that the current state of California water is a very short term anomaly. Currently 4.54 percent of CA is in D0+ st
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Vandalism and savagery (Score:5, Informative)
Keep going on to prove how little you know about the situation and the terrain, and how little that stops you from sharing your ignorant and thus worthless opinion.
These dams provide very little of consequence to the region, let alone the state, and do extreme economic harm to say nothing of the ecological impact.
If you actually knew anything about this you would be cheering for the future profits from salmon restoration instead of crying about notional losses in utility resources.
Re: (Score:1)
Keep going on to prove how little you know about the situation and the terrain, and how little that stops you from sharing your ignorant and thus worthless opinion.
These dams provide very little of consequence to the region, let alone the state, and do extreme economic harm to say nothing of the ecological impact.
If you actually knew anything about this you would be cheering for the future profits from salmon restoration instead of crying about notional losses in utility resources.
Do you really think we're stupid enough to believe the greens will allow said salmon to be actually harvested?
Re: (Score:1)
Do you really think we're stupid enough to believe the greens will allow said salmon to be actually harvested?
Belonging to a family with more than a century of property ownership in the region, similarly impacted in an adjacent watershed... No of course not. And they're busy trying to convert the forest management failures and wildfire concerns into lockdowns on small & medium scale food production. If you own property along a creek or river in NorCal, you're getting coerced to enter agreements where they trim up the forest canopy to mitigate fire risk (that you can no longer get insurance for), and reduce sil
Re: (Score:2)
you're getting coerced to enter agreements where they trim up the forest canopy to mitigate fire risk (that you can no longer get insurance for)
Some people are too stupid to mitigate fire risk without being required to do so, even though they cannot get fire insurance because the risk is too high.
Did you notice that you are one of these people?
Re: (Score:2)
Some people are too stupid to mitigate fire risk without being required to do so, even though they cannot get fire insurance because the risk is too high.
Did you notice that you are one of these people?
Did I say I owned it? Also You're exhibiting critical narcissism. Where the nuance of minor disagreements blossom into full tribalism. Save yourself before it corrupts your mind.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, they're having a rod, reel, and tackle turn-in buy back program. Around here, people just can't get rid of their gear and boats fast enough. Y'know they tax your hitch ball. It's a hitch-ball tax and if you say anything about fishing, you're charged that tax on your hitch-ball. Even if your boat is for only peering at the fish! They'll pull you over and say it's a light, but they just want to see if your fishin'!
In this part of the world, many "greens" as you say would be republicans (wha?!) who like
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really think we're stupid enough to believe the greens will allow said salmon to be actually harvested?
You are stupid enough to reflexively believe in the myth of the all-powerful hippie stomping on everything with their dirty birkenstocks!
Klamath River salmon fishing has always been allowed, though regulated based on the health of the fishery. The Yurok Indians have a priority claim on fishing rights. This will make salmon more available for fishing over time. There is a very well developed body of state and federal laws and regulations guaranteeing access.
Re: (Score:1)
These dams ... do extreme economic harm to say nothing of the ecological impact.
Citation required.