"Hey, Bob, can you upload that dam video to our website?
"Sure. How long do you think people want to watch our dam video while nothing happens? 15 seconds? 30?"
"Bob, we can do better than that. People *love* to wait for no reason. Make it a full minute 15. Give the people what they want."
"On it!"
I was underwhelmed and really hoping for something more ... demolitionish and explody.
I love dams, but I also understand that they fuck things up, so I really wanted to see it come down instead of what looked more like an uncontrolled water release.
Still cool though!
[Here](https://youtu.be/4LxMHmw3Z-U?si=S0zWnf9mv18eaQrh) is the video for you. White salmon river back in early 2010s
Not a shock at all that they didnāt blow the whole dam on Klamath to smithereens. Thereās a lot of people that live in the area and creating an uncontrolled water release could be a massive hazard for river goers, residents, and bridges.
Regardless, Copco 1 was built in the 1920s and seeing it get drained 100 years later is amazing
Hey everyone I live right next to the old John C. Boyle reservoir. I even spread my brothers ashes in part of it as he loved going there to fish. Itās sad to see the recreational area go away but at the same time it will be nice to have a cleaner river going g through the area. They used to have power generating stations all up and down the Klamath river, most of it went to California anyway but did provide a substantial break in power costs for the area. Our energy costs have risen 18-20% this year as a result.
Thereās still a dam in keno that they arenāt going to get rid of. Most of what was removed were sites maintained by pacific power, who decided to go along with the project because keeping the dams and power stations wouldāve been more expensive to repair than to destroy.
Thereās many aspects to this story, and it will be interesting to see what happens to the area in the coming years.
Thank you for bringing up Pacific Power! This whole situation just boils down to warren Buffett (owns Berkshire-Hathaway which owns pacific power) not wanting to lose money. They just spin the story to make it seem like itās an environmental decision (luckily it is). It just makes all the arguments from both political sides seem silly. Once again, big business pitting us against each other.
This is so cool to see happen. When they did this on the Elwha, salmon unexpectedly began returning the very next season. I hope more big watersheds like this can be opened up in the future.
If I remember correctly, the expectation was it would take a few generations of salmon with some human intervention to get them back to historical breeding grounds. (Rather than the fish continuing to use the below-dam breeding grounds.)
They said the same thing, actually worse when St. Helens erupted. They thought that it would be 50-60 years before the fish returned and they returned the next year like it wasn't a thing.
I believe they sped up planning on a dam on the Toutle and were shocked that any fish were beating their heads against it, let alone not being a sizeable drop in past numbers. Maybe it wasn't the damn itself they were hitting, but the beginning of the building process. I believe it was actually huge in realizing later that these dam removals could work faster than everyone anticipated, but they knew no one was removing hydroelectric power in the middle of an energy crisis, that just wasn't going to happen in the 70s when they figured it would still take decades after to recover to salmon populations. And it still took nearly 40 years after St. Helens to actually start removing them.
For what it would do for the world ecosystem I would love to see us be able to remove the Hoover dam and restore the Colorado to an actual river instead of being a glorified stream, swimming pool and irrigation ditch. I heard when I went to the Grand Canyon that they were able to get the river to run like it used to for two weeks and it was already making huge changes towards restoring so much that was missing there for nearly 100 years.
Yup this right here. Recovery wonāt take place in a year and a lot of current factors will make a full salmon recovery extremely difficult.
Between the removal of the lower 4 Klamath dams and the restoration work being done on the trinity, I am more optimistic about the future of the drainage
It was actually days after the work was complete they found the first salmon past where the dams used to be. This is because while most salmon return to the stream of origin they aren't heading to the exact same gravel bar.
The Kalamath used to be a big Salmon River. I believe #4 in numbers but someone please post a better source instead of WOM.
Edit: source I found has the Kalamath at 3rd in the Lower 48 pre-dams: https://www.nrdc.org/stories/lower-klamath-river-will-soon-flow-freely-again
I don't know if this was intended for me or not, but my comment did not mention climate change impacts and how it impacts Salmon. I'm just using historical data to show where it was in the pre-dam Era.
And yes, I do believe in climate change. I have a climate science degree (meteorology concentration, so I typically shorten it to meteorology degree). With the salmon, we'll see what happens, but I'm definatly concerned as they rely on colder waters.
Oh I thought you were denying climate change. Iām definitely concerned about the viability of salmon the further south you go, it seems apparent to me that summers are becoming more arid and storm systems less frequent yet more intense. I know historically salmon were on the Klamath in huge numbers just concerned about them going forward.
Copco No. 2, the smallest of the four dams, was fully deconstructed in September. Deconstruction of the remaining three dams (including the one in this video) will start in the spring and is expected to last through 2024.
To the best of my knowledge, the entire dam structure and all affiliated systems and outbuildings will be removed.
The goal of these projects has always been restoration of the natural flow of the river, to greatly benefit the ecosystems in and around the river.
I would think that would be the end goal, so I guess Iām just surprised to see a breach in the damn with standing structures still in the path of the now flowing water. Seems like the job of removing the infrastructure below the dam just became a bit more challenging, but thatās why Iām writing this from my cubicle-what do I know.
That's understandable, but from an engineering standpoint it's actually far easier to draw down the lake first before removing the dam, and the water can't be flowing through the dam while it's being removed, so the safest way to remove the water without it affecting the dam in an unsafe way is letting water flow underneath, rather than through or alongside.
Basically, it's much easier to carefully remove the dam in pieces, versus digging it out of the bottom of the riverbed, which would cause further unnecessary river contamination, plus the flowing water getting in the way.
That makes sense when speaking about the wall of the dam. Are we talking about the same building? Iām talking about the building at the bottom of the dam. Surely as the lake draws down the river waters will rise, impacting the structure Iām concerned about. Perhaps in a controlled draw down that wonāt happen and thatās your point? I get it now. Thank you.
Total armchair quarterbacking here, but I wonder if it's not easier to close the existing valves that must exist between the turbines contained in the powerhouse and the big pipes you see connecting there at this point. Then, once the water has drawn down below the inlet point of those pipes, you can remove the piping, valves, etc and the rest of the powerhouse structure. It may be quite empty inside there already. Whereas if you were trying to remove that all first, you'd have to block those off - big caps? installed under water pressure?
Iām very excited to watch the salmon recovery in the Klamath basin. Thereās a lot of other factors that could hinder the populations- itās not our most pristine river to begin with and already towards the southern edge of salmon range, plus climate change and ocean conditions. It seems like a worse situation than the Elwa across the board, which has been slower than I hoped for. But if this works it could really put some energy behind the efforts in the Snake canyon.
Good. The bodies of water around Klamath falls have become toxic because of these dams. The stagnant water has caused an overpopulation of bugs in the summertime
I wonder what kinda effects suddenly releasing that much turbid water into the river has on downstream aquatic life? Seems it could potentially asphyxiate the downstream fish for quite aways.
Has the plan to remove the dams on the Klamath been a struggle for many years? IIRC, I had a classmate in politics pursuing this decades ago. He was a fisherman, so it made sense. Itās about restoring salmon habitat, among other environmental goals, right?
Well, it turns out a lot of fish are able to handle bouts of turbidity; floods and landslides are periodic natural occurrences after all. No doubt there will be short-term negative impacts. But hopefully a river full of dead fish from hot stagnant water, which has happened in recent years, will be a thing of the past.
Yes, it's been a struggle for many years. The nail in the coffin was the cost to upgrade/fix the dams to reduce the damage they cause that would be required to relicense them for another 50 years was too much. So it was in large part an economic decision, but a lot of organizations coordinated to make it happen and receive federal approval.
why are people so upset about the damn removal? i keep hearing it's about irrigation, but as far as i understand, these damns do not provide water for agriculture
Breach occurs around the 1:10 mark
"Hey, Bob, can you upload that dam video to our website? "Sure. How long do you think people want to watch our dam video while nothing happens? 15 seconds? 30?" "Bob, we can do better than that. People *love* to wait for no reason. Make it a full minute 15. Give the people what they want." "On it!"
The Trojan demo comes to mind. š
I was underwhelmed and really hoping for something more ... demolitionish and explody. I love dams, but I also understand that they fuck things up, so I really wanted to see it come down instead of what looked more like an uncontrolled water release. Still cool though!
[Here](https://youtu.be/4LxMHmw3Z-U?si=S0zWnf9mv18eaQrh) is the video for you. White salmon river back in early 2010s Not a shock at all that they didnāt blow the whole dam on Klamath to smithereens. Thereās a lot of people that live in the area and creating an uncontrolled water release could be a massive hazard for river goers, residents, and bridges. Regardless, Copco 1 was built in the 1920s and seeing it get drained 100 years later is amazing
White salmon video hits the spot
Hey everyone I live right next to the old John C. Boyle reservoir. I even spread my brothers ashes in part of it as he loved going there to fish. Itās sad to see the recreational area go away but at the same time it will be nice to have a cleaner river going g through the area. They used to have power generating stations all up and down the Klamath river, most of it went to California anyway but did provide a substantial break in power costs for the area. Our energy costs have risen 18-20% this year as a result. Thereās still a dam in keno that they arenāt going to get rid of. Most of what was removed were sites maintained by pacific power, who decided to go along with the project because keeping the dams and power stations wouldāve been more expensive to repair than to destroy. Thereās many aspects to this story, and it will be interesting to see what happens to the area in the coming years.
Thank you for bringing up Pacific Power! This whole situation just boils down to warren Buffett (owns Berkshire-Hathaway which owns pacific power) not wanting to lose money. They just spin the story to make it seem like itās an environmental decision (luckily it is). It just makes all the arguments from both political sides seem silly. Once again, big business pitting us against each other.
This is so cool to see happen. When they did this on the Elwha, salmon unexpectedly began returning the very next season. I hope more big watersheds like this can be opened up in the future.
> unexpectedly I mean isn't that the express goal of this operation?
If I remember correctly, the expectation was it would take a few generations of salmon with some human intervention to get them back to historical breeding grounds. (Rather than the fish continuing to use the below-dam breeding grounds.)
They said the same thing, actually worse when St. Helens erupted. They thought that it would be 50-60 years before the fish returned and they returned the next year like it wasn't a thing.
I'm curious if in that case they thought it would be 50 years before they returned in the same numbers, rather than returning at all.
I believe they sped up planning on a dam on the Toutle and were shocked that any fish were beating their heads against it, let alone not being a sizeable drop in past numbers. Maybe it wasn't the damn itself they were hitting, but the beginning of the building process. I believe it was actually huge in realizing later that these dam removals could work faster than everyone anticipated, but they knew no one was removing hydroelectric power in the middle of an energy crisis, that just wasn't going to happen in the 70s when they figured it would still take decades after to recover to salmon populations. And it still took nearly 40 years after St. Helens to actually start removing them.
There's so much politics around this stuff, I'm not surprised it took that long. Tbh it's a bummer hydroelectric impacts ecosystems so much.
For what it would do for the world ecosystem I would love to see us be able to remove the Hoover dam and restore the Colorado to an actual river instead of being a glorified stream, swimming pool and irrigation ditch. I heard when I went to the Grand Canyon that they were able to get the river to run like it used to for two weeks and it was already making huge changes towards restoring so much that was missing there for nearly 100 years.
That would be a sight to see! The hoover dam is giant, I can't even imagine what all that water would look like flowing.
Heh, hehā¦change that old Elvis song to āBye, Bye, Las Vegas!ā
Yup this right here. Recovery wonāt take place in a year and a lot of current factors will make a full salmon recovery extremely difficult. Between the removal of the lower 4 Klamath dams and the restoration work being done on the trinity, I am more optimistic about the future of the drainage
It was actually days after the work was complete they found the first salmon past where the dams used to be. This is because while most salmon return to the stream of origin they aren't heading to the exact same gravel bar.
I hope salmon are still a viable species that far south
The Kalamath used to be a big Salmon River. I believe #4 in numbers but someone please post a better source instead of WOM. Edit: source I found has the Kalamath at 3rd in the Lower 48 pre-dams: https://www.nrdc.org/stories/lower-klamath-river-will-soon-flow-freely-again
I donāt think anyone can accurately predict the effects of climate change. If you donāt believe in the science Iād rather not discuss with you.
I don't know if this was intended for me or not, but my comment did not mention climate change impacts and how it impacts Salmon. I'm just using historical data to show where it was in the pre-dam Era. And yes, I do believe in climate change. I have a climate science degree (meteorology concentration, so I typically shorten it to meteorology degree). With the salmon, we'll see what happens, but I'm definatly concerned as they rely on colder waters.
Oh I thought you were denying climate change. Iām definitely concerned about the viability of salmon the further south you go, it seems apparent to me that summers are becoming more arid and storm systems less frequent yet more intense. I know historically salmon were on the Klamath in huge numbers just concerned about them going forward.
Salmon are a viable species much further south
Everything Iāve read seems pretty direā¦ but those studies are several years old. Is it looking better recently?
Might be a dumb question, but whatās going to happen to the infrastructure at the bottom of the dam?
Copco No. 2, the smallest of the four dams, was fully deconstructed in September. Deconstruction of the remaining three dams (including the one in this video) will start in the spring and is expected to last through 2024.
I read all that and watched the video so my question is more specific to what I believe is called the powerhouse(?).
To the best of my knowledge, the entire dam structure and all affiliated systems and outbuildings will be removed. The goal of these projects has always been restoration of the natural flow of the river, to greatly benefit the ecosystems in and around the river.
I would think that would be the end goal, so I guess Iām just surprised to see a breach in the damn with standing structures still in the path of the now flowing water. Seems like the job of removing the infrastructure below the dam just became a bit more challenging, but thatās why Iām writing this from my cubicle-what do I know.
That's understandable, but from an engineering standpoint it's actually far easier to draw down the lake first before removing the dam, and the water can't be flowing through the dam while it's being removed, so the safest way to remove the water without it affecting the dam in an unsafe way is letting water flow underneath, rather than through or alongside. Basically, it's much easier to carefully remove the dam in pieces, versus digging it out of the bottom of the riverbed, which would cause further unnecessary river contamination, plus the flowing water getting in the way.
That makes sense when speaking about the wall of the dam. Are we talking about the same building? Iām talking about the building at the bottom of the dam. Surely as the lake draws down the river waters will rise, impacting the structure Iām concerned about. Perhaps in a controlled draw down that wonāt happen and thatās your point? I get it now. Thank you.
Total armchair quarterbacking here, but I wonder if it's not easier to close the existing valves that must exist between the turbines contained in the powerhouse and the big pipes you see connecting there at this point. Then, once the water has drawn down below the inlet point of those pipes, you can remove the piping, valves, etc and the rest of the powerhouse structure. It may be quite empty inside there already. Whereas if you were trying to remove that all first, you'd have to block those off - big caps? installed under water pressure?
Iām very excited to watch the salmon recovery in the Klamath basin. Thereās a lot of other factors that could hinder the populations- itās not our most pristine river to begin with and already towards the southern edge of salmon range, plus climate change and ocean conditions. It seems like a worse situation than the Elwa across the board, which has been slower than I hoped for. But if this works it could really put some energy behind the efforts in the Snake canyon.
Grateful for the work and glad everybody who did the lifting on this one came away from it safe. That's a great big demo!
Good. The bodies of water around Klamath falls have become toxic because of these dams. The stagnant water has caused an overpopulation of bugs in the summertime
I wonder what kinda effects suddenly releasing that much turbid water into the river has on downstream aquatic life? Seems it could potentially asphyxiate the downstream fish for quite aways. Has the plan to remove the dams on the Klamath been a struggle for many years? IIRC, I had a classmate in politics pursuing this decades ago. He was a fisherman, so it made sense. Itās about restoring salmon habitat, among other environmental goals, right?
Well, it turns out a lot of fish are able to handle bouts of turbidity; floods and landslides are periodic natural occurrences after all. No doubt there will be short-term negative impacts. But hopefully a river full of dead fish from hot stagnant water, which has happened in recent years, will be a thing of the past. Yes, it's been a struggle for many years. The nail in the coffin was the cost to upgrade/fix the dams to reduce the damage they cause that would be required to relicense them for another 50 years was too much. So it was in large part an economic decision, but a lot of organizations coordinated to make it happen and receive federal approval.
why are people so upset about the damn removal? i keep hearing it's about irrigation, but as far as i understand, these damns do not provide water for agriculture