KLAMATH FALLS, Ore. -- Oregon and California are stepping in to save a project to remove dams from the Klamath River. The states are applying to co-license removal alongside tribes, the Klamath River Renewal Corp. and dam owner PacifiCorp.

In July, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission decided PacifiCorp should be liable for removal of four dams on the Klamath. The utility has disagreed. In this new agreement, the states would share liability with the company.

Brian Graber, senior director of river restoration for the group American Rivers, said the removal project is important to restoring species such as salmon in the region.

"The Klamath River was once the third-largest salmon producing river on the West Coast," he said, "and these dams and their impacts have really destroyed that salmon fishery."

One of the dams is in Oregon, and three are in California. Removing them will restore 400 stream-miles of the Klamath. PacifiCorp agreed to remove the dams in 2010.

The dams' threats to fish have had a big impact on the Yurok Tribe. Frankie Myers, vice chairman of the tribe, said the health of his people and the land are intertwined, making river restoration key to restoring the Yurok people's society and culture. He cited one Yurok story that says if there's ever a time when the river doesn't have salmon, there will be no need for the Yurok people.

"So that's what it means to us as Yurok people," he said. "The survival of the salmon is the survival of our culture, and our people here on earth."

Graber noted that about 1,700 dams have been removed across the United States, to the benefit of local ecosystems.

"There's really no faster, effective way to bring a river back to life than taking a dam out," he said.

He said removal is estimated to cost $450 million and could begin in 2023.


get more stories like this via email

Twenty-one counties in New York are under a drought watch, which could become the norm as climate change heats up the planet.

According to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, a drought watch is the least severe on the drought monitoring scale. For now, public water suppliers start conserving water and urge people to reduce their water use.

The National Integrated Drought Information System classifies this as a moderate drought. Sylvia Reeves, the system's Northeast regional drought information coordinator, said these "pop-up droughts" have been typical in the last two years, in the entire Northeast.

"We've seen more frequent drought events that have lasted anywhere from six months to a little over a year," she said. "And, those events typically have come on in what we call a 'flashy' form - rapid onset of drought conditions and rapid intensification."

Reeves added that if several different indicators of groundwater, surface water and wells don't change, drought conditions could be upgraded to "severe." That's what New York faced in summer and mid-fall 2020. These conditions aren't generally bad enough to cause wildfires, but grass and brush fires could be forces to contend with.

During droughts, it isn't just about needing water for small things such as brushing your teeth or doing laundry. It's about making sure vital crops are irrigated thoroughly and having a decent supply of groundwater.

As weather gets more extreme, droughts could be more prolonged, said Alison Branco, director of climate adaptation for The Nature Conservancy of Long Island.

"What we're going to see is, not a huge change in the overall amount of rain we receive - a little increase, but not a ton," she said. "But it's going to come in less frequent, more severe bursts; like big heavy storms and not so much like that slow, steady rain."

She added that there could be periods of drought between rain events, but groundwater sources won't be able to replenish as quickly. Branco, a Long Island resident, said she feels the infrastructure to pump groundwater isn't equipped to meet the high demands a drought would create. However, she said, New York is not at risk of the kinds of lengthy droughts seen in California and other Western states.

If Iowa wants to ensure its Nutrient Reduction Strategy is working to curb farm runoff, a new report from an environmental group says it needs to do a better job of monitoring water quality around the state.

The Iowa Environmental Council noted that since 2013, Iowa has committed nearly $100 million toward water-quality projects. That includes keeping an eye on the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus entering waterways from sources such as agriculture. Despite the investments, said Alicia Vasto, associate director of the council's water program, agencies involved have yet to implement an approach to see if the efforts actually are improving the water.

"We believe that if there was monitoring, if there was more information available, that it would demonstrate current efforts are not where they need to be and we need to adjust the strategy," she said.

The report recommended collaboration on a monitoring framework that would include tools such as in-stream sensors, and the results made available to the public. In a move aligned with other states along the Mississippi River, the reduction strategy seeks at least a 45% reduction in total nitrogen and phosphorus loads.

The state departments of Natural Resources and Agriculture did not provide comments for this report before deadline.

While groups such as hers push for more information, Vasto said there are signs that Iowa's water-quality situation is getting worse. This includes more algae blooms that make the water less safe for recreation.

"It just kind of lowers the average quality of life for Iowans that we can't go out and access and enjoy our public waterways," she said, "because there's this pollution that is making them toxic."

A 2018 study by the University of Iowa found a nearly 50% increase over two decades in the amount of nitrogen pollution flowing from the state to the Gulf of Mexico. Last year, state lawmakers passed a major extension of funding for its strategy, but Vasto said unless monitoring improves, that money could be going to waste.

Water experts will gather next week in Nashville to talk about the state of stream restoration, at the first national stream restoration conference.

Tennessee's heavy agricultural economy means the state's waterways are at risk for increased sediment.

Ken White, chair of the stream restoration nonprofit Resource Institute, said implementing strategies to reduce sediment and restore natural flow to streams improves water quality, wildlife habitat and outdoor recreation.

"More sediment in the rivers is not good," White explained. "Because every city and county or municipal organization that supplies clean water to a community, they have to pay for more chemicals, it's harder to clean the water for everybody to use for cooking, drinking, bathing."

Experts will discuss urban and rural restoration, dam removal, construction, flood plain reconnection, and habitat improvement.

Adam Williams, president of Brushy Fork Environmental Consulting, said residents are increasingly aware of the link between healthy water and reducing erosion and sedimentation, and are feeling the effects of climate-related flooding and extreme weather on local waterways.

"Meeting landowners, knocking on doors and finding willing landowners to participate in grant-funded work," Williams outlined. "Putting in riparian buffers, explaining to residential, commercial, agricultural landowners in ways to use best management practices to stabilize their creeks."

White added stream restoration can improve community health, increase property values and spur local economic activity.

"We don't even hesitate to buy sunscreen before we go to the beach, or we're out in the sun," White noted. "The more we can educate water professionals, in order to have quality water for decades to come, we're gonna have to do a better job of being good stewards and managing what we have now."

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, more than half of rivers and streams in Tennessee are considered impaired.