It’s no secret that some fish don’t like dams. Many of California’s 1,500 dams block routes to spawning habitat, flood streams with warm water or sediment, and deplete oxygen — each a potential death knell for trout, steelhead, and salmon.
Because of silt build-up and watershed development, a notable number of the state’s dams long ago stopped serving the purposes for which they were constructed, such as providing water for urban and agriculture areas, hydropower, flood control, and groundwater recharge.
So why aren’t they removed? Because taking down dams is not easy. The dams — particularly the big ones — are regulated by a tangle of local, state, and federal agencies. And in some cases, the owners have disappeared.
According to the Public Policy Institute of California, “Over the past 30 years, 36 small dams have been removed in California. The 2015 breaching of San Clemente Dam on the Carmel River was the largest dam removal in state history. Several other large dams have been targeted for removal, including Matilija Dam in Southern California and four aging hydropower dams on the Klamath River in Northern California.”
A broad coalition of conservation and fishery groups and Indian tribes filed an application with the regulating federal agency and launched a campaign to remove the Klamath dams and restore the river’s fish-sustaining environment.
The Klamath project is particularly noteworthy. “The Klamath River was once the third largest producer of salmon on the West Coast. But for nearly 100 years, four dams have blocked salmon and steelhead from reaching more than 300 miles of historic habitat, and have caused toxic algae outbreaks that harm water quality all the way to the Pacific Ocean, more than 190 miles away,” said Amy Souers Kober, communications director for the Portland-based American Rivers, which has an office in Sacramento. “The Klamath River Project will be the most significant dam removal and river restoration yet,” added Souers Kober. “[Last summer], the Klamath River Renewal Corporation, the entity managing the dam removal project, submitted its plan to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), as part of its application to transfer the license for the four dams and remove them.”
In addition to American Rivers, groups working to remove the aging hydroelectric dams on the Klamath include California Trout, Trout Unlimited, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, Sustainable Northwest, Hydropower Reform Coalition, Save California Salmon, Klamath Riverkeeper, the Karuk and Yurok tribes, and others.
A key planning document reports that the cost to decommission and remove the dams, then restore the river, is enormous, totaling $450 million. Yet, funding for the Klamath project is already in place. According to the 1,500page Definite Plan which guides the project and funding process, $184 million is being provided by an Oregon utility customer surcharge, $16 million by a California customer surcharge, and $250 million from a California bond measure.
When fully completed in December 2022, the project is expected to open 300 to 400 miles of trout, steelhead, and salmon spawning habitat in California and Oregon. The project will begin on January 1, 2020 with facilities removal and by December 31, 2020 will be partially completed “at least to a degree sufficient to enable a free-flowing Klamath River allowing volitional fish passage.” The report acknowledges that many factors could delay the complex project.
One of those potential delays is the transfer of the ownership of the dams from Pacificorp, a huge Portland-based energy company, to the Klamath River Renewal Corporation (KRRC), a Berkeley nonprofit organization that was created specifically to manage the funds and contracts to implement the work.
To assist with this task, KRRC hired the 135-year-old Kiewit Corporation, a large Omaha, Nebraska construction and engineering company whose projects have included retrofitting bridges in the San Francisco Bay Area and rebuilding the spillway on the Oroville Dam.
In its planning documents, KRRC spells out the benefits of removing dams for the economy, environment and fish.
“Klamath salmon support commercial fisheries worth $150 million per year and the local recreational industry that contributes millions to the local Klamath Basin economy,” says the report, adding that an estimated 450 jobs would be created as a result of the project.
“Water quality and fisheries improvements will substantially reduce the risk of fishery disasters, such as the complete commercial closure [of fishing] in 2006, which cost more than $100 million in economic losses. Improved fisheries will benefit commercial and recreational fisheries alike.
“Klamath dams trap nutrient rich waters in shallow reservoirs. The result is massive blooms of toxic blue-green algae that pose a threat to wildlife and human health. The algae blooms also trap heat and deplete oxygen, further degrading water quality. Restoring the river will eliminate the reservoirs associated with algae blooms and improve water quality that will benefit the region’s wildlife, recreation, economy, and health,” the report concludes.
In addition to the Klamath River dams, California Trout is advocating for the removal of these additional dams:
Scott Dam (Eel River, Lake County). The Scott and Cape Horn dams, two reservoirs, and a diversion tunnel that sends water south to the Russian River watershed are up for FERC relicensing in 2022. According to CalTrout, “Scott Dam [built in 1921] is the only complete barrier to fish migration on the main stem Eel, blocking over 150 miles of native fish spawning and rearing habitat. In part due to highly reduced flows and major habitat alteration from the dams, the Eel River’s wild salmon and steelhead runs are dramatically reduced.” The Scott Dam creates Lake Pillsbury, an artificial reservoir in the Mendocino National Forest.
Searsville Dam (Corte Madera Creek, San Mateo County). Built in 1892 (one year after the founding of Stanford University), Searsville is a masonry dam that forms Searsville Lake. The creek and its tributaries supported a run of steelhead.
Matilija Dam (Matilija Creek, Ventura River, north of Ojai, Ventura County). Built in 1947, this concrete arch-type dam was constructed for water storage and flood control and creates Matilija Reservoir in the Los Padres National Forest. In what has become the poster child for dam removal projects, heavy siltation has occurred behind the dam, requiring the agencies and nonprofits involved to figure out how to minimize the fishery and habitat impacts of the flow of silt in the river after the dam is removed.
Rindge Dam (Malibu Creek, Los Angeles County). Built in 1924, Rindge Dam is located in Malibu Creek State Park in the Santa Monica Mountains, about three miles upstream from the Malibu coastline. According to CalTrout, “The structure was completed in 1926 on the Rindge family property and provided water for irrigation and household use in Malibu. By the 1940s the reservoir had completely filled with sediment and the dam was decommissioned in 1967.” Plans call for removing 780,000 cubic yards of sediment, work that will take eight years to complete. The goal is to allow steelhead to gain access to the upper Malibu Creek watershed.
Fund Created for Dam Removal
The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation has awarded a $50 million grant to create the “Open Rivers Fund” to the Sacramento-based Resource Legacy Fund. The aim of the 10-year fund is to “identify and support community efforts to remove obsolete dams and restore rivers across the west.” Information is available at https://resourceslegacyfund.org/our-approach/open-rivers-fund/ and from orf@resourceslegacyfund.org.
