If you're implying that the tribes are going to financially benefit from new land, no. First of all, there's a ton of land already available, this is a very rural area. Secondly, they're doing habitat restoration.
So they are getting paid for that work? There is the more salmon to catch angle but the are probably other benefits too. I would venture they have the most to gain from this
I dunno if they have the most to gain, but they certainly have a lot to gain. There's also sports fishermen that will benefit, as well as wildlife in general (eg osprey), and the associated tourism.
I think one important benefit to consider is that these projects can be seen as an attempt to correct historical wrongs done against native people in these areas.
Imagine if you were a Yurok person and your people lived for thousands of years, as a unique culture, and where substituting off of salmon was integral to that culture, only to have foreign invaders remove you from your lands, put you on reservations, and effectively destroy the lifeblood of your people by damming the rivers. Now imagine how after several generations this would damage your people as a group economically.
Given that history, it seems strange to question that the Yurok people might have financial "benefits" from this kind of project.
Take note that in part of the article they mention they are moving salmon to colder waters. Why are they doing that? The issue there is the river is running shallow due to the dams, the shallow depth allows the river water to be warmed beyond a point habitable for salmon runs.
Why is water depth so important? It's pretty well known how hot concrete can get when sitting in exposed California sun. If you have a water depth of a foot - that water is going to get really toasty.
There's quite a few resources regarding water temperatures and the effect it's having on salmon runs:
Fish ladders aren't magic. Find a photo of a salmon at the end of its migration: exhausted and thin after all that work. A fish ladder is better than nothing at all, but a terrible "solution".
And in the end the real issue is ecological restoration, of which salmon are only a part. Fortunately the case is easy for these dams because the dams don't pay for themselves.
In general dams are pretty terrible, but like so many things can be worth the tradeoff. But the "worth" involves human life (e.g. wiping out the hetch hetchy valley so that people on the SF peninsula can have water). But when there's no clear benefit at all, the downsides (buildup of heavy metals behind the dam, damage to fish and other wildlife, earthquake risks....) are decisive.
> “These dams provide no irrigation for agriculture, are not operated for flood control, and generate very little power,” explained KRRC Board president Brian Johnson.
Wow, interesting to see this on Hacker News of all places. I was recently at my niece's college graduation from U of Oregon and the commencement speaker was Amy Cordalis, the general counsel for the Yurok Tribe and woman largely responsible for bringing about this agreement to restore the Klamath River. Her tribe's creation myth involves the Salmon and their entire history and identity is heavily tied into fishing and the health of the river. Her uncle successfully litigated a Supreme Court case in the 70s affirming their tribe's sovereignty and rights to fish that river, which the State of California had tried to deny, arguing their land could not be considered tribal land because it had been opened by the state to homesteading in the 1890s (which violated a treaty from the 1850s declaring it a reservation in the first place). When she was an undergraduate, these dams caused the worst fish kill in US history and served as the inciting event leading to her becoming an attorney. Reclaiming the Klamath River and ensuring the health of the salmon population has been her life's work ever since.
Note they've actually had an agreement in place to remove the dams since 2008, but the first agreement depended on Congressional approval and Congress never voted on it. Then they reached a new agreement that only needed FERC approval, which they got, along with the endorsement of the Department of the Interior under the Obama administration, only to have that endorsement rescinded when Trump appointed a new secretary whose mandate was apparently "shit on everything done by Obama, no matter what it was."
So this is now finally happening after being dicked around for 15 years, with, of course, even that only happening after the US government giving away your land to other people so they can do things that erase your cultural identity and tribal sovereignty for 120 years.
17 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 47.1 ms ] threadAn article with more background: https://wildrivers.lostcoastoutpost.com/2023/mar/24/ground-h...
Here's a pretty good video on the habitat restoration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lX4gYJ3hicQ
Imagine if you were a Yurok person and your people lived for thousands of years, as a unique culture, and where substituting off of salmon was integral to that culture, only to have foreign invaders remove you from your lands, put you on reservations, and effectively destroy the lifeblood of your people by damming the rivers. Now imagine how after several generations this would damage your people as a group economically.
Given that history, it seems strange to question that the Yurok people might have financial "benefits" from this kind of project.
You can see pictures of what these elevated river temperatures do here: https://english.alarabiya.net/News/world/2021/08/02/Scorchin...
Why is water depth so important? It's pretty well known how hot concrete can get when sitting in exposed California sun. If you have a water depth of a foot - that water is going to get really toasty.
There's quite a few resources regarding water temperatures and the effect it's having on salmon runs:
- https://www.kiro7.com/news/salmon-threatened-hot-temperature...
- https://www.ucsrb.org/low-water-high-temperatures-drastic-ef...
And in the end the real issue is ecological restoration, of which salmon are only a part. Fortunately the case is easy for these dams because the dams don't pay for themselves.
In general dams are pretty terrible, but like so many things can be worth the tradeoff. But the "worth" involves human life (e.g. wiping out the hetch hetchy valley so that people on the SF peninsula can have water). But when there's no clear benefit at all, the downsides (buildup of heavy metals behind the dam, damage to fish and other wildlife, earthquake risks....) are decisive.
Note they've actually had an agreement in place to remove the dams since 2008, but the first agreement depended on Congressional approval and Congress never voted on it. Then they reached a new agreement that only needed FERC approval, which they got, along with the endorsement of the Department of the Interior under the Obama administration, only to have that endorsement rescinded when Trump appointed a new secretary whose mandate was apparently "shit on everything done by Obama, no matter what it was."
So this is now finally happening after being dicked around for 15 years, with, of course, even that only happening after the US government giving away your land to other people so they can do things that erase your cultural identity and tribal sovereignty for 120 years.