Thumbs up, with a caveat

Redding.com's Bruce Ross points out that the peer review of the draft overview of the Klamath dam removal studies did urge the government not to gloss over uncertainties about the project, particularly when it comes to benefits to fish. The review states:

Recommendation: Edit the Overview Report to clarify the distinction between responses known with high certainty versus those that have, and always will have, high uncertainties associated with them. This is particularly critical for the discussion of expected responses of fish populations to restoration.

The uncertainties were a key topic in a study by six experts on chinook salmon hired by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The panel warned in their report last summer that the degree of success would depend on how well numerous factors are addressed, including water quality, fish disease, the straying of hatchery salmon to wild spawning grounds and predation by redband trout and other fish.

Bruce writes:

You know, life is uncertain. Nature is not a test tube. There's no way we can know with precision how dynamic systems will respond to change --- even when that change aims to help.

At the same time, dam removal would be an easier (not to say easy) sell if it were just more clear that, after spending a billion dollars on the river, we'd be relatively certain to meet our goals.

A good point, although some would say we're not totally blind as to what would happen if the dams were gone. We have the record of history, after all. There was a river for thousands of years before there were dams, and there were salmon, too. There weren't the farms we have today, but what good are dams when the farmers in the area are receiving zero water as they did in 2001?

There are unknowns, to be certain. I guess that's why they've taken two-plus years and employed hundreds of people who are way smarter than me to try to figure all of it out.