This Activist Push To Destroy Dams Won't Save Fish—but It Will Waste Resources
Some politicians and environmentalists want to tear down Snake River dams in Washington state, even though they generate tons of electricity.

Instead of using fossil fuels, we're told to use "clean" energy: wind, solar, or hydropower.
Hydro is the most reliable. Unlike wind and sunlight, it flows steadily.
But now, environmental groups want to destroy dams that create hydropower.
"Breach those dams," an activist shouts in my new video. "Now is the time, our fish are on the line!"
The activists have targeted four dams on the Snake River in Washington state. They claim the dams are driving salmon to extinction.
It's true that dams once killed lots of salmon. Pregnant fish need to swim upriver to have babies, and their babies swim downriver to the ocean.
Suddenly, dams were in the way.
Salmon population dropped sharply.
But that was in the 1970s.
Today, most salmon make it past the dam without trouble.
How?
Fish-protecting innovations like fish ladders and spillways guide most of the salmon away from the turbines that generate electricity.
"Between 96 percent and 98 percent of the salmon successfully pass each dam," says Todd Myers, Environmental Director at the Washington Policy Center.
Even federal scientific agencies now say we can leave dams alone and fish will be fine.
But environmental groups don't raise money by acknowledging good news.
"Snake River Salmon Are in Crisis," reads a headline from Earthjustice.
Gullible media fall for it.
The Snake River is the "most endangered in the country!" claimed the evening news anchor.
"That's simply not true," Myers explains. "All you have to do is look at the actual population numbers to know that that's absurd."
Utterly absurd. In recent years, salmon populations are higher than they were in the 1980s and 90s.
"They make these claims," Myers says, "because they know people will believe them….They don't want to believe that their favorite environmental group is dishonest."
But many are.
In 1999, environmental groups bought an ad in The New York Times saying "salmon…will be extinct by 2017."
"Did the environmentalists apologize?" I ask Meyers.
"No," he says. "They repeat almost the exact same arguments today. They just changed the dates.
I invited 10 activist groups that want to destroy dams to come to my studio and defend their claims about salmon extinction. Not one agreed.
I understand why. They've already convinced the public and gullible politicians.
Idaho's Republican Congressman Mike Simpson says, "There is no viable path that can allow us to keep the dams in place."
"We keep doing dumb things," says Myers. "We put money into places where it doesn't have an environmental impact, and then we wonder 10, 20, 30 years [later] why we haven't made any environmental progress."
Politicians and activists want to tear down Snake River dams even though they generate tons of electricity.
"Almost the same amount as all of the wind and solar turbines in Washington state," says Myers. "Imagine if I told the environmental community we need to tear down every wind turbine and every solar panel. They would lose their minds. But that's essentially what they're advocating by tearing down Snake River dams."
I push back: "They say, 'Just build more wind turbines.'"
"The problem is, several times a year, there's no wind," he replies. "You could build 10 times as many wind turbines, but if there's no wind, there's no electricity."
Hydro, on the other hand, "can turn on and off whenever it's needed. Destroying hydro and replacing it with wind makes absolutely no sense. It will do serious damage to our electrical grid."
"It's not their money," I point out.
"Exactly," he says. "If you want to spend $35 billion on salmon, there's lots of things we can do that would have a real impact."
Like what?
"[Reduce the population of] seals and sea lions," he says, "The Washington Academy of Sciences says that unless we reduce the populations, we will not recover salmon."
"People used to hunt sea lions," I note.
"Yeah, that's why the populations are higher today."
But environmentalists don't want people to hunt sea lions or seals. Instead, they push for destruction of dams.
"Because it's sexy and dramatic, it sells," says Myers. "It's more about feeling good than environmental results."
COPYRIGHT 2024 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Environmentalists just want to destroy civilization.
^THIS +100000000
They think Thanos only took half-measures.
Anyone have recipes for sea lion?
They smell bad. Turn them into dog food! And-or soap and fertilizer.
(The bastards have learned to camp out at the foot of fish ladders and poach fish all day. Without ANY fishing licenses! Government Almighty knows how much money's worth of fish they consume... Fish that we spend a LOT of money molly-coddling. You go and catch that many fish for YOUR consumption, and see what Government Almighty does to YOU! WHY does Government Almighty love sea lions more than you or me?)
Just how .much is one ton of electricity? 1 ton of water elevated to dam level?
I once had a sales rep tell me the drive belt he was selling me for a project would "hold a ton." I sad " what? It needs to be rated at 6,000 lbs. We just discussed this!!". He quickly backtracked that statement.
I don't particularly like a lot of dams, the politics behind building and locating them, the way they silt up and block river flow. The only case I have any remnant memory of was a proposed dam in Auburn, CA, which (says memory) would have cost several times as much as raising a nearby dam by 6 feet for the same water storage, because the Auburn dam would have corked up a narrow steep river canyon. But the politicians loved it because it would have made the unions and other cronies much happier. It did get stopped eventually, but because the river rats raised such a stink about flooding that canyon and blocking rafters, not because it was a stupid place for a dam.
The only good to come out of it was raising a bridge which is one of the highest in the world, and was in one of the Fast and Furious movie openings with a Corvette flying off. I knew a guy who used to jump his hang glider off the bridge, and others who used to recycle Halloween pumpkins from it.
But dams are far less obnoxious than wind turbines and solar panels, and their power output doesn't fluctuate by the second. Getting rid of already built dams is just plain stupid.
I don’t particularly like a lot of dams, the politics behind building and locating them, the way they silt up and block river flow.
[tilts hand] The alternative is not 100% private individuals living on the space occupying what would be a lake. The alternative is some percentage of individuals living on space prone to mudslides and flooding at a percentage subsidized by the larger community or state.
Not saying the dams *should* be built, just that the status quo isn't/wasn't exactly grift-free to begin with and more stable water levels and power have their own inherent value to everyone.
There's too much political and economic capital tied up in dams to elimate most of them. The greenies have had more success targeting smaller dams or lawfaring new ones from being built. But anyone thinking the Snake River dams or ones like Glen Canyon Dam are going to be torn down are fucking delusional. The only way those things come down is if the population of the US decreases by 90%, and there's no one to maintain the infrastructure.
Over the last 30 years California has torn down many dams. The same dams that retained water from rains and snow. Now every year they claim that they have a drought, because that water just flows into the ocean instead of being retained.
lots of people have jumped off that bridge without parachutes tragiclly
Yeah, more wind turbines, those don't do any harm at all, except for being placed in the perfect location to kill birds using the very wind that the machine is supposed to be cleanly harvesting.
And solar panels, love those too, no problem there aside from the acreage they turn into an ecological desert (and how do they keep the weeds and trees down around them? armies of environmentalists with hoes and bow saws? more likely herbicides... just sayin')
Windmills kill some 2 million birds every year (the extreme high end estimate). That compares extremely favorably to the 2 billion birds killed by house cats annually.
"...They don't want to believe that their favorite environmental group is dishonest."
I'm certain there has been at least one watermelon claim which wasn't a blatant falsehood, but damned if I can remember it.
Like electric vehicle mandates, environmentalists just want to hurt industrial civilization.
And a good bit of the government is willing to provide the coercion to make that happen.
Wish it was that insidious but it isn't. They like everyone else likes to make money and the way they make money is either convincing people to give to their cause or through lawyer fees via litigation.
Here is my question if they made these claims and the claims can be proven false why can't anyone who has either given to their cause or those effected by the destruction or even the plan destruction of the dams sue them. Seems to me both have legitimate claims. The way to take these guys on is to screw with their money.
That day 'progressives' turned to total destruction.
Well its not the first 'human sacrificing' religion ever seen.
But perhaps it's the first USA Gov-Gun backed religion of 'human sacrifice'.
As [Na]tional So[zi]alist[s] continue to repeat their horror-stains on humanity over and over and over and over again.
I read something recently about a dam that was removed (in CA I believe). Rather than saving fish it released so much silt and sediment that it killed all the fish downstream and made a big mess of everything. I'm sure over time things will get back to somewhat normal there, but it's a great illustration of how little people think of the second and higher order consequences of things like this.
California still holds the peak stupid title belt though.
Decommission your nuclear power plants.
Destroy your dams and hydroelectric power plants.
Mandate electric-only home appliances.
Remove your clean energy options, then increase the loading on the electrical grid.
Environmental extremists cover a broad range from those that wish to ignore human's impacts to those that naively believe humans should have no impact. Moderation is critical to achieving smart environmental policies. Policies that get the most energy with the smallest impact. The dam is in place and the fish ladder mitigates some of the impact on spanning salmon. Seem like middle ground. John Stossel did not mention this but there are often cultural impacts to deal with where fisheries are concerned. Often commercial fishermen, sport fishermen, and indigenous fishermen are competing for a resource and decrease fish numbers cause tensions. As for the sea lions, well if the population needs management then I support hunting. If the sea lions are just taking their share, I say accept it and leave them alone.
you can't save teh Salmon when fish and game is specificlly limited the number of salmon. there would not be shortage if F&G didn't limit the number of eggs they collect and hatch. nature doesn't limit the eggs but we do
"It's more about feeling good than environmental results."
You are too kind. It is about CONTROL.