New studies may lead to the removal of major US dams — here's what's happening
Dam removal projects across the United States are gaining support in order to boost aquatic animal populations, improve biodiversity, and restore natural features to their previous state.
One such initiative in Washington and Oregon is looking to breach four dams in the Snake River to elevate Pacific Northwest wild salmon and steelhead numbers.
However, with these dams supporting energy, irrigation, and transportation infrastructure, studies have been required to evaluate the wider potential impact of dam removal.
According to ICT, the first study revealed that removing the dams would not reduce the river's ability to provide water for irrigation or municipal or industrial purposes.
Meanwhile, studies focused on energy suggested that because the systems are old and unreliable, the dams' removal would not significantly reduce power production.
Further studies are forthcoming, including one that began in 2025 to analyze the effects of dam removal on freight volumes and the transportation network. But the findings so far are encouraging, especially with urgent action needed to support the salmon population.
Jay Hesse, a fish biologist for the Nez Perce Tribe, told ICT that the native populations of spring and summer Chinook salmon have diminished by more than 50%. The remaining 32 native populations have been listed as endangered species.
To put that into perspective, 1.9 million salmon passed through Bonneville Dam in 2024. That might sound like a lot, but compared to historical estimates of 8-16 million a year, that's an alarming drop.
The loss of Pacific salmon could dramatically impact the local ecosystem. They help cycle nutrients from oceans to freshwater streams, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and act as a food source for Southern Resident killer whales out at sea.
Not to mention the impact the loss of these fish would have on tribal communities, which is why members have been working with the U.S. government and relevant state departments on restoration efforts.
Should the government be able to control how we heat our homes?
Definitely
Only if it saves money
I'm not sure
No way
Click your choice to see results and speak your mind.
"For Snake Basin stocks, the heart of the resolution is to breach the four lower Snake River dams while taking care of the communities and services that those dams provide," Hesse told ICT.
Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- Yahoo
Eight US states seek to outlaw chemtrails – even though they aren't real
Political leaders love an empty statement or proclamation, but when Louisiana's state house of representatives moved against 'chemtrails' last week, they were literally seeking to combat something that does not exist. It was an act of political symbolism that delved deep into the sort of anti-government conspiracy theories that have flourished under Donald Trump and are taking rooting in some US legislative chambers across the US. Known to less conspiratorially minded as aircraft contrails, or the white vaporous lines streaming out of an airplane's engines at altitude, chemtrails are a longstanding conspiracy theory. Believers in chemtrails hold that the aircraft vapor trails that criss-cross skies across the globe every day are deliberately laden with toxins that are using commercial aircraft to spray them on people below, perhaps to enslave them to big pharma, or exert mind control, or sterilize people or even control the weather for nefarious motives. Despite the outlandishness of the belief and the complete absence of evidence, a 2016 study showed that the idea is held to be 'completely true' by 10% of Americans and 'somewhat true' by a further 20%-30% of Americans. At least eight states, including Florida and Tennessee, have now introduced chemtrail-coded legislation to prohibit 'geo-engineering' or 'weather modification'. Louisiana's bill, which must pass through the senate before reaching Governor Jeff Landry's desk, orders the department of environmental quality to record reported chemtrail sightings and pass complaints on to the Louisiana air national guard. While there are no penalties for violations, the bill calls for further investigation and documentation. Opponents fear it could be used to force airlines to re-route flights, challenge the location of airports and bring legal action against carriers. The US Environmental Protection Agency states that the plumes of aircraft exhaust vapor are a natural result of flight and pose no risk to weather patterns, while the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) has publicly denied undertaking or planning any weather modification experiments. But the theories abound, including that last year's Hurricane Helene stalled over and devastated parts of western North Carolina as a result of government weather interference that was designed to force North Carolinians off their land and then exploit it for rare earth mineral mining. Federal emergency managers set up a webpage to dispel false information. But government weather programs have existed in the past. For two decades, from 1962 to 1983, Project Stormfury conducted experiments to release a silver iodide compound into 'the belt of maximum winds' to reduce the strongest winds. And cloud-seeding occurs in western states to induce rain or snow fall. 'It's increasingly clear that humanity isn't merely subjected to whatever weather a cloud portends – we also create and influence it through our everyday actions,' says Nevada's Desert Research Institute. 'Scientists now regularly harness their moisture and pull it to Earth, bringing water to parched communities and landscapes around the world.' Nor has the government always been entirely straightforward in its use of aerial-dispersed chemicals. The US military dropped 19m gallons of herbicide, including the cancer-linked Agent Orange, during the Korean and Vietnam wars, leading to potential long-term health problems related to exposure and spina bifida in children of veterans. Efforts to stop geo-engineering are gaining support in the administration where conspiracy-minded politicians now hold office or wield powerful influence. 'We are going to stop this crime,' the health secretary, Robert F Kennedy Jr, posted on X in August. Georgia representative Marjorie Taylor Greene said in a post before Hurricane Milton struck in October: 'Yes they can control the weather. It's ridiculous for anyone to lie and say it can't be done.' Even Donald Trump has spread the conspiracy theory that Joe Biden is dead and has been replaced by a robotic clone. A recently published book, The Ghosts of Iron Mountain, traces at least some responsibility for current conspiratorial thinking to 1960s radicals, including the 1967 anti-war satire Report from Iron Mountain by Leonard Lewin, written at the suggestion of future Nation editor Victor Navasky, which posed as a leaked government study about the necessity of continuous war for social stability. In The Ghosts of Iron Mountain, author Phil Tinline traces how a leftwing hoax was adopted by the right, absorbing much of the former's anxieties about a military-industrial complex and elite control and repurposing it around 'the deep state' with its attendant spin-offs in QAnon and militia thinking. This mischief-making, Tinline writes, acts as a 'warning about the consequences that await if you don't keep an eye on the line between your deep story and how power works, and what the facts support'. Timothy Tangherlini, a professor at the Berkeley School of Information who studies the circulation of folklore, says the chemtrails conspiracy theory has a potent history because, like all folktales, it begins with a kernel of history truth – programs like Agent Orange – and speaks to potent contemporary fears. 'There are certain things that were sprayed by airplanes that did have a massive impact on the environment and on people's health,' he says, pointing out that Vietnam veterans had fallen sick and the US was revealed as having exposed them to cancer-causing agents and then covering it up. 'Fast-forward 50 years, there's a deep suspicion of the government and things that fly,' he said. Fear of things in the sky was evident in the hysteria late last year in the panic over drones that appeared over New Jersey, close to a nuclear power station and a military arsenal, which prompted a federal investigation that has yet to release its findings. Tangherlini called the cross-fertilization of theories, whether around chemtrails, vaccination hesitancy or any number of other fringe beliefs that have made their way into the American mainstream via the internet and social media, 'the wall of crazy'. 'Jets flying though the air and contrails of condensed water should not in any way be linked to disease, viruses, mind control, but you look at some of the extractions we get from our mining social media, and if it wasn't real you'd think your code wasn't working or in hysterics.' But narratively, Tangherlini pointed out: 'It's a very interesting thing to do – you can create this totalizing threat everywhere you look. What is the strategy for dealing with it? Call the FAA. No, the FAA is in on it. What can we do to protect our health? Well, the doctors and big pharma are in on it. So there is a siege mentality.'
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- Yahoo
From flames to Falls: Canada's Indigenous wildfire evacuees take refuge in Niagara
NIAGARA FALLS, Ontario (Reuters) -As wildfires engulfed Manitoba's remote north in late May, Joseph Garry, 63, fled the Mathias Colomb Cree Nation indigenous reserve, also known as Pukatawagan, on a helicopter. With other evacuees, he took three separate government flights before boarding a bus to find shelter in Niagara Falls, Canada's most popular tourist destination, some 2,000 kilometers from home. Scores of wildfires have swept across Canada since the start of May, forcing more than 30,000 people to evacuate in three provinces, spreading smoke into the United States, and disrupting crude oil and mining production. Indigenous communities have been hit especially hard. Although First Nations people make up only around 5% of Canada's population, they are among the most affected by this year's wildfires. Manitoba is struggling with its largest-ever fire evacuation effort. Early evacuees took shelter in community and sport centers in Winnipeg, but the province's cities are running out of space, forcing officials to turn to other locations such as Ontario's Niagara Falls, which has ample hotels. Around 2,000 evacuees from Manitoba and 500 from Northern Ontario are staying in four hotels in Niagara Falls, with more possibly arriving in coming days, according to Jo Zambito, chief of the Niagara Falls Fire Department. While the city is proud to help fellow Canadians during a crisis, Niagara Falls Mayor Jim Diodati urged the federal and provincial governments to consider alternative accommodations as peak tourism season approaches. Indigenous leaders in Manitoba have criticized both federal and provincial governments for inadequate communication and delays in delivering requested resources during the wildfire crisis, while Pukatawagan residents recounted a chaotic and frightening evacuation. Videos shared by residents with Reuters showed military and civilian helicopters buzzing back and forth over the remote community of roughly 3,000 people, landing on the school field as thick wildfire smoke enveloped the area and flames inched nearer, and dozens of people huddled inside a Chinook military helicopter. At one point, a pilot warned Garry and 100 others waiting to board that the fire was only half a kilometer away and being pushed closer by the wind. 'To tell you the truth, it's... It's scary. Not for myself, but for everybody else. Especially children,' Garry said, in tears while speaking at the hotel the federal government is housing him in. Garry, a manager at the local airfield, left all his belongings behind except for a few sets of clothing and was briefly separated from two of his daughters and their children. His 50-person extended family was later reunited in Niagara Falls. Vanessa Hart, 43, a stay-at-home mother from Pukatawagan who was evacuated to Niagara Falls, said that despite repeated pleas from their chief and council, help did not arrive for three to four days. She believes a faster evacuation could have prevented significant distress. "They didn't come and help right away," Hart said. Indigenous Services Canada, which managed the evacuation, said emergency response is a shared responsibility and first response is generally up to local authorities. "The Government of Canada is working alongside First Nation partners, as well as provincial and territorial counterparts, and continues to closely monitor the rapidly evolving wildfire situation across the country," the agency said in a statement. Manitoba's government said in an email that smoky conditions near Pukatawagan early in the emergency response prevented water bombers from providing vital air support. "They (planes) were grounded for all fires in the air support has been used extensively in the north whenever and wherever possible," it added. A date to return home for the evacuees in Niagara Falls is uncertain and depends on when plane and rail access are restored - possibly in one to two months. Wildfire response in First Nations communities has been "pretty chaotic," said Assembly of First Nations National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak. She called for more investment in basic infrastructure such as fire hydrants and fire trucks. "We need more coordination. And we've been asking for it for decades," she said. (Additional reporting by Anna Mehler Paperny; Editing by Caroline Stauffer and Nia Williams)
Boston Globe
2 days ago
- Boston Globe
It's a really bad time to be an expert in Washington
At the Pentagon, 14 advisory boards have been dismantled, with curt, thank-you-for-your-service notes sent to Democrats and Republicans alike. Some of the boards dealt with obscure matters. But others focused on vital issues, like rethinking the U.S. nuclear arsenal as China's nuclear buildup, Russian President Vladimir Putin's episodic nuclear threats and Trump's ambitious demand for a 'Golden Dome' missile defense system have changed the nature of nuclear strategy. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Also gone: the board of experts who were trying to learn lessons from China's astoundingly successful hack into the country's telecommunications networks -- where, by all accounts, the hackers remain to this day. Then came historians at the State Department and the climate specialists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which employed experts in weather, oceans, climate and biodiversity. Advertisement The National Weather Service lost so many people that the agency had to hire some back. No such luck for researchers relying on the National Science Foundation, where projects are disappearing every month. Advertisement No one killed off the expert advisory board at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as it deliberated whether healthy children should receive the COVID vaccine. They did not have to. While it weighed the pros and cons, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his colleagues announced that they had already made their decision. When the history of these tumultuous past four months is written, it will doubtless focus on the moments when teams from the Department of Government Efficiency shut down the U.S. Agency for International Development, when the president issued tariff threats to much of the world and when he went to war with Harvard. Less noticed, perhaps, may be the devastation of the expert class, which once dominated the city, moving between think tanks and government offices, generating alternative views in its best moments, engaging in groupthink at its worst. Today, the experts are swelling the ranks of Washington's suddenly unemployed. To the MAGA faithful, each one of these disbanded groups is a victory for a trimmer government that follows the president's wishes. To them, the National Security Council was the heart of the so-called deep state, whose members testified against Trump during his first impeachment inquiry. The raft of advisory committees mostly slowed down decision-making, they argued, when they were not undercutting policies they did not like. Worse yet, they were the source of leaks. So if an advisory committee of experts was not needed to help James K. Polk, the 11th president, figure out how to spread the United States to the West Coast, why do we need them to figure out the strategy for adding Greenland and Canada? (The expansionist Polk has been restored to a place of pride in the Oval Office -- his portrait now hangs just below and to the right of Thomas Jefferson's.) Advertisement Part of Trump's problem with experts is their portrayal as neutral arbiters, more interested in the data than presidential spin. That is what has led to the White House this week trying to discredit the Congressional Budget Office, which concluded that, yes, the new tax bill could really add $2.4 trillion to the national debt, no matter the spin. Lacking the authority to fire the budget experts there, the White House turned to casting them as politically biased. And while every new president replaces board members and demands some fealty to the new leader's ideology, what has happened in the past four months seems to some in the federal government more like China's cultural revolution, where the only good ideas are the ones that flow from the leader, and both research reports and intelligence findings should support the president's desires. And when they are not, trouble follows. Just ask the National Intelligence Council, a small subset of intelligence experts -- many drawn from academia -- what happened when it came to the conclusion that the Venezuelan government was not controlling a criminal gang, an argument that Trump had used to justify deportations. The experts were told to 'do some rewriting' so the material could not be used against the president and Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence. After the intelligence findings were left unchanged, the board's leadership resisted and was removed. The whole institution is being moved into Gabbard's organization, where its independent judgments can be better controlled. Advertisement At the Environmental Protection Agency, self-protective action has replaced scientific inquiry. 'We've taken the words 'climate' and 'green energy' off every project document,' one scientist still in the government's employ said recently, refusing to speak on the record for obvious reasons. Veterans of Trump's first term say these changes are a manifestation of the president's bitter memories. 'I think somebody convinced President Trump, based on his experience in his first administration, that his own staff would be the biggest obstructionists,' H.R. McMaster, Trump's second national security adviser, said at a conference on artificial intelligence and national security Wednesday. (Trump's current national security adviser, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, is one of around a half dozen across both terms.) While McMaster, now at Stanford, said he did not object to shrinking the National Security Council staff, he worried that also lost would be the capacity to run 'a deliberative process, which I think would be kind of nice on some of these issues, like tariffs, to clarify what you are trying to achieve.' 'Deliberative process' appears to be exactly what Trump is trying to avoid. And if that means eviscerating the expert class, so be it. It helps explain why the Department of Government Efficiency was given license to wipe out USAID. McMaster is hardly alone in concluding that some of the aid agency's programs had 'drifted.' Many Democrats say they agree, though almost never on the record. But McMaster gave voice to the question raised all over Washington when he asked, 'Should you just crush the entire organization or recognize there is a mission for that organization to advance American interests?' It was crushed, with foreign service officers, child health experts and others locked out of the offices. And that has led to both professional and personal angst. Advertisement 'If you work in the field of maternal and child health, you are in trouble,' said Jessica Harrison Fullerton, a managing director at the Global Development Incubator, a nonprofit that is trying to fill some of the gaps USAID's dismantlement left. 'Not only are you devastated by the impacts on the people you have been serving, but your expertise is now being questioned and your ability to use that expertise is limited because the jobs are gone.' In fact, what many of Washington's experts discovered was that crushing the organizations -- and putting their experts out on the street -- was the point of the exercise. It helped create a frisson of fear, and reinforced the message of who was in control. It has also led to warnings from more traditional Republicans that Trump's demand for loyalty over analysis is creating a trap for himself. 'Groupthink and a blinkered mindset are dangers for any administration,' said Richard Fontaine, the CEO of the Center for a New American Security, which, in the days of bipartisanship, described itself as a bipartisan think tank. 'Pulling from multiple sources in and outside of government to develop solid options for foreign policy decision makers is the way to go.' Well, maybe in the Washington of a previous era. Within a 200-yard radius of USAID, DOGE teams moved into the Wilson Center, a nonpartisan foreign policy think tank that had significant private funding and money from Congress. They shuttered it, from its Cold War archives to the Kennan Institute, one of the country's leading collections of scholars about Russia. At a moment when superpower conflict is back, it was the kind of place that presented alternative views. Advertisement DOGE was unimpressed. Like their USAID colleagues in another part of the Ronald Reagan Building, they were soon stuffing their notes into cartons and discovering their computer access had been shut down. (The Wilson Center also sponsored book writers, including some from The New York Times.) The war on expertise has raised some fundamental questions that may not be answerable until after the Trump administration is over. Will the experts stick around -- after hiding out in the private sector or changing professions -- only to reoccupy the 'swamp'? And more immediately, what damage is being done in what may be the country's defining challenge: the competition with China over artificial intelligence, autonomous weapons, electric vehicles, quantum computing? That is what many in the intelligence agencies worry about, not least because Europe is already openly recruiting disillusioned American scientists, and China's intelligence services are looking for the angry and abandoned. Graham Allison, a Harvard professor who writes often on the U.S.-China technological and military competitions, told an audience at the AI Summit on Wednesday that America is not acting like it understands that 'China has emerged as a full-spectrum competitor.' 'Our secret sauce,' he said, has been the American ability to 'recruit the most talented people in the world. Einstein didn't come from America.' 'The idea that we would be taking action that would undermine that makes no sense to any strategic thinker,' he said. Of course, those strategic thinkers rank among the suspect class of Washington experts. This article originally appeared in
