Long before I developed a genuine and informed concern about global warming, I had an aversion to the dams along the Columbia River that produce "clean" hydroelectric power.

You see, I've driven along I-84 in Oregon all my life; I was born in La Grande and my grandparents lived in Portland. More recently, my wife and I have driven between Jackson Hole and Portland at least once a year. Not a trip passes that I don't think about river features and cultural sites like Celilo Falls and the Indian village that was occupied for at least 11,000 years. Both were buried under water when The Dalles Dam was built in 1957.

Other folks have an aversion to hydroelectric dams for different reasons. For example: author David James Duncan laments the fact that

my generation is the last generation of salmon and steelhead fishermen that there will ever be in the interior of Idaho and eastern Washington and eastern Oregon.

And the environmentalists, American Indians and fisherman who are fighting to have four dams removed along the Klamath River in southern Oregon each have their own point of view:

Endangered salmon have been blocked from migrating, Indian livelihoods have been threatened, and, more recently, the commercial fishing industry off the Oregon and California coasts has been devastated. They say the dams are anything but clean. They say the river is a mess.

A recent New York Times story  presented those perspectives in juxtaposition to PacifiCorp's contention that

the dams provide a crucial source of so-called clean energy at a time when carbon emissions have become one of the world’s foremost environmental concerns.

The piece goes on to state the obvious:

Emphasizing an environmental argument that touches on climate change has added a new wrinkle to the longstanding debate over dam removal in the Pacific Northwest. In a region where plenty of residents measured their “carbon footprints” long before green became the new black, PacifiCorp is suggesting that righting one environmental wrong could lead to another, one that could affect people more than fish.

So, just how does one reconcile the benefits of hydroelectric energy with the dam's impacts on people and fish? Without drawing any conclusions, the Times story points out:

Salmon and air quality are not all that is at risk. The river and its dams support an elaborate irrigation system started by the federal government more than a century ago. Water from the river provides for about 240,000 acres of cattle pastures, alfalfa fields and other farming. It also flows through a wildlife preserve.

Clearly there is no simple solution to this quandary.

To paraphrase Oliver Hardy:

Here's another nice mess we've gotten ourselves into.

Carbon Neutral Journal's thoughts are brought to you by Hawtin Jorgensen Associates.

Popularity: 11%