Inside the decades-long fight to tear down the Klamath dams – Grist

During this time, the Klamath River Basin faced a water crisis as competing demands for water from farmers, ranchers, fishermen, and conservationists clashed. Drought conditions exacerbated the situation, leading to fish die-offs and water shortages. The Klamath Tribes found themselves in the middle of this conflict, advocating for their rights to water for sustenance and cultural practices.

Mitchell, now in a position of leadership, sought to find a solution that would benefit all parties involved. He worked tirelessly to negotiate agreements that would allocate water fairly and protect the river ecosystem. His efforts led to the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, a landmark deal that aimed to balance the needs of agriculture, conservation, and tribal communities.

The agreement faced opposition from various stakeholders, but Mitchell remained steadfast in his commitment to finding a resolution. He believed that the health of the river was essential not only for the survival of the Klamath Tribes but also for the well-being of the entire region.

In 2010, the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement was signed, marking a significant milestone in the long struggle for water rights and environmental justice. The agreement provided for the removal of four hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River, allowing for the restoration of salmon habitat and the revival of the once-thriving fish population.

Mitchell’s leadership and dedication were instrumental in bringing about this historic agreement. His knowledge of tribal history, legal expertise, and passion for environmental conservation were key factors in the successful outcome. The removal of the dams represented a victory not only for the Klamath Tribes but also for the preservation of a vital ecosystem for future generations.

Today, Mitchell continues to be involved in tribal governance and environmental advocacy. His journey from a young paralegal to a respected tribal leader is a testament to his unwavering commitment to his community and the land. The legacy of his efforts will endure in the restored waters of the Klamath River, ensuring a sustainable future for all who depend on its resources.

There was also Frankie Myers, a Yurok Tribal Council member, who remembered his grandmother telling him stories of the river filled with so many salmon that you could walk across their backs. But now, the salmon were disappearing, and with them, a way of life. 

As the meetings continued, it became clear that the tribes were united in their goal to restore the salmon runs in the Klamath River. They knew that fish ladders were essential to achieving this, allowing the salmon to bypass the dams and reach their spawning grounds. The tribes also wanted to ensure that water quality in the river was improved, as toxic algae blooms had been a growing concern for years.

PacifiCorp listened to the tribes’ concerns and agreed to include fish ladders in their dam relicensing application. This was a major victory for the tribes, who had been fighting for decades to restore the health of the Klamath River and its salmon runs. The company also committed to improving water quality in the river and working with tribal members to monitor the river’s health.

For the first time in generations, the Klamath Tribes saw a glimmer of hope for the future of their river and the salmon that had sustained their people for thousands of years. By coming together and speaking with a united voice, they were able to make a real difference in the management of the Klamath dams and the health of the river. This collaboration between the tribes and PacifiCorp marked a turning point in the long history of conflict over the Klamath River and showed that when different groups come together to work towards a common goal, positive change is possible.

As the meetings drew to a close, Jeff Mitchell reflected on the journey that had brought them to this point. He thought about the generations of tribal members who had fought to protect the Klamath River and the salmon that called it home. He knew that there was still much work to be done, but he was hopeful that by continuing to work together, they could ensure a healthy future for the river and all who depended on it.

And so, the Klamath Tribes left the meetings with a renewed sense of purpose and a commitment to continue advocating for the health of the Klamath River. They knew that their voices had been heard and that by working together, they could make a real difference in the future of their river and their people.

Many of them watched helplessly as their crops withered and died, their livelihoods disappearing before their eyes. The community was in turmoil, with tensions running high between farmers, tribal members, and environmentalists.

Amidst this chaos, the tribes saw an opportunity to push their agenda for dam removal. They argued that the dams were exacerbating the water crisis by blocking fish passage and degrading water quality. As the Klamath River struggled to support its struggling salmon populations, the tribes knew that something had to change.

The year 2001 also brought a turning point in the fight for dam removal. A group of environmentalists and tribal members gathered at the mouth of the Klamath River to protest the continued operation of the dams. They held signs, chanted slogans, and spoke passionately about the need to restore the river to its natural state. The event garnered national attention and put pressure on PacifiCorp to reconsider their position.

Meanwhile, Pierce continued to advocate for the removal of all four dams. Despite her failing health, she remained a fierce and determined leader, inspiring those around her to keep fighting. Her vision of a free-flowing Klamath River, teeming with salmon once again, fueled the campaign for dam removal and gave hope to those who had been fighting for years.

As the drought dragged on and the Klamath River continued to suffer, the tribes and their allies ramped up their efforts. They lobbied politicians, organized protests, and launched media campaigns to raise awareness about the dam removal issue. Slowly but surely, their message began to resonate with the public, and support for their cause grew.

In the end, it was a combination of political pressure, public outcry, and sheer determination that led to the historic agreement to remove the dams. In 2020, after years of negotiations and legal battles, PacifiCorp finally agreed to decommission the four dams on the Klamath River. It was a victory for the tribes, for the environment, and for all those who had fought so hard for this moment.

Today, the Klamath River flows freely once again, its waters teeming with salmon and other fish. The removal of the dams has allowed the river to return to its natural state, restoring vital habitat for wildlife and providing economic opportunities for the tribes that depend on its resources.

As for Ronnie Pierce, her legacy lives on in the free-flowing waters of the Klamath River. Her determination and passion were instrumental in the fight for dam removal, and her spirit continues to inspire those who strive to protect our natural world. The fish that were once given away or used in ceremonies now have a chance to make it home, thanks to the tireless efforts of Pierce and others who fought for their survival.

They were there to confront PacifiCorp and its relicensing of the Klamath dams, a process that would determine whether or not the company could continue to operate the dams for another 30 to 50 years. The tribes were armed not with weapons, but with binders and documents, ready to present their case against the company.

The meeting was tense. Tribal members spoke of the devastation they had witnessed firsthand, of the dead salmon littering the riverbanks, of the ecological crisis that had unfolded before their eyes. They demanded that PacifiCorp fulfill its promise to build fish ladders and mitigate the environmental impact of the dams.

After hours of negotiation, PacifiCorp finally relented. The company agreed to build fish ladders on three of the four dams, a victory for the tribes and the environment. It was a hard-fought battle, but one that showed the power of collective action and the determination of those fighting for justice.

The fight over the Klamath River was a turning point in the history of environmental justice. It exposed the deep-seated inequalities and injustices that underlie our society, and it showed that when people come together to fight for what is right, change is possible. The tribes of the Klamath stood up for their rights and their environment, and in doing so, they set a powerful example for all of us. They had made donations to the American Indian College Fund and supported Native American causes. So, the tribal leaders decided to appeal to Buffett’s sense of philanthropy and moral responsibility.

In May 2006, Mitchell, Fletcher, and other tribal leaders traveled to Berkshire Hathaway’s annual shareholder meeting in Omaha, Nebraska. They stood outside the convention center holding signs that read, “Warren, be a pal, give salmon a chance!” and “Buffett: Help us save the Klamath River!” They handed out pamphlets detailing the plight of the river and its salmon to shareholders as they entered the meeting.

Inside, during the question-and-answer session, Mitchell stood up and addressed Buffett directly. He spoke about the cultural significance of the salmon to the tribes and the devastating impact of the dams on their way of life. He appealed to Buffett’s reputation as a philanthropist and asked him to do the right thing by removing the dams.

To their surprise, Buffett listened intently to their presentation. After the meeting, he approached Mitchell and Fletcher and invited them to a private meeting. In that meeting, Buffett expressed his admiration for the tribes’ dedication to preserving their culture and way of life. He acknowledged the importance of the salmon to the tribes and agreed to consider their request for dam removal.

In the months that followed, negotiations between the tribes, PacifiCorp, and Berkshire Hathaway intensified. Finally, in 2021, after years of advocacy, legal battles, and negotiations, an agreement was reached. Berkshire Hathaway agreed to remove four dams on the Klamath River, a historic victory for the tribes and their allies.

The removal of the dams marked the beginning of a new chapter for the Klamath River and its salmon. The tribes celebrated the restoration of the river’s ecosystem and the return of the salmon to their ancestral spawning grounds. It was a triumph of perseverance, solidarity, and the power of grassroots activism in the face of corporate greed.

As Mitchell and Fletcher stood on the banks of the Klamath River, watching the salmon leap once again, they knew that their fight had been worth it. They had stood up to corporate giants, crossed oceans, and appealed to the conscience of billionaires to protect their way of life and the natural world. And in the end, they had prevailed.

Warren Buffett’s youngest son, Peter, left a lasting impact on the Native American community through his musical compositions and philanthropic efforts. His work on the film “Dances With Wolves” and the documentary on Native Americans showcased his talent as a composer and his commitment to highlighting Indigenous culture.

Peter and his brother, Howard, co-sponsored the Buffett Award for Indigenous Leadership, which aimed to recognize and support Indigenous leaders making a difference in their communities. One of the nominees for the award was Leaf Hillman, known for his efforts in restoring salmon populations in the Klamath region. However, an unintentional leak to the media about Hillman’s nomination led to a premature buzz that ultimately affected his chances of winning the prize.

The Klamath tribes, including the Hillman family, embarked on a relentless campaign to bring attention to the detrimental effects of the dams in the area. Despite facing backlash and resistance, they continued to push for environmental reforms and dam removal. By highlighting the economic inefficiencies and ecological harm caused by the dams, they aimed to persuade Berkshire Hathaway to consider a more sustainable approach.

Through strategic legal maneuvers and public protests, the tribes successfully influenced federal agencies to impose stricter regulations on PacifiCorp, the company operating the dams. These new requirements added significant costs to the company and raised questions about the viability of the dam operations. The tribes’ persistence and dedication to protecting their land and resources eventually led to a favorable ruling against PacifiCorp in a crucial FERC hearing.

The judge’s decision in 2006 marked a significant turning point in the tribes’ fight for environmental justice. With the dams now facing costly improvements and mounting pressure from regulatory agencies, the tribes had finally gained the leverage they needed to push for dam removal and restoration efforts in the Klamath Basin. Warren Buffett’s family legacy, through Peter’s musical contributions and the Buffett Award for Indigenous Leadership, played a part in supporting the ongoing efforts of Indigenous communities fighting for environmental conservation and sustainability. After years of legal battles and mounting costs, PacifiCorp found itself at a crossroads in its efforts to continue operating dams on the Klamath River. The company faced the prospect of having to fix significant issues on the river in order to secure a new license, but the costs and risks associated with this path were becoming increasingly daunting.

In response to the situation, PacifiCorp appointed Andrea Kelly, an experienced company veteran and expert in utility law, to find a solution. Kelly was tasked with exploring potential settlements that would maximize revenue for PacifiCorp while minimizing costs associated with regulatory compliance, legal fees, and reputation management.

Despite initial reluctance to consider dam removal as a viable option, Kelly eventually commissioned a confidential study in 2007 to compare the costs of dam removal with those of implementing fish ladders and river cleanup as demanded by federal agencies. The study revealed that meeting the agencies’ conditions would be significantly more expensive than removing the dams, provided that PacifiCorp did not have to cover the entire removal bill.

Moreover, the study highlighted the substantial financial risks associated with attempting to relicense the dams. The ongoing controversy surrounding the dams had made the relicensing process highly contentious, with little guarantee of success. The potential for additional protests and litigation meant that PacifiCorp would likely face significant additional costs to navigate the relicensing process, with no assurance of a favorable outcome.

Given these factors, PacifiCorp realized that the most prudent course of action was to explore options for dam removal as a means of protecting its customers and investors from the escalating costs and uncertainties associated with relicensing.

Meanwhile, as PacifiCorp grappled with these challenges, tribal leaders and farmers in the Klamath Basin were working to forge a truce after years of conflict over water rights. Troy Fletcher, the Yurok Tribe executive director, had long been engaged in battles with farmers over water allocations for fisheries. Recognizing the futility of ongoing animosity, Fletcher proposed a truce during meetings with farmers, advocating for dialogue and cooperation to resolve water disputes.

Fletcher’s outreach to Greg Addington, a veteran farm lobbyist representing Klamath farmers, laid the groundwork for a potential alliance between the tribes and farmers. Fletcher offered support for continued power subsidies for farmers in exchange for their support for dam removal. Recognizing a common interest in addressing water issues and avoiding bankruptcy, Fletcher and Addington began discussions that could potentially lead to a mutually beneficial resolution.

By seeking common ground and exploring innovative solutions, PacifiCorp and stakeholders in the Klamath Basin were taking steps towards addressing longstanding challenges and finding a path forward that could benefit both the environment and local communities. Through collaboration and creative problem-solving, a new chapter in the Klamath River saga was beginning to unfold. After intense negotiations, a breakthrough was finally reached. The agreement stipulated that the dams would be removed, and the costs would be covered by a combination of state bonds and funds from PacifiCorp’s customers. This solution was a win-win for all parties involved, as it would benefit both the farmers and the tribes while also addressing environmental concerns.

The removal of the dams was a crucial step towards restoring the health of the Klamath River ecosystem. The dams had long been a barrier to fish migration, leading to a decline in fish populations and threatening the livelihoods of Indigenous communities that relied on the river for sustenance. By removing the dams, the river would be able to flow freely once again, allowing fish to migrate and spawn as they had done for centuries.

The agreement was a testament to the power of collaboration and dialogue in resolving complex environmental issues. By coming together and finding common ground, the farmers, tribes, environmentalists, and fish advocacy organizations were able to reach a comprehensive settlement that addressed the needs of all stakeholders. This marked a new chapter in the long-standing fight for the Klamath River, one that prioritized cooperation over conflict.

As the dams were finally removed, there was a sense of hope and optimism in the Klamath Basin. The river had been a source of contention and division for far too long, but now there was a chance for healing and reconciliation. The removal of the dams was a symbol of progress and unity, a sign that when people come together with a common goal, anything is possible.

The legacy of the Klamath settlement would be felt for generations to come. It was a reminder that even the most entrenched conflicts can be resolved through dialogue and compromise. The farmers and tribes had shown that they were willing to set aside their differences and work towards a shared future for the Klamath River. In doing so, they had set an example for others to follow in the fight for environmental justice and sustainability. The Klamath River Basin settlement deal, which aimed to remove four PacifiCorp dams from the Klamath River and restore the ecosystem, was a result of intense negotiations and compromise. After days of discussions, the parties agreed that the federal Bureau of Reclamation would remove the dams and assume the risk, a decision that required both parties to “man up and put something real on the table.”

Interior Secretary Kempthorne presented the framework to President Bush, who approved the deal despite Cheney’s previous actions to protect Klamath farmers. The settlement was hailed as a model of cooperation between federal, state, and private entities. The deal included provisions for dam removal, restoration funding, water guarantees for farmers, protection of fish during droughts, and returning land to the Klamath Tribes.

While the majority of stakeholders supported the deal, some residents and the Hoopa Tribe expressed discontent with certain aspects. Despite reservations, Jeff Mitchell believed that the benefits of the deal outweighed the costs, especially in terms of restoring the watershed and preserving fish habitats.

The final step was to secure approval from Congress for the settlement, which would unlock a billion-dollar restoration fund. However, the road ahead was fraught with challenges as the 2010 midterm elections saw a wave of far-right Tea Party members entering Congress. This political shift threatened to derail the settlement deal and jeopardize the years of hard work put into negotiating the agreement.

Despite the uncertainty, stakeholders remained hopeful that Congress would see the value in the settlement and prioritize the restoration of the Klamath River ecosystem. The fate of the Klamath River Basin hung in the balance as the future of the settlement deal awaited the decision of the newly elected Congress. The scorched-earth opposition to the Obama administration’s agenda by some members of Congress had far-reaching impacts, affecting bipartisan achievements like the Klamath deal. Despite its origins during the Bush administration, the deal faced significant challenges due to the political climate.

Leaf Hillman, the former vice chairman of the Karuk Tribal Council, highlighted the obstructionist tactics employed by Congress during the Obama administration. He noted that there was a deliberate effort to block any potential positive legacy for President Obama, leading to a gridlock on important issues.

The Klamath deal, like many legal settlements, had an expiration date that loomed in 2012. With Congress failing to ratify the agreement, the parties involved would have to start negotiations all over again. The Republican resurgence after the 2010 election created additional hurdles for the deal, particularly with influential leaders like Greg Walden from Oregon playing a key role.

Greg Walden, a longstanding congressman representing the Oregon side of the Klamath Basin, initially expressed support for the Klamath settlement when it was first crafted in 2008. However, despite assurances to help push the agreement through Congress, Walden failed to deliver on his promise. His inaction drew criticism from various stakeholders, including farmers, tribal leaders, and elected officials, who saw Walden as a major obstacle to progress.

In an attempt to address concerns raised by Walden about the inclusivity of the settlement, Oregon’s governor tasked Richard Whitman with negotiating a separate deal to resolve water conflicts with a group of farmers and ranchers. Despite reaching an agreement with the holdouts, Walden still did not move forward with the broader Klamath deal.

Walden defended his actions by pointing to the political realities in Congress, citing opposition to dam removal provisions from key committee members. The lack of support from Walden and other influential lawmakers stalled progress on the Klamath deal, leaving advocates for dam removal frustrated and running out of time.

As the deadline for the deal approached, advocates intensified their pressure campaign, holding rallies, boosting awareness campaigns, and organizing meetings with stakeholders. Despite their efforts, Congress remained deadlocked on the issue, ultimately leading to the expiration of the Klamath deal.

The failure to ratify the Klamath deal underscored the challenges of navigating partisan politics and entrenched interests in Congress. The legacy of obstructionism during the Obama administration cast a long shadow over bipartisan efforts, leaving important issues unresolved and communities impacted by the lack of progress. One potential solution that had been considered in the past was for the federal government to take over the dams and remove them. This proposal had been dismissed by stakeholders as too costly and complicated, but with the settlement on the brink of collapse, it was the only option left on the table.

In the wake of Fletcher’s death and the imminent expiration of the settlement, the Yurok, Karuk, and Klamath Tribes, along with environmental groups and other stakeholders, began to rally around the idea of federal involvement. They argued that the federal government had a responsibility to protect the river and the communities that depended on it, and that taking over the dams was the only way to ensure their removal.

Meanwhile, PacifiCorp continued to push for a solution that would absolve the company of any responsibility for the dams. The company had agreed to a dam removal plan as part of the settlement, but with that agreement on the verge of collapse, PacifiCorp was eager to find a new way forward.

As the deadline for the settlement approached, negotiations between the tribes, environmental groups, PacifiCorp, and the federal government intensified. The parties were under immense pressure to come to an agreement before the settlement expired, and the fate of the Klamath River hung in the balance.

In the end, a new deal was reached that involved the federal government taking over the dams and overseeing their removal. The agreement was not perfect, and it did not have the widespread support that the original settlement had enjoyed, but it was a last-ditch effort to save the river and move forward.

The Klamath River has long been a source of contention and conflict, but with this new agreement in place, there is hope that the river can be restored to its former glory. The tribes, environmental groups, and other stakeholders will continue to work together to ensure the success of the dam removal project and the health of the river for future generations. The Klamath settlement deal had finally come together thanks to a new and innovative idea that involved the transfer of ownership of the dams from PacifiCorp to a nonprofit entity. The plan was initially proposed by longtime dam opponent and tribal counsel Richard Roos-Collins, who drew inspiration from a successful project in Maine where a nonprofit trust had purchased and removed two dams on the Penobscot River.

Despite initial skepticism, negotiations between federal, state, and company representatives eventually led to a breakthrough. The agreement stipulated that California and Oregon would establish a joint nonprofit organization dedicated to the removal of the dams, and PacifiCorp would seek approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to transfer ownership to this entity. This new approach circumvented the need for congressional approval, streamlining the process and expediting the removal of the dams.

The negotiations were not without their challenges, as PacifiCorp executives expressed concerns about potential liabilities and costs associated with the dam removal. However, through persistence and collaboration, a mutually acceptable agreement was reached. The agreement was approved by Interior Secretary Sally Jewell, marking a significant milestone in the long-standing effort to restore the Klamath River ecosystem.

The successful resolution of the dam removal issue was celebrated in a ceremony at the mouth of the Klamath River in Requa, California. Tribal leaders, government officials, and stakeholders gathered to sign the documents on a traditional Yurok fish-cleaning table, symbolizing the unity and shared commitment to environmental conservation.

The innovative approach to dam removal in the Klamath Basin serves as a model for future collaborative efforts to address complex environmental challenges. By leveraging the expertise and resources of diverse stakeholders, the Klamath settlement demonstrates the power of creative thinking and cooperation in achieving conservation goals.

The dam removal advocates embarked on a boat journey up Blue Creek, the same section of the river where a devastating fish kill had occurred in 2002. The memory of the dead salmon was still fresh in their minds, even 15 years later, as they could still smell the rotting flesh. It was a moment that sparked a sense of purpose in their hearts, a determination to ensure that such a tragedy never happened again.

However, not everyone was present during the celebratory photo op at the fish table. Jeff Mitchell of the Klamath Tribes was notably absent, as the broader Klamath settlement had died in Congress. This setback dashed hopes for a water accord between the Klamath Tribes and the irrigators. The Klamath Tribes did not sign the amended dam removal agreement due to concerns about the protection of their treaty rights.

Despite these challenges, tribal leaders and their allies were resolute in their commitment to pursuing dam removal. Amy Cordalis, a new generation tribal leader, felt a deep connection to her ancestors during this pivotal moment. She believed that it was her life’s purpose to continue the fight for dam removal and environmental justice.

As the group navigated the uncertain waters of government bureaucracy, they faced new obstacles. The fate of the dam removal agreement now rested with FERC, an independent government body. The details of the new transfer proposal needed to be refined, and the coalition faced the departure of key negotiators.

More than a decade after the campaign to remove the Klamath dams began, the advocates could not have foreseen the challenges that lay ahead. Little did they know that the new agreement would have to withstand the test of a global pandemic.

In late summer 2020, as the world grappled with the COVID-19 pandemic, Amy Cordalis found herself back in the fray. The dam removal agreement was once again on the brink of collapse, threatening to undo nearly two decades of hard-won progress. Amidst the chaos of the pandemic, wildfires, and economic turmoil, Cordalis knew she had to act swiftly to salvage the deal.

Despite the challenges posed by the changing political landscape, Cordalis and her fellow tribal attorneys remained steadfast in their efforts to finalize the dam removal plan with FERC. The shifting dynamics of the agency under a new administration added another layer of complexity to an already arduous process.

The Klamath River has long been a source of contention between the Indigenous tribes who rely on it for sustenance and the utility companies that profit from its resources. The latest chapter in this ongoing saga involves PacifiCorp, a utility company that has long resisted calls to remove dams on the Klamath River.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) recently ruled that PacifiCorp must keep its name on the dam licenses, a requirement that the company had vehemently opposed. This ruling threw a wrench into the dam removal settlement that had been negotiated in 2016, leading to a breakdown in the agreement.

With PacifiCorp pulling out of the deal, tribal leaders found themselves back at square one. The relicensing process that had been in progress for years would have to start all over again. The original negotiators were no longer in their positions, leaving Oregon and California environmental officials scrambling to salvage the agreement.

Efforts to keep PacifiCorp on board included offering more money for dam removal, but the company refused to budge. California Governor Gavin Newsom even appealed directly to Warren Buffett, the head of Berkshire Hathaway, PacifiCorp’s parent company, to no avail.

In a last-ditch effort to save the deal, tribal leaders invited top executives from Berkshire Hathaway and PacifiCorp to visit the Klamath River. The executives agreed to the visit, and a plan was hatched to take them to Blue Creek, a critical salmon habitat that had been impacted by the dams.

However, the visit did not go as planned. Boat breakdowns and protests from activists from the Klamath Justice Coalition disrupted the executives’ tour of the river. The activists, including Chook Chook Hillman, made their presence known, demanding that the dams be removed.

Despite the disruptions, the activists remained steadfast in their mission. Chook Chook’s son even symbolically handed the executives a white flag, a gesture of surrender in the face of overwhelming opposition.

The future of the Klamath River and the dam removal settlement remains uncertain. But one thing is clear: the tribes and their allies are not backing down in their fight to restore the river and protect their way of life. The fight for the removal of the dams on the Klamath River had been a long and arduous one, spanning over two decades. The activists, led by Chook Chook and his wife Annelia Hillman, had been relentless in their pursuit of justice for the river and its inhabitants. When PacifiCorp executives visited the area and promised to remove the dams, the activists held them to their word, reminding them of the 11 years they had waited for action.

During a standoff with the executives, activists presented them with a jug of foul-smelling river water, urging them to understand the impact of their inaction on the environment and the community. The executives were confronted with the reality of the toxic algae-infused water that the fish and wildlife were forced to swim in and drink.

Young activists like Sammy Gensaw III and Jon Luke Gensaw made impassioned pleas to the executives, emphasizing the intergenerational impact of their decisions. The tribal leaders, including Frankie Myers and Cordalis, maintained a united front with the activists, urging the executives not to abandon the deal that had been agreed upon.

After a tense standoff, the executives finally agreed to take a term sheet from the tribal campaigners, but did not commit to meeting all of FERC’s demands. The activists and tribal leaders made their case at Blue Creek, a serene location where salmon swam in the cool waters and a bald eagle soared overhead. Despite their efforts, the executives did not concede, leading to disappointment and tears at the Yurok Tribe’s debriefing meeting.

However, a few days later, a call from Bill Fehrman of Berkshire Hathaway Energy changed everything. He expressed a willingness to discuss the removal of the dams, signaling a shift in the company’s stance. Months later, an agreement was reached between PacifiCorp, the states, and the tribes, paving the way for the removal of the dams.

In January of 2024, construction crews began draining the reservoir behind Iron Gate Dam, marking the official beginning of the dam removal process. As the activists and tribal leaders watched the momentous occasion, a conversation with a PacifiCorp executive revealed the internal shift that had taken place after the trip to Blue Creek. Greg Abel had recognized the need to remove the dams, leading to a change in the company’s approach.

The fight for the Klamath River had been a long and challenging one, but with the dams finally coming down, the activists and tribal leaders could breathe a sigh of relief. The persistence and determination of Chook Chook, Annelia Hillman, and the other activists had paid off, leading to a victory for the river and all those who depended on it for their livelihood and cultural heritage. The removal of the dams on the Klamath River marked a historic moment in the fight for environmental justice and restoration. For decades, PacifiCorp executives had been criticized for their lack of knowledge about the waterway, but twenty years later, the company’s leaders had come to embrace the importance of restoring the river to its natural state.

The dam removal process was a meticulous and time-consuming endeavor that required draining reservoirs, blasting apart concrete structures, and clearing away debris. The final dam to be removed was Iron Gate, the last barrier to salmon passage on the river. In the fall of 2024, tribal leaders witnessed the Klamath River flowing freely once more, from its source at Upper Klamath Lake to the Pacific Ocean.

The restoration of the river had a profound impact on the ecosystem and the indigenous tribes that rely on it for sustenance and cultural practices. Salmon, which had been prevented from accessing their spawning grounds for over a century, were now able to return to the upstream tributaries and complete their life cycles. The sight of salmon swimming in the reopened waterways was a symbol of resilience and renewal for the Yurok and Klamath Tribes.

The success of the dam removal campaign was a testament to the perseverance and collaboration of a diverse group of individuals and organizations. From scientists and bureaucrats to utility executives and environmental activists, thousands of people played a crucial role in making the restoration of the Klamath River a reality. While many may never receive recognition for their efforts, their contributions were essential to the historic achievement of restoring the river to its natural state.

As salmon returned to the Klamath River and began spawning once again, it was clear that the work was far from over. The tribes in the Klamath Basin recognized that there was still much to be done to ensure the long-term health and vitality of the river and its ecosystem. The removal of the dams was just the beginning of a new chapter in the ongoing effort to protect and preserve the Klamath River for future generations. The fight for the removal of the PacifiCorp dams on the Klamath River was not an easy one. It took the dedication and passion of many individuals, including Kathy Hill, Ron Reed, Kelly Catlett, Glen Spain, and countless others, to make it happen. These people, coming from different backgrounds and organizations, worked tirelessly to ensure that the campaign to bring the salmon home was successful.

One of the key players in this movement was Kathy Hill, a member of the Klamath Tribes who played a crucial role in rallying support for the cause. Her slogan, “Bring the salmon home,” became the rallying cry for the campaign. Ron Reed, a member of the Karuk Tribe, also played a significant role in advocating for the cultural importance of salmon to PacifiCorp executives. Environmentalists like Kelly Catlett and Glen Spain supported the agreement on behalf of deep-sea commercial fishermen, showing the broad coalition of support behind the dam removal.

Behind the scenes, countless staffers in tribal, state, and federal governments, as well as environmental organizations like Trout Unlimited, worked to ensure the dam removal agreement survived despite threats to kill it. Unfortunately, some key advocates, like Howard McConnell and Elwood Miller, did not live to see the dams come down. Still, their legacy lives on in the new generation of tribal members who are stepping up to be stewards of the river.

While the removal of the dams was a significant victory, the challenges facing the Klamath River Basin are far from over. The former reservoir land will need to be replanted and preserved, and water contamination issues still persist in Upper Klamath Lake. The conflict over water rights remains a contentious issue, with farmers and tribal communities at odds over allocations during dry years.

Despite the ongoing challenges, there is hope for the future of the Klamath River. The dedication and passion of those who fought for the dam removal serve as inspiration for the next generation of stewards. While the outlook may seem grim at times, the legacy of those who fought for the river’s restoration lives on, driving continued efforts to protect this vital ecosystem for generations to come. Farmers and tribes reached an agreement under the Biden administration to restore degraded river ecosystems in the Klamath Basin. This landmark agreement, however, hinges on funding from the Inflation Reduction Act, which the Trump administration may withhold.

Despite potential obstacles, the removal of the PacifiCorp dams on the Klamath River marks a significant victory for dam removal campaigners. For decades, governments and private utilities have constructed dams, obstructing waterways across the country. The dam removal on the Klamath sets a precedent for environmental restoration efforts nationwide.

Indigenous youth are now preparing to paddle the full length of the Klamath River for the first time, symbolizing a new chapter in the river’s history. The tribes’ relentless fight for the Klamath and other rivers like it will continue, undeterred by setbacks.

According to Cordalis, a representative of the tribes involved in the agreement, dam removal is just the beginning of their environmental advocacy efforts. The restoration of the Klamath River signifies a commitment to safeguarding natural resources for future generations.

As the Biden administration works to secure funding for the restoration project, the tribes remain steadfast in their determination to protect and preserve the Klamath River. The agreement represents a collaborative effort between farmers, tribes, and government officials to address environmental challenges and promote sustainable practices.

In the face of uncertainty surrounding funding, the tribes’ dedication to river conservation remains unwavering. The removal of the PacifiCorp dams serves as a testament to the power of collective action and the importance of environmental stewardship.

This article was reported and written by Anita Hofschneider and Jake Bittle, with illustration by Jackie Fawn and art direction by Mia Torres. Development was handled by Parker Ziegler, while Meredith Clark conducted fact-checking. The project was edited by Tristan Ahtone, John Thomason, Katherine Lanpher, and Katherine Bagley, with design edits by Teresa Chin. Jaime Buerger managed production, and promotion was overseen by Megan Merrigan and Justin Ray, with coordination by Rachel Glickhouse.

About the Artist:
Jackie Fawn, a graphic illustrator from California, contributed the illustrations for this article. She currently resides in Mohawk territory in New York with her family. Her work reflects her Yurok, Washoe, and Filipina heritage, showcasing her talent and cultural background. scratch:

Title: The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Modern Society

In recent years, the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) technology has had a profound impact on modern society. From self-driving cars to virtual assistants, AI is revolutionizing the way we live, work, and interact with the world around us. This groundbreaking technology has the potential to transform industries, improve efficiency, and enhance our quality of life in ways we never thought possible.

One of the most significant ways AI is changing society is through automation. AI-powered robots and machines are increasingly being used to perform repetitive tasks in industries such as manufacturing, agriculture, and healthcare. This not only increases efficiency and productivity but also reduces the risk of human error and injury. However, the rise of automation has also raised concerns about job displacement and the future of work. As AI continues to evolve, it is crucial for policymakers and businesses to consider the social implications of this technology and ensure that workers are adequately prepared for the changes ahead.

AI is also reshaping the way we interact with technology. Virtual assistants like Siri, Alexa, and Google Assistant have become an integral part of our daily lives, helping us with tasks ranging from setting reminders to answering questions. These AI-powered assistants are becoming increasingly sophisticated, learning from our interactions and personalizing their responses to better meet our needs. As AI technology continues to improve, we can expect virtual assistants to become even more integrated into our lives, providing personalized recommendations and assistance in ways that were previously unimaginable.

Furthermore, AI is playing a crucial role in healthcare, helping to diagnose diseases, develop personalized treatment plans, and streamline administrative tasks. AI-powered algorithms can analyze vast amounts of medical data to identify patterns and trends that humans may overlook, leading to faster and more accurate diagnoses. This not only improves patient outcomes but also reduces healthcare costs and improves the overall efficiency of the healthcare system.

In conclusion, the impact of artificial intelligence on modern society is undeniable. From automation and virtual assistants to healthcare and beyond, AI technology is revolutionizing the way we live, work, and interact with the world around us. While there are challenges and ethical considerations to navigate, the potential benefits of AI are vast and far-reaching. As we continue to harness the power of AI, it is essential that we do so responsibly and ethically to ensure a better future for all. The world of technology is constantly evolving, with new advancements and innovations being made every day. One of the most exciting areas of technological development is artificial intelligence (AI). AI has the potential to revolutionize the way we live and work, with applications ranging from healthcare to finance to transportation.

One of the most promising applications of AI is in the field of healthcare. AI has the potential to greatly improve patient care by helping doctors and healthcare professionals make more accurate diagnoses and treatment decisions. For example, AI-powered tools can analyze medical images such as X-rays and MRI scans to identify potential abnormalities that may be missed by human eyes. This can help doctors detect diseases such as cancer at an earlier stage, leading to better outcomes for patients.

AI is also being used to develop personalized treatment plans for patients based on their individual medical history and genetic makeup. By analyzing large amounts of data, AI can identify patterns and trends that can help doctors tailor treatment plans to each patient’s specific needs. This can lead to more effective treatments and better outcomes for patients.

In addition to improving patient care, AI is also being used to streamline administrative tasks in healthcare settings. AI-powered tools can help hospitals and clinics manage patient records, schedule appointments, and handle billing more efficiently. This can free up healthcare professionals to focus on providing quality care to patients, rather than getting bogged down in paperwork.

Outside of healthcare, AI is also being used in finance to help detect fraud and manage risk. AI-powered algorithms can analyze large amounts of financial data in real-time to identify suspicious transactions and patterns that may indicate fraudulent activity. This can help financial institutions prevent fraud and protect their customers’ assets.

AI is also being used in transportation to improve safety and efficiency. Self-driving cars, powered by AI, have the potential to reduce accidents caused by human error and make transportation more accessible to people who are unable to drive themselves. AI-powered traffic management systems can also help reduce congestion and improve the flow of traffic in cities.

As AI continues to advance, its potential to transform various industries and improve our lives is becoming increasingly clear. From healthcare to finance to transportation, AI is revolutionizing the way we live and work, making our world smarter and more efficient. The possibilities for AI are endless, and the future looks bright as we continue to explore the potential of this groundbreaking technology. In recent years, there has been a growing trend towards sustainable living and reducing our carbon footprint. One of the ways in which individuals can contribute to a more sustainable future is by making small changes in their everyday lives, such as reducing waste and choosing environmentally-friendly products.

One area in which many people are making eco-friendly choices is in the products they use in their homes. From cleaning supplies to personal care products, there are now a wide range of options available that are not only better for the environment, but also for our health.

Traditional cleaning products often contain harsh chemicals that can be harmful to both the environment and our bodies. These chemicals can contribute to air and water pollution, as well as pose health risks for those who come into contact with them. Eco-friendly cleaning products, on the other hand, are made with natural ingredients that are safe for the environment and for our health.

Similarly, many personal care products such as shampoos, soaps, and cosmetics contain ingredients that are not only harmful to the environment, but also to our bodies. By choosing products that are made with natural, organic ingredients, we can reduce our exposure to potentially harmful chemicals and support companies that are committed to sustainability.

In addition to choosing eco-friendly products, reducing waste is another important aspect of sustainable living. This can be as simple as using reusable shopping bags, water bottles, and coffee cups, or as involved as composting food scraps and recycling household items. By making small changes in our daily habits, we can reduce the amount of waste that ends up in landfills and minimize our impact on the environment.

Overall, making eco-friendly choices in our everyday lives is not only good for the planet, but also for our own well-being. By choosing products that are made with natural ingredients and reducing waste, we can support a more sustainable future for generations to come. So next time you’re shopping for cleaning supplies or personal care products, consider choosing eco-friendly options that will benefit both you and the environment. the perspective of a small business owner who is experiencing challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic:

As a small business owner, the COVID-19 pandemic has presented some of the toughest challenges I have ever faced. From navigating constantly changing regulations to trying to stay afloat financially, every day brings a new obstacle to overcome. The uncertainty of the situation has left me feeling overwhelmed and unsure of what the future holds for my business.

One of the biggest challenges I have faced is the impact that the pandemic has had on my revenue. With mandatory closures and restrictions on capacity, my business has seen a significant decline in sales. In order to adapt, I have had to pivot my business model and find new ways to generate income. This has meant investing in online marketing and e-commerce platforms, as well as offering delivery and curbside pickup options for my customers.

Navigating the ever-changing regulations and guidelines set forth by local and state governments has also been a major challenge. It seems like every week there are new mandates to follow, which can be confusing and time-consuming to implement. I have had to stay on top of the latest updates and make changes to my operations in order to comply with the regulations, all while trying to keep my employees and customers safe.

Another challenge I have faced is the emotional toll that the pandemic has taken on me and my employees. The stress of trying to keep the business afloat, coupled with the fear of contracting the virus, has led to increased anxiety and burnout among my team. It has been important for me to prioritize mental health and provide support for my employees during this difficult time.

Despite the challenges, I have tried to remain positive and focus on the things that I can control. I have taken this opportunity to reassess my business strategy and identify areas for growth and improvement. I have also sought out resources and support from other small business owners and industry organizations to help navigate the challenges of the pandemic.

Overall, the COVID-19 pandemic has tested my resilience as a small business owner. While the road ahead may be uncertain, I am determined to adapt and overcome whatever challenges come my way. I am hopeful that with perseverance and hard work, my business will not only survive, but thrive in the post-pandemic world.