> At the same time, the dams only produced a fraction of PacifiCorp’s energy at full capacity, enough to power about 70,000 homes. They also didn’t provide irri

> At the same time, the dams only produced a fraction of PacifiCorp’s energy at full capacity, enough to power about 70,000 homes. They also didn’t provide irrigation, drinking water or flood control, according to Klamath River Renewal Corporation. It kind of implies that these dams weren't really important to begin with, which makes the tradeoff a lot easier. Second, they were built in the early to mid 1900s, at this point they had to decide between repairing, replacing, or demolishing them; it looks like they weren't worth repairing or replacing. It also looks like they had to make adjustments to allow the salmon to go upstream (according to a quick browse of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klamath_River_Hydroelectric_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klamath_River_Hydroelectric_Pr...) regardless, legal requirements. Anyway, your comment deals in some absolutes / false dichotomies and generalizations; climate change is not fixed by keeping these dams around. Climate change is also but one problem, there's other causes for mass extinction - e.g. spawning grounds being inaccessible due to dams. There's many different renewable energy sources, hydroelectric being a big one, but they have to be built in a way that doesn't disrupt nature, which wasn't yet a thing when these were built. TL;DR, you can have both hydroelectric dams AND access to spawning grounds.