# Klamath River Dam Removal



## BlueTurf (Mar 9, 2013)

Wow. No idea this was going on. It will be really cool to watch this river evolve. I can't wait to try it.


----------



## TennesseeMatt (Jul 21, 2005)

*I like it.*

Similar to Andy's re-post about a removal in Washington. I support this very much and think it is a good thing in the long run.


----------



## FlyingDutchman (Mar 25, 2014)

Awesome. Looks like I will work on planning a kalamath trip around 2030, give er some time for the sediment to erode and vegetation take hold and rebar to be found by somebody else. This is good news. I hope these dam removal projects spread. Focus energy on wind and solar.


----------



## GreenWall (Oct 20, 2015)

Rebar is nothing compared to the rocks and big holes down there  That's one river you don't play in the holes, it will probably be a nasty little IV-V monkey when it is set free


----------



## stewart242 (Sep 18, 2015)

Has there been any talk of removing dams from the Snake near (or in) Hells Canyon? I read years ago that under those waters were rapids that were Grand Canyon type drops.


----------



## Riverman4utoday (Jun 21, 2013)

On one hand I am very pleased to see the dam removals happening, it will allow the Klamath river to run wild & free as it was meant to. On the other, I have commercially guided on this river(the Upper Klamath section above Copco Lake) since 1982 and have logged 1500+ runs on it, and it was nice to know that it would always be there every day consistently throughout the Summer season with a nice class 4-4+ run. The river will still be there but for all practical purposes I see the Upper Klamath section being done in April/May. Perhaps the removals will create new epic runs? I for one am looking forward to what happens!


----------



## BlueTurf (Mar 9, 2013)

Riverman4utoday said:


> Perhaps the removals will create new epic runs? I for one am looking forward to what happens!


Quote from the linked article.



> Gradients in those 45 miles range from 16 feet per mile, a class II run, to more than 100 feet per mile—class IV or V terrain. The average comes out to 42 feet per mile.


100 feet per mile? There is probably something in there I'm thinking.


----------



## Riverman4utoday (Jun 21, 2013)

BlueTurf said:


> Quote from the linked article.
> 
> 
> 
> 100 feet per mile? There is probably something in there I'm thinking.


Definitely 100+ ft/mile, this would be on what is referred to as the Upper Klamath section....or what locals call the Upper K or UK. Nothing sticky but the volcanic rocks which are abundant, and extremely consistent whitewater. My avatar photo is actually on this section....no raft showing! If you get the chance, do this run!


----------



## Schutzie (Feb 5, 2013)

Shooter would hope this trend continues, right over to the Dolores, to McPhee. He would gladly push the button to destroy that monument to human stupid.
And have his rig ready to launch 100 yards below the damn ........... dam when it blew.


----------



## CoBoater (Jan 27, 2007)

Schutzie said:


> Shooter would hope this trend continues, right over to the Dolores, to McPhee. He would gladly push the button to destroy that monument to human stupid.
> And have his rig ready to launch 100 yards below the damn ........... dam when it blew.


I'd want to see that from a helicopter, but sure as hell not from river level. Go for it Schutzie you'll go out surfing a wave of glory.


----------

