You're letting your prejudices jump you to wrong conclusions about what's going on.

While it might be politically pleasurable to imagine a bunch of ivory tower idiots, the real reason driving dam removal isn't salmon, it's preventing catastrophic dam collapse. That's why there's state and federal funding for a lot of dam removal.

The dams being removed are old, obsolete, and end of life. They were usually put in place before we had a power grid.

Leaving them in place isn't an option, they will eventually fail. Spending money to replace or repair a dam that doesn't do anything is a waste.

Removing them also has a ton of environmental benefits, and improves the area for current and future residents.

It really is a win-win situation in that everyone benefits: conservation groups, tribal groups, fishing and hunting groups and taxpayers.

I'm not pretending to be an expert on this specific situation. That's mostly weighing in on The insider outside her conflict and the question of skin in the game, which plays out frequently in the situations.

Maybe it was a no-brainer in this situation, but that certainly isn't the picture that the article painted, with 20 years of activism to persuade the damn owner and operator to take them out instead of refurbishing them.

Similarly, if it's such an obvious win-win, why do 80% of the locals not view it that way? Do you think they're simply wrong and have nothing to lose?