Dr. Ian Grimshaw, an assistant professor at Oregon Institute of Technology, told a Missoula audience that the long-running campaign to remove four dams from the Klamath River began in earnest after a massive 2001 fish kill and has now reopened hundreds of miles of salmon habitat.

Grimshaw, speaking Oct. 11 at the University of Montana’s Steve Schwartz Memorial Lecture, said the first dam removal occurred in 2023 and the remaining three were taken out in the following year, an outcome of more than two decades of legal and policy negotiations involving tribes, commercial and sport fishers, farmers and energy interests.

Why this matters: The removals aim to restore salmon runs, return land submerged for a century to new management and advance tribes’ claims to customary fishing and stewardship, Grimshaw said. The project touches tribal sovereignty, regional fisheries, irrigation and sediment management — issues that affect livelihoods and ecosystem function along the river’s course from headwaters to ocean.

The Klamath dams were originally built for irrigation and hydropower in the early 20th century, Grimshaw said, noting Copco 1 began generating electricity in 1918 and Copco 2 was completed in 1925. He described how dam construction reduced historic river flows (from recorded flows of roughly 800 cubic feet per second in 1908 to about 475 cfs after dams and diversions were in place) and contributed to the near disappearance of salmon in the upper basin by the 1930s.

Grimshaw recounted the 2001 drought-year fish kill, which researchers estimate killed an “estimated 33,000 to 70,000” salmon and steelhead, largely because low, slow, warm water fostered toxic algal blooms. That event coincided with the expiration of hydropower licenses, a turning point that opened negotiations over whether to upgrade the dams or remove them. He said at some point PacifiCorp concluded removal was less expensive than upgrades, which helped move stakeholders toward a removal agreement.

Legal and administrative path: Grimshaw outlined two central agreements that shaped the effort: the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA), intended to fund restoration, and the Klamath Hydropower Settlement Agreement (KHSA), intended to support dam removals. He said a 2013 Department of the Interior report supported actions that would “aid the native peoples, but basically everybody involved.” When Congress did not enact the agreements in time, the KHSA participants established a nonprofit to oversee removals, funded in part by PacifiCorp and California Proposition 1, Grimshaw said.

Scale and ecological work: Grimshaw provided project-scale figures discussed during his research: the full removals will release nearly 170,000,000,000 liters of water, unlock roughly 300 to 400 miles of fish habitat, and include plans to reseed about 16,000,000,000 seeds representing more than 100 native species across roughly 22,000 acres formerly submerged. He cited U.S. Geological Survey projections that sediment mobilization will be significant in the year following removals, with estuary areas receiving material before conditions improve over time.

Local and cultural effects: Grimshaw emphasized cultural and sovereignty dimensions. He said Yurok, Karuk, Hoopa and Klamath tribal leadership and members were central participants, and described how tribal salmon festivals had at times lacked local salmon, forcing communities to bring fish from other regions. Grimshaw called the project “land back in a way,” because removal has exposed land that tribal entities and the KHSA-affiliated management body will steward.

Coalitions and controversy: Grimshaw and audience members discussed how coalitions of tribes, fishers, farmers and others formed across decades. Grimshaw said coalition-building helped address shared concerns about water, although he cautioned that legal action and federal involvement ultimately drove many outcomes. Audience questions raised common community concerns: loss of lakefront property for residents who preferred reservoirs, who would be reimbursed; short-term worsening of river conditions as sediments flush; and how access and fishing allocations would be managed going forward.

Access, fishing and cultural practice: Grimshaw noted tribes’ treaty-protected fishing rights were part of the negotiations but that details — for example, how “50% access” might be defined — had been legally complicated. He said tribes often assert rights tied to traditional practices, which can raise questions about how those rights are exercised today. Grimshaw also described early post-removal cultural activities such as the First Descent, a primarily indigenous canoe journey down the reopened river, and said some tribes have begun offering public river tours in traditional craft.

What remains uncertain: Grimshaw repeatedly cautioned the audience that recovery will not be immediate. He said early years following a dam drawdown can look worse — with sediment and degraded water quality — before ecological gains occur and salmon recolonization progresses. He also stressed that restoration outcomes will vary along the river and that disputes over harvest levels and access are likely once fish returns increase.

Audience exchange: During Q&A, attendees asked about the meaning of “land back,” ownership of newly exposed lands, how coalitions were formed and whether hatcheries would be used. Grimshaw summarized common answers from his work: land that emerges through removal is being managed under agreements tied to the KHSA nonprofit and tribal co-management arrangements; many stakeholders emphasize restoration rather than development; and officials plan to rely on natural recolonization rather than large-scale hatchery substitution while monitoring riparian condition and biodiversity.

Looking ahead: Grimshaw said the Klamath removals will be watched as a complex case of environmental restoration, indigenous sovereignty and regional resource management. He encouraged continued monitoring of sediment movement, reseeding efforts and salmon counts and said the project offers “an amazing opportunity” to observe how ecosystems and communities respond when long-submerged lands reappear.