The Wall Street Journal (www.wsj.com) published an opinion-editorial called "Dam the Salmon" from a Reason.com analyst. The analyst, describing conservationists as "greens," begins:

If their opposition to the Klamath hydroelectric dams in the Pacific Northwest is any indication, the greens, it appears, are just as unwilling to sacrifice their pet causes as a Texas rancher is to sacrifice his pickup truck. If anything, the radicalization of the environmental movement is the bigger obstacle to addressing global warming than the allegedly gluttonous American way of life.

The American way of life is allegedly excessive? Conservation is the problem behind global warming? Fascinating. The reply from American Rivers, available on their blog, and published by the WSJ reads:

Are the readers of the Wall Street Journal supposed to be horrified when an outmoded 100 year-old factory closes its doors? Of course not.

But that’s exactly the sort of irrational economic logic Ms. Dalmia proposes should protect all hydro dams into the infinite future.

Another letter from Friends of the River, also published, says:

[S]he neglects to mention at any point that a staggering 95% of the Klamath's native salmon population has been destroyed. Stepping in to protect the remaining 5% of a critical species is hardly a "radical" environmental position.

[She also] alleges that environmentalists have "rejected all attempts by PacifiCorp... to take mitigation steps... to create a salmon pathway." This is not true. PacifiCorp only considered mitigation because it was required to and its only genuine proposal was to catch migrating salmon, load them into trucks and drive them upstream -- a plan best characterized as absurd.

The WSJ published a third letter to the editor from a California resident, Scott Christensen, who points out that "there is nothing "cheap and renewable" about energy production that results in the destruction of wild salmon and steelhead runs and the jobs that depend on them."