Oregon State University. (2015, June 16). Toxic algal blooms behind Klamath River dams create
health risks far downstream.ScienceDaily. Retrieved August 23, 2015 from
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150616123919.htm
The Klamath river flows from Oregon to California, and is over 180 miles long. In several reservoirs along the river, toxic algal blooms have formed, threatening wildlife. This harmful algal growth can cause a range of health issues, and is not as easily removed as other forms of bacteria; for instance, it cannot be destroyed by boiling water contaminated by it. Microcystis, the algal growth, is often found spread throughout bodies of water in small patches, and thus is hard to completely neutralize. Dams, preventing more thorough water flow, are compounding the issue.
The growing abundance of algal growths throughout this river is in part due to the high concentration of dams on the river. The slowing of water flow contributes to the formation of these growths, and thus the dams are directly influencing this issue. The microcystis is toxic and poses many potential health issues to those who ingest it, and considering how unpredictably placed it can be in these specific bodies of water, it is important that we do all we can to minimize contact/creation of the algae. Not only could it affect us, but it can and does affect wildlife that relies on the river water to survive. A way to either increase water flow to lessen the algae, or a way to eliminate the algal growths altogether is necessary if people want the dams along the river to remain.
I’m curious if they mentioned any agriculture along the Klamath as a source of nutrients. Or maybe natural algae growth spikes because of the dam which makes sense since the water slows way down. It’s bad enough with the potential hypoxia algae blooms can cause, but the toxicity of it is a whole new layer of trouble. Interesting article.
I don’t think they mentioned agriculture in this specific article, but maybe it is a contributing factor to these blooms; but yes, the authors’ main point was that the slowing of the water due to the dam was increasing the abundance of algae growth. Thanks for the input!
I wonder why even long below the algal growths there are still serious health risks. It seems like the concentration of Microcystis would decrease to the point where ingestion would not be harmful.
I’m not exactly sure about the answer to that; maybe the effectiveness of the microcystis does indeed decrease as the water flow picks up further down the river from the dams; I can’t say for sure. But regardless, in the areas of the river closest to the dams, it remains an issue. Thanks for commenting and for the question!
How can these growths be stopped? It seems that the growth problem just keeps getting worse yet nothing is done. What would you suggest should happen to prevent these from getting increasingly worse?
Well I’d say that steps should be taken to make sure that water flow remains consistent; whether that means removing dams or changing the way we think about designing dams, the slowing/blocking of water from flowing seems to be the root of many dam-related environmental issues. Thanks for commenting and for your insights!