>On the other hand, in an era of climate change, it seems like trying to hold on to as much freshwater capacity as possible also seems like a prudent idea, and I'm not sure what the best way to reconcile the two would be.
Climate change doesn't mean warmer temperatures everywhere or a dearth of freshwater. The Hudson Valley area referred to here has plenty of fresh water, is projected to become wetter according to most climate change models, and has become wetter recently (significantly so the last few years).
I forget the exact numbers, but something like 60% of California's freshwater supply is stored in the Sierra snowpack, and the current models are projecting that California will get more rain overall but vanishingly little snow.
California politically tends to be completely opposed to building new reservoirs, and a large amount of seasonal northern California rainfall ultimately gets routed out to the San Francisco Bay through storm drainage.
The other barrel of this particular footgun is that agriculture is still California's biggest industry and they require an absolutely enormous amount of water. This is already causing strain on state politics, because the central valley keeps demanding more water from northern California, which doesn't want to give up more of it, and southern California has just about drained the Colorado river, and restrictions on water rights are the single biggest driving force behind all the "State of Jefferson" signs you see in the rural northern counties.
I love California but the water situation is about to bite them really hard. "About to", of course, still being a decade or two out, but there don't seem to be any reasonable solutions to this intractable situation on the horizon.
California could trivially afford to just buy out the alfalfa farmers, paying them actually a slight premium compared to the revenue from their alfalfa farming.
That alone would fix most of California's water problem.
You're right, and if I came across implying that was the case for this particular dam removal, I apologize for the miscommunication. On the other hand, the rate of dam removal in the United States has increased, and some of them (especially in the Western US) are in areas that don't experience the same frequency of rainfall, and where even existing reservoirs are often far below capacity. It was more of a general musing that a comment on this particular instance, which from the information in the article, seems like a positive step.
For regions that rely on snow accumulation on mountains in winter and melting into rivers during other seasons, they could be screwed. And plenty of regions heavily depend on that process.
Climate change doesn't mean warmer temperatures everywhere or a dearth of freshwater. The Hudson Valley area referred to here has plenty of fresh water, is projected to become wetter according to most climate change models, and has become wetter recently (significantly so the last few years).
http://www.cnyweather.com/wxrainsummary.php