Megunticook River Citizens Advisory Committee

05/17/2025

The following recommendation comes from Ellen Reynolds. Ellen recommends full removal of Montgomery Dam. MRCAC voted 8-1 in favor of dam removal.

Ellen Reynolds
Recommendation for course of action with Montgomery Dam
10 December 2024

Recommendation: Full removal of Montgomery Dam and return to the natural channel. Working in partnership with the Library Board of Trustees to incorporate the river into harbor park in a manner that aligns with the Olmstead vision, while simultaneously creating a more resilient shoreline with greater access to the water.

Justification:

Historical
We have considered the watershed from a historical vantage point and accumulated a collection of varying thoughts on the subject. While some feel it is paramount to honor the industrial history of our community, others prefer the scope of native or natural history. As a scientist, I am inclined toward the natural history of the watershed wherever we are able. I do believe there is something magical in maintaining landmarks of our human story and find efforts in preservation to be generally worthwhile. In this case, although I find the history of the dam to be interesting and compelling, I consider its negative impacts to outweigh its historical value. As a relic dam, no longer serving a utilitarian purpose, it marks a beautiful piece of history at the detriment to the health and wellbeing of the watershed ecosystem.
Removal of the dam and a return to the natural path can more adequately honor the river’s natural history. Paired with adequate signage, river walks, and teaching opportunities, removal of the dam can continue to honor the industrial history of Camden and assure that the story of our past is not removed from our collective conscience.

Ecosystem Connectivity
While some consider the river to be healthy enough in its current state, evidence indicates that dams significantly disrupt ecosystem connectivity by creating literal barriers and dividers within the natural habitat. Whether it is in a river system like our own or on land, fragmented habitats are known to be detrimental to the overall health of the system. Across the country and around the globe, environmental groups, state and federal agencies are working to create contiguous habitats in an effort to restore resilient species populations, reducing isolated segmentation and increasing genetic diversity within the ecosystem.
The removal of dams is additionally known to impact water flow patterns, resulting in improved nutrient and thermal distributions, creating a more hospitable habitat for organisms to survive and thrive.
In my ideal world, the removal of Montgomery Dam would be passed, and swiftly followed with the removal of the Knox and Knowlton Street dams to positively impact the ecosystem to the greatest extent possible.

Flooding
As it has been stated in numerous discussions, the Montgomery Dam does not provide flood mitigation, and instead poses increased risk over a free-flowing river. This is especially true for the buildings surrounding the impoundment who stand a greater flood risk with immediate proximity beside or above the impounded water. While dam removal does not mitigate the risk of downtown Camden flooding entirely, it does reduce the risk and diminishes the potential flood zone in size.
While the flood models clearly show this positive impact of dam removal, they do not take into account the additional damage and flooding possibilities from debris or other items getting caught in the dam, potentially exacerbating the issues of flooding further. For this reason, the flood models showing the impacts of the dam seem conservative in their flood risk projections if anything.
As rain events increase in frequency, severity, and unpredictability, I believe our best course of action is to prepare for those changes and buffer our community against potential damages whenever and wherever we are able.

Financial
As we all know, there is no option available that does not have a significant associated cost. From a financial perspective, removal of Montgomery Dam far outweighs the other options available. In every option, there is a substantial capital investment that cannot be ignored, but full removal of the dam would result in significantly lower ongoing maintenance and management costs. This choice allows us to remove the future financial burden from the shoulders of our children. When there is no dam to manage, there is no cost to manage it. Alternately, maintaining a relic dam for the sake of historical preservation or subjective aesthetics requires ongoing maintenance and repair costs without end.
The removal of Montgomery Dam additionally opens the doors to federal funding in a manner that significantly decreases the burden of cost to the local community. Showing state and federal agencies that we care about ecosystem connectivity and habitat restoration for sea-run fish opens the door to financial assistance at a magnitude that is irresponsible to turn down. Not only can funds be utilized for dam removal, but they can additionally help us to manage other issues upstream that will otherwise cause additional tax burdens to the community. The compounding cost of dam management for all town-owned dams is significant and ongoing, and can be greatly reduced with federal assistance.

Financial, Part II
It has been proposed on more than one occasion that removing Montgomery Dam will have a negative economic impact on downtown businesses. This idea is often bolstered by perceptions that the dam is the crowned jewel of our community. Unfortunately, there has not been evidence to support this thought, and I believe it to be speculative at best. In fact, keyword searches for tourism in Camden indicate that the dam is not amongst the most commonly highlighted experiences. Instead, visitors make frequent note of the wooden ships, the shops and restaurants of downtown, our hiking trails, state park, library, opera house, and church steeple. It is my personal belief that, based on this information, Camden will continue to thrive as a beautiful place to visit regardless of the dam’s presence or lack thereof.
It is additionally the case that removal of Montgomery Dam creates a gateway to new potential experiences that may well bolster the town’s economic wellbeing. A free-flowing river, returned to its natural path, can allow greater access and integration into our daily lives. Paired with a re-imagined seawall, the experience of harbor park could be one that includes both land and water, as a seamless and integrated landscape to be utilized. Lower river levels along the impoundment open the potential for innovative concepts like river-walks and educational access points. All of this to say that there simply is not evidence that removing Montgomery Dam will negatively impact the economic wellbeing of this community, and with a little imagination and creativity, it has the potential to do quite the opposite.
Finally, there is a real potential economic benefit made available by the presence of a large and healthy alewife population, that can be considered for harvesting should the community choose to do so, creating a sustainable revenue stream for years to come.

Fish Passage
The discussion around fish passage has gone in circles to near exhaustion, and there will be some who will remain determined that sea-run fish never traversed these waters. There are others, of course, who simply don’t care, and I honor that. If it isn’t important to you, it doesn’t have to be. That said, there is consensus amongst experts that Megunticook River was historically home to sea-run fish and is able to return to that natural state with our assistance. The return of alewives to our river ecosystem would result in significantly improved health and resilience of the watershed, and they are only one species that we have the potential to see return. There has been the question of increased seagulls and the concern that they would be a nuisance. But let me remind you that a river that supports sea-run fish, and alewives in particular (who are identified and known to be a keystone species), provides nutrient rich waters in support of a long list of species who all benefit greatly from a healthy ecosystem. So, while there may be more seagulls, we can also realistically anticipate more of the species we have subjectively determined to be more beautiful or worthwhile. More ospreys, more eagles, more cormorants and herons and terns. More cod in the harbor, more whales and seals and otters in their pursuit.
As a fisheries biologist, I have observed and recorded the decline of species and species habitat for decades. Returning a river to its natural flow and reintroducing the ability for sea-run fish passage is a uniquely rare gift to improve the wellbeing of our environment, and consequently our planet. While it may mean nothing to some, it genuinely means everything to others.

General Ethics
When I personally look at the deliberations around whether to keep or remove the Montgomery Dam, I often feel that it boils down to two very different outlooks on life. The idea of keeping a dam that is no longer functional and has been identified as an impediment to the wellbeing of the river system it once relied on, reads to me as a human-centric viewpoint. Do I honor our industrial history? Absolutely, and I believe we should continue to keep it alive in all of the reasonable ways that we are able. I am additionally sensitive to the fears that change brings, the worry around the unknowns, and the stress that abutting business owners have shared. We are not necessarily adept at embracing change, and often feel that remaining in the comfort of what we have always done is safer and easier. This is a consistent human experience that I am not a stranger to, but I do not believe it should be paramount in guiding us.
On the other hand, the idea of removing Montgomery Dam to aide in returning the river to its natural flow; to improve habitat connectivity; to reintroduce a healthy sea-run fish population; to reduce the risk of flooding along what is now a heavily inhabited watershed; and to diminish the ongoing costs for generations to come feels like a proactive, sustainable, earth centric approach—one that benefits numerous species, including ourselves. It is my perception that we are faced with an opportunity to sacrifice a little bit of what we personally love to benefit the well-being of our community on a much greater scale. I believe it is our ethical responsibility to move forward with removing Montgomery Dam.

05/13/2025

On June 10, Camden voters will decide whether or not to remove the Montgomery Dam. In advance of the vote, the Megunticook River Citizens Advisory Committee (MRCAC) is holding a Community Q&A event TOMORROW 5/14 for community members interested in learning more about the issue and our recommendation to the Select Board.

Date: Wednesday, May 14, 2025
Time: 6:00 - 8:00 PM
Location: Camden-Rockport Middle School Bisbee Theater

At this event, community members will have the opportunity to:
- Speak directly with MRCAC members in both group and one-on-one settings.
- Learn more about the committee’s recommendation
- View renderings of what the riverfront could look like without the dam

We hope you’ll join us for this important conversation about the future of the Megunticook River and Camden Harbor.

MRCAC will be holding an open question and answer event on the 14th of May. We will provide a brief overview of our findings, and then open the floor for questions as they pertain to warrant article 7. We hope you will join us!

04/28/2025

The following recommendation comes from Rick Thackeray. Rick recommends full removal of Montgomery Dam.

Rick Thackery

The MRCAC has been meeting monthly since September 2022, trying to serve the mission and charge from the Select Board to:
“… provide recommendations to the Select Board for preserving and improving sustainability and resiliency of the Megunticook River and its watershed.”

Within this broad charge, the committee specifically set out to consider:
• flood control/resilience,
• habitat connectivity,
• reduction of infrastructure management needs,
• enrich community values and experiences,
• enhanced public access and use,
• educational value,
• cultural/economic history,
• landscape aesthetics.

Considering each of these elements, I am recommending the removal of the Montgomery Dam.
Dam removal serves the value of improving flood control/resilience better than either of the other two options. As increased water volumes collected in the river below the Seabright Dam, gravity alone will alleviate flood concerns once the Montgomery, Knox Mill, and Knowlton Street dams are removed.

Habitat connectivity will also be best served by dam removal. The current dam does not support fish migration as constructed. Reconstruction (or the “as is”) approach will maintain this status quo, and will thus, prevent the town from accessing federal funding for projects that serve improved fish passage. Reconstruction or modification (to a lower spillway) of the dam, with the addition of a fish ladder would serve fish passage but not as effectively as would a natural river flow.

Reduction of Infrastructure management needs is also best served by dam removal. At risk of sounding reductive, by removing the dam, there will be no cost associated with maintaining the dam. There has been speculation about the impacts upon other infrastructure possibly correlating with lower water levels. These theories are exactly that – speculation – and are disputed by public works and other experts sourced to address these concerns. Moreover, by removing the need to cover the cost of maintaining a dam, the town will be able to leverage available funds to buttress any aged or otherwise underperforming infrastructure under the Main Street block and Route One that would not otherwise be available.

Community values and experiences will also be well served by dam removal. This also includes recreational and educational public use. Harbor Park and the lower river are already major draws for both residents and tourists. Dam removal will not diminish this. As the Town included in its vision statement included in the 2017 Comp Plan, “Camden’s geographic and cultural attractions are outstanding and critical to Camden’s economic success. The protection of existing and development of new cultural attractions and the good stewardship of our harbor, lakes and mountains are important components in any future planning efforts.” Dam removal will open the prospect of augmenting the current layout of the Harbor Park walkways and the access via the Public Landing. I believe these could include a more permanent walkway connecting the two resources, allowing seamless engagement with the falls / river outflow from both directions. With improved fish passage, Camden would become a destination for eco tourists interested in seeing migrations of alewives, salmon, and all other species that rediscover the Megunticook as a place to spawn.

Cultural and economic history will also be served by dam removal. As noted above, dam removal will expand and not impair public access to the physical space of the river and its outflow into the harbor. In parallel, the town can develop a “walking tour” concept that can unite the lower river with upriver sections where Camden’s industrial history helped form our community. Maintenance of an unsafe, functionally counter-indicated dam does not preserve history. Rather, keeping the dam would serve to myopically handcuff our understanding of Camden’s links the river by choosing to celebrate outmoded technology and the expense of the historical river, itself.

Finally, dam removal would serve the landscape aesthetics value better than either of the other two options, as well. The two things lost by removing the dam would be the loss of the dam impoundment below the decks of the Main Street businesses and the loss of a spillway that allows uniformly trickling of water out of the impoundment. What I hear in the voices who talk about the loss of these two features is a fear of the unknown. Even with this unknown, there must be some acknowledgement that, dam or no dam, the same amount of river will fall from the sky, into the river, and flow to the harbor. The sound of water spilling over the dam will be replaced by the sound of water falling over the rocks. The water will naturally course under the roadway and restaurant decks, over the rocks, and into the harbor. Will the aesthetic be different than the current one? Yes. But the change will be one that replaces stagnant impoundment water with clean water. And by choosing an option that serves fish passage, federal money will be available to help mitigate any aesthetic concerns about removing the impacts of a century-plus of a dammed-up river atop the harbor.

For these reasons, and after two years of open-minded, careful consideration, I believe that removal of the Montgomery Dam will serve as the best way for the people of Camden to “preserv(e) and improv(e) the sustainability and resiliency of the Megunticook River and its watershed.”

04/28/2025

MRCAC will be holding an open question and answer event on the 14th of May. We will provide a brief overview of our findings, and then open the floor for questions as they pertain to warrant article 7. We hope you will join us!

04/17/2025

After accepting the MRCAC's recommendation to remove Montgomery Dam, the select board deliberated over the warrant article language earlier this week. The determined language is as follows, and will be present on the June 10th election ballot. Regardless of where you land on this recommendation, we encourage all citizens to exercise their right to vote on the matter.

"Shall the Town vote to authorize the removal of the Montgomery Dam and spillway (Tax Map 120 Lots 278 and 283) to return the river to a free-flowing river in a manner generally consistent with Scenario C of the Findings and Recommendation of the Megunticook River Citizens Advisory Committee; with the following conditions: 1) The Town is authorized to fund the work only from non-property tax revenue sources e.g. grants and private donations; and, 2) Any portion of the project impacting Harbor Park shall be subject to the approval of the Library Board of Trustees as stipulated in the deed of gift from Mary Louise Curtis Bok to the inhabitants of the Town of Camden?

NOTE: The full Report of the Megunticook River Citizens Advisory Committee (MRCAC) is available at the Town office and on the Town website. Detailed information of all the MRCAC work and documents may be found at www.megunticookrivercac.com, which includes recordings of approximately 30 MRCAC meetings, 14 newsletters, more than 250 online survey responses, meetings with many standing Camden committees and Camden Library Trustees, 10 expert-led online presentations, engineering reports, and 2019 and 2021 River Feasibility Reports prepared by the nation-wide consulting firm InterFluve. Design review by the Library Board of Trustees shall be done in accordance with the design principles of Olmsted Brothers and expressed wishes of Mary Louise Curtis Bok, as identified in the Library Board of Trustees’ April 2024 statement on Harbor Park, which can be found on the Camden Public Library website."

Discover, analyze and download data from Megunticook River Watershed Project. Download in CSV, KML, Zip, GeoJSON, GeoTIFF or PNG. Find API links for GeoServices, WMS, and WFS. Analyze with charts and thematic maps. Take the next step and create StoryMaps and Web Maps.

04/11/2025

The following recommendation comes from Ray Andresen. Ray is the only member of MRCAC who recommends restoring and maintaining the Montgomery Dam.

MEGUNTICOOK RIVER CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDATION TO CAMDEN SELECT BOARD
FROM RAY ANDRESEN

I feel honored to be a member of the Megunticook River Citizens Advisory Committee and to have participated with all of you in our deliberations during the past 28 months.

As you know, I am also a member of the Save the Dam Falls Committee, and I have steadfastly tried to challenge the idea that our historic Montgomery Dam and Waterfall must be destroyed forever for the sake of introducing alewives and other sea-run fish into the Megunticook River Watershed. Throughout this process, I had hoped we could find a compromise solution that accomplished both, but Scenario B clearly isn’t the answer and Scenario C destroys our Dam and Waterfall forever.

Therefore, it should come as no surprise to this committee
that I am in favor of Scenario A, and that I would recommend to the Camden Select Board the following wording for the June 2025 Warrant:

THAT THE TOWN OF CAMDEN PRESERVE MONTGOMERY DAM; RESTORE THE DAM AND ITS WATERFALL AS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED BY THE OLMSTED BROTHERS; AND MAINTAIN THE DAM, ITS REFLECTING POOL, AND THE WATERFALL CASCADING INTO CAMDEN HARBOR FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS TO ENJOY.
I make this recommendation based on the following:

Montgomery Dam, the Reflecting Pool, and the Waterfall cascading into our harbor are part of what makes Camden special — just like the Tower on Mt. Battie and the Lighthouse on Curtis Island.
No other place in Coastal Maine (or elsewhere on the East Coast, as far as I know) has a waterfall cascading directly into the ocean. This is a special feature enjoyed by local citizens, visitors in all seasons, artists and photographers, and boaters who pass through our harbor or dock here for extended periods.
There has been a dam on this site for more than 250 years; and construction of the current Olmsted-designed dam, which is approaching its 100th anniversary, was approved and financed by Camden’s greatest benefactor — Mary Louise Curtis Bok — to complement the natural beauty of Harbor Park.
Because of the Olmsted connection alone, our Montgomery Dam should be worthy of Historic Preservation.

Moreover, there are still too many “unknowns” for us to sacrifice a treasure like Montgomery Dam as a condition for this $20,000,000 river resiliency project.

There is reportedly a limit of $8,000,000 on grants to be issued by NOAA this Spring. How do we vote to proceed when we have no knowledge of where the other $12,000,000 (or more) is going to come from?
And how do you spend a partial funding? Is Montgomery Dam destroyed first, for no reason at all? Who decides?
What is the local share going to be? There will be one, for sure. How can we proceed if we don’t know the amount? How can we ask voters to decide on the dam’s future when we don’t know the impact on our local property taxes or what the staffing requirements will be to maintain the fish ladders, to clear out the dead alewives, and to keep the system functioning?
What if no more federal money follows, especially under the Trump administration. What do we do then?
Saving the dam and restoring it is clearly the least expensive option, by far. Why can’t we be up front about this?
Furthermore, there are no engineering documents for review, yet we are asked to vote in favor of a project by deciding to destroy Montgomery Dam forever.
When we eventually get these documents, they will be mostly for removing man-made structures (like dams) and creating man-made fish ladders. The river will not be returned to a “natural state,” as implied.
As for flood resiliency, Montgomery Dam is not the issue, despite claims made by some citizens during this process. The Inter-Fluve reports state quite clearly that the Montgomery Dam does not create a flood risk in downtown Camden.
In addition, we don’t know what problems will be created by removing Montgomery Dam and introducing natural (or unnatural) fish passage in downtown Camden.
What happens to the businesses overlooking the reflecting pool behind Montgomery Dam? Will their structures remain sturdy and safe? Will their clientele increase or decrease?
Will the Town have to compensate business owners for their economic losses? How about damages to private property?
Will there be an increase in dead fish in downtown Camden, and how will that affect our businesses and tourism? Will more seagulls (and other scavengers) become a nuisance around Harbor Park, the Library, Main Street, and Camden Harbor itself?
I also agree with Rick Thackeray’s comments last week that this whole situation would have been better if the entire community had been engaged from the start.

Instead, Camden bypassed the normal, well-tested planning process that requires broad community involvement at the outset and public discussion leading to clear problem identification. This is the normal procedure, one being used by CamdenCAN now as it tackles a widely accepted need to protect Camden Harbor from rising seawater levels.
Proper community involvement would likely have led to a different conclusion.
It would have focused on locally defined “needs,” not “wants” based on the attraction of federal funds that include fish passage as a prerequisite.
It would have considered the Town’s Comprehensive Plan, including its Capital Budget item for “restoration” of Montgomery Dam.
It would have been aware of the Town’s true priorities: stormwater control, affordable housing, seawall protection.

Instead, we have come down to a referendum vote in June that will determine the fate of our historic, picturesque, and treasured Montgomery Dam and Waterfall.

04/10/2025

The following recommendation comes from Deb Chapman. Deb recommends full removal of Montgomery Dam.

Montgomery Dam Recommendation and Rationale
Deb Chapman
December 18, 2024

My fellow members of this committee have done a thorough, articulate job of explaining the reasons for selecting Scenario C – dam removal - using science, engineering studies, the experiences of other similar projects and their own good thinking as well as other resources to reach a decision about the Montgomery Dam, all the while listening to community members and taking those views into account. They argue that this choice will best prepare our community to respond to the challenges of the future, including the inevitability and unpredictability of change. I agree with this decision along with the reasons for it and there is not much I can add to either the evidence or the reasoning they have brought to bear on this question. I see the benefits across the categories we looked at like economic impacts, flood risk, historic significance, education. project funding, aesthetics, resilience and more. While I considered the same facts and came to the same conclusion, I have additional thoughts about the decision and the reasons for it – thoughts that emerged when I looked at some of the factors through a slightly wider lens. So in what follows, I will share some less scientific maybe more humanistic possibilities: aesthetics, economics, education, history, flooding, stakeholders and the importance of a healthy ecosystem. Inevitably, I will refer to some of the thinking you have already heard. Hard to avoid when you’re the last in line.

Aesthetics

There is no question, as others have said many times, the falls are lovely – both to see and to hear. Without denying or discrediting this, with a fully restored river, there will be many more beautiful places, offering different aesthetically pleasing sights and sounds. And, while the harbor will no longer have a falls, it will have water moving downward over rocks, providing new and varying patterns of sunlight and sound. Additionally, in the harbor and in (possibly) many other places, this beauty will be physically accessible, not just visible and audible – in other words, the aesthetics will be more immersive and multi-sensory, not just pleasing to the eye and ear.

Economics

We have heard many times that Camden is a tourist town. While I think that description ignores many other things that are notable about this town, it is clear that tourists comprise a major source of business income here. The growth of this source, without additional, new attractions and activities in town and the harbor, is likely to be limited. But we’re not limited to what is there now. A free-flowing river can attract new and a more diversified group of tourists as well as community members not only in the center of town but all along the river itself reducing our reliance on a few main street businesses and the sailing trips. People who want to walk along the river, who want to photograph not just the falls but also the free-flowing river, native plants, fish and wildlife including birds of all kinds that the renewed river would attract; also, others who want sit and do nature journaling, fish or just find a picnic spot of their own. If some of these people are from out of town, they will probably want and need to eat so there is no loss from the traditional businesses. In fact, the opposite: more activities, more people, more business.

Education

A free-flowing river with a path along it and/or other points of access can be an outdoor classroom – a fresh air environment in which children can explore and learn about the natural environment that surrounds and supports them – about all the non-human things and beings in it and how they relate to each other and to us all of which can lead to a fascination and appreciation, even a love, of that world. A response like this forms the base of a stewardship or caring relationship with that world that is important to its survival – a survival that is important to our own. Allowing the Megunticook to once again be a free-flowing river returns it to the more natural state that drew people here in the beginning and can inspire curiosity about that earlier history.

History

Leaving the dam in place honors one relict of one period of Camden’s history; a fully restored river honors something, like Mt. Battie, that has been here throughout the town’s history and stretches much more deeply into the past, including more people and more human activities. The record of these peoples is thinner and harder to find but we know they were here and likely had as rich an experience albeit it in different ways as we do. Why would retaining this one material artifact of this one period of history matter more than the many possible benefits of restoring the connectivity of the river – the one thing that stretches throughout the area’s entire history, a common thread through all periods of that history. Allowing the Megunticook to once again be a free-flowing river honors this long history rather than one relatively short part of it. Finally, removing the Montgomery Dam brings to mind what Ciona Ulbrich – the central person in 5 successful restoration projects - told us such projects should do: reach way back into the past and far into the future.

Flood risk

We keep saying we need a definition of flooding in order to talk sensibly and meaningfully about it. So I suggest this: A flood occurs when any amount of water that overwhelms the land and infrastructure designed to contain it threatens or causes loss of life and property.
We all know that there are 3 high hazard dams at the base of the lake. We have also, recently, heard that even if and when these dams are in good repair, there is still the possibility of water overflowing them/being unable to keep the water back. With all three of the major dams between the lake and the harbor and their respective impoundments in place, there is very little place left for the water to go other than places that will cause damage or worse. As Parker Gassett said: First and foremost, we need to give more space for the river to flood and ebb naturally. During heavy rains, the land along the river should act like a “giant sponge that soaks up the rain and slows down the peak flow of the water moving through the system.” Flooding occurs when the sponge is too small or at maximum saturation. “When a dam maintains a higher water level, the sponge is already full – it can’t absorb any more water." As long as these dams are in place, we have very little protection from a storm that would challenge the high hazard dams or overwhelm other structures designed to withstand it.

Stakeholders (and the ecosystem)

The arguments both for and against the removal of the Montgomery Dam focus for the most part on benefits to us (partly to the fish, of course, but they are valued by some as part of the benefit to us). It seems to me we need to widen the lens to include ALL of the stakeholders in the decision, i.e. all those who will be impacted by what we decide to do with the Montgomery Dam. We need to recognize that we are neither the masters of our future nor the victims of our future; we are active players, along with others, in that future. We live in a connected world – a world of wildly different “things” some animate, some inanimate – birds, bugs, plants, light, water, rocks, mammals, fish, us and more – all of which affect and are affected by the others. It is this complex and interconnected web that provides all of us with the ability to survive, and in the best circumstances, to thrive. Every time the web is broken, this ability is diminished and some things perish. (Think of all those small lifeforms living in the MD’s impoundment that die every time the impoundment is drained thereby denying those creatures that depend on them for food and other needs.) To ignore or deny this, to me, is folly and endangers us and all those who depend on us or are affected by what we do. If you have any doubt about this, learning what is known and has been said about ecosystem functions and services would provide examples of this dynamic interdependence. Removing the MD and the other dams under consideration, recognizes that this interdependence is foundational to our resilience by restoring the diversity and balance of vital elements that we need now as well as in the future. Moreover, restoring the connectivity of the river and peoples’ connections to the river can provide a number of benefits that increase our ability to adapt to changing features in the surrounding world and to the need to find alternatives to those activities that are threatened by climate change. It would provide more public spaces and trails, new school curricula and activities, new fishing opportunities, deeper connections to the natural features of the watershed, new tourist and other economic opportunities. It has done this elsewhere and can do so here. Critically, it recognizes all stakeholders and what is best for them, thereby sustaining and strengthening the web, the connected elements of biodiversity upon which we all depend. It recognizes the role the ecosystem has in our resilience and makes the health of the ecosystem a focus of our attention and concern.

The message that will emerge

Finally, this decision – whether it is to keep the dam or to remove it – provides a model, sends a message to our children of how best to determine what is best for the community. Whose welfare do we consider, what factors are important, who is involved, how broad are the intended consequences, what time frame do we use, what values should inform this decision. Right now, to me, one decision seems to value a narrow focus on the present (maintaining things as they are) and part of the past (just the industrial history) and on fear for what can be lost; the other values a longer past (pre-industrial), wider understanding of stakeholders, and new possibilities. While recognizing the emotion, especially the fear that often accompanies change but also the sadness at losing something loved, it expresses faith in our creativity, responsibility for those coming after us and hope for the future. The question posed here is: Which message and example do we want to give our children? In the words of Terry Tempest Williams:
“The eyes of the future are looking back at us and they are praying for us to see beyond our own time. They are kneeling with clasped hands that we might act … leaving room for the life that is yet to come.”

Maybe:

In closing, it seems to me we all want what is best for our community and our children. We just have different views of what the elements of “best” are or of how to bring them about. Surely we can find common ground if we talk with each other, asking questions out of genuine curiosity and listening for understanding. My fervent hope is that we will find the time and way to do this.

* In order to begin to see some of the benefits of strengthening and sustaining the health of the watershed’s ecosystem, I need to mention a concept we haven’t discussed: ecosystem services. Based on biodiversity, ecosystem services “…include provisioning services (such as food, water, timber and fiber), regulating services (such as climate regulation, water purification and pollination), supporting services (such as soil formation, nutrient cycling and photosynthesis) and cultural services (such as recreation, tourism, and aesthetic enjoyment). These services are essential for human well-being…”