Catherine Nadeau’s March 12 op-ed opposing the removal of dams on the Kennebec River demonstrated a tremendous lack of knowledge about fish restoration, the harmful impact of dams, and the additive negative effects of dams on fish restoration (“Removing Kennebec dams will not bring back the past“).
It also demonstrated a tremendous lack of caring for the many citizens and public officials who have worked, in some cases for decades, to restore the anadromous and catadromous fish populations of the Kennebec River drainage and for the fish and wildlife that are negatively impacted by the existing dams.
Perhaps Nadeau should begin by reading the Kennebec River Management Plan Diadromous Resources Amendment dated December 2020. Her statement that the Department of Marine Resources proposal is “for the removal of all the dams on the river” is false. There are currently 27 dams on the Kennebec River and its tributaries, all of which are preventing or impeding fish passage.
Nadeau notes her “great respect” for the staff of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. What does this have to do with fish restoration in the Kennebec River drainage? Nothing. For the record, IF&W has a longstanding history of a lack of support for anadromous fish restoration, since anadromous fish species may compete with freshwater sport fish and the fishermen they cater to. It’s what is referred to in government as an ongoing turf battle.
Is Nadeau aware of the fact that the Kennebec River drainage has the greatest potential for Atlantic salmon restoration of any river in the state, including the Penobscot? Is she aware of the hard work that has been quietly going on by a small cadre of Department of Marine Resources staff and volunteers to restore wild Atlantic salmon to the Sandy River drainage? Is she aware that this shoe-string program is actually working and that salmon returns are increasing?
Thankfully, removing dams on the lower Kennebec will not bring back the past. The past is a filthy, smelly river full of raw sewage and industrial waste. The past is a river that was so dirty and dammed that it supported little life and had little use other than as an open sewer. Dam removal will build a brighter future for fish and wildlife and for the residents who are returning to the river once again.
Hydro-energy is not clean energy. Dams flood and destroy fish and wildlife habitat. Dams negatively impact water quality. Dams block and impede fish passage-both upstream and downstream, even with fishways.
Nadeau’s op-ed made no mention of the negative impacts of dams on downstream fish passage, such as the mass killing of fish that get chopped up in turbines or the inability of young fish to navigate downstream to the ocean. She also fails to recognize that even state-of-the-art fish passage is not totally successful and that the greater the number of dams on a given river, the less likelihood for anadromous fish restoration.
Millions and millions of public dollars have been spent to clean up rivers like the Kennebec, but the job is far from over. Clean water is important, but what good is it if our fish and wildlife can’t get to it? There are places where the economic value of a dam is far exceeded by the damage done and by the potential good that dam removal can accomplish. Such is the case for, at the very least, the Lockwood and Shawmut dams on the Kennebec River.
John M. Glowa Sr. is a resident of South China.
Comments are not available on this story.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
