Environmental managers in the United States and elsewhere are increasingly perceiving dam removal as a critical tool for river restoration and enhancing watershed resilience. In New England, over 125 dams have been dismantled for ecological and economic rationales. A surprising number of these removals, including many that are ongoing, have generated heated conflicts between restoration proponents and local communities who value their dammed landscapes. Using a comparative case study approach, we examine the environmental conflict around efforts to remove six dams in New England. Each of these removal efforts followed quite different paths and resultant outcomes: successful removal, stalled removal, and failure despite seemingly favorable institutional conditions. Lengthy conflicts often transpired in instances where removals occurred, but these were successfully arbitrated by paying attention to local historical–geographical conditions conducive to removal and by brokering effective compromises between dam owners and the various local actors and stakeholders involved in the removal process. Yet our results across all cases suggest that these are necessary, but not sufficient conditions for restoration through dam removal since a similar set of conditions typified cases where removals are continuously stalled or completely halted. Scholars examining the intersection between ecological restoration and environmental politics should remain vigilant in seeking patterns and generalities across cases of environmental conflict in order to promote important biophysical goals, but must also remain open to the ways in which those goals are thwarted and shaped by conflicts that are deeply contingent on historical–geographical conditions and broader institutional networks of power and influence.
Dam removal River restoration Environmental conflict Environmental politics
This research was funded in part by the U.S. National Science Foundation (BCS-1263519) and from a Seed Grant from the Dartmouth College Rockefeller Center for Public Policy. We would like to thank the numerous individuals who agreed to be interviewed by us, and also the array of students who helped with GIS, data entry, and interview transcriptions, especially Anna Wearn, Chloe Gettinger, Brendan Schuetze, and Evan Dethier. Jonathan Chipman provided necessary cartographic and GIS assistance. We would also like to thank the input from two anonymous reviewers that helped the overall clarity.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interest.
Bednarek AT (2001) Undamming rivers: a review of the ecological impacts of dam removal. Environ Manage 27:803–814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernhardt E, Palmer M, Allan J et al. (2005) Synthesizing U. S. river restoration efforts. Science 308:636–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernhardt ES, Palmer MA (2011) River restoration: the fuzzy logic of repairing reaches to reverse catchment scale degradation. Ecol Appl 21:1926–1931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernhardt ES, Sudduth EB, Palmer MA et al. (2007) Restoring rivers one reach at a time: results from a survey of US river restoration practitioners. Restor Ecol 15:482–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Born SM, Genskow KD, Filbert TL et al. (1998) Socioeconomic and institutional dimensions of dam removals: the Wisconsin experience. Environ Manage 22:359–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler WH, Monroe A, McCaffrey S (2015) Collaborative implementation for ecological restoration on US public lands: implications for legal context, accountability, and adaptive management. Environ Manage 55:564–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golet GH, Roberts MD, Larsen EW et al. (2006) Assessing societal impacts when planning restoration of large alluvial rivers: a case study of the Sacramento River project, California. Environ Manage 37:862–879CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graf WL (1999) Dam nation: a geographic census of American dams and their large-scale hydrologic impacts. Water Resour Res 35:1305–1311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris CC, Nielsen EA, Becker DR et al. (2012) Results of community deliberation about social impacts of ecological restoration: comparing public input of self-selected versus actively engaged community members. Environ Manage 50:191–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart DD, Johnson TE, Bushaw-Newton KL et al. (2002) Dam removal: challenges and opportunities for ecological research and river restoration. BioScience 52:669–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter LC (1979) A history of industrial power in the United States, 1780-1930. Published for the Eleutherian Mills-Hagley Foundation by the University Press of Virginia, CharlottesvilleGoogle Scholar
Knoot TG, Schulte LA, Rickenbach M (2010) Oak conservation and restoration on private forestlands: negotiating a social-ecological landscape. Environ Manage 45:155–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenhart CF (2003) A preliminary review of NOAA’s community-based dam removal and fish passage projects. Coast Manage 31:79–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord WB (1979) Conflict in federal water-resource planning. Water Resour Bull 15:1226–1235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer MA, Hondula KL, Koch BJ (2014) Ecological restoration of streams and rivers: shifting strategies and shifting goals. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 45:247–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pejchar L, Warner K (2001) A river might run through it again: criteria for consideration of dam removal and interim lessons from California. Environ Manage 28:561–575. doi:10.1007/s002670010244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poulos HM, Miller KE, Kraczkowski ML et al. (2014) Fish assemblage response to a small dam removal in the Eightmile River system, Connecticut, USA. Environ Manage 54:1090–1101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryan RL (2006) Comparing the attitudes of local residents, planners, and developers about preserving rural character in New England. Landsc Urban Plan 75:5–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar