“You kill the dam, you are killing a part of me”: Dam removal and the environmental politics of river restoration

Abstract

River restoration through dam removal provides an opportunity to investigate the changing nature of environmental conflicts and politics in long-humanized landscapes. In New England, where over 14,000 dams fragment the region's rivers, dam removals are often highly contested. This is due, in part, to how the intertwined roles of history, identity, and aesthetics coalesce to create attachment to place and inspire the defense of dammed landscapes. Dam removal provides a useful lens to consider the following: How do the historical and geographical contingencies of this region shape and alter conflicts over dam removal in specific ways? In instances where conflicts emerge, what do the conflicts reveal about the politics of ecological restoration in highly altered landscapes? We use a political ecology approach to reveal how complex cultural dynamics, competing interpretations of science and the environment, micropolitics, and the role of multiple actors generate and shape conflicts over dam removal. We show that the historical geography of New England influence conflicts over removal in important ways, particularly with regard to the roles of aesthetics and identity in landscapes that are characterized largely by consumptive as opposed to productive uses. Our findings also suggest that restoration in long-humanized landscapes will embroil new constellations of human and nonhuman actors, requiring attention to the political and cultural, as well as the ecological, dimensions of restoration. This paper contributes to research on the political and social dimensions of dam removal, as well as to research at the nexus of ecological restoration and environmental politics.

Evolving conceptions of the role of large dams in social-ecological resilience

“…Communities are beginning to understand the full extent to which river and riparian ecosystems provide beneficial ecosystem services to society; the removal of old, obsolete, or ecologically harmful dams can provide a greater benefit than allowing them to remain (Pejchar and Warner 2001). However, the idea of dam removal is still often met with resistance; local communities may oppose removal of a dam because of its significance to regional history, identity, or landscape aesthetic (Fox et al 2016, Magilligan et al 2017). …”

“…Although riparian areas are among the most resource rich and biodiverse ecosystems, they are also among the most disturbed by human activity (Nilsson and Svedmark 2002). In the Northwest U.S. and other locations for example, salmon are particularly vulnerable to streamflow alterations and barriers to movement caused by damming rivers (Harnish et al 2014, Fox et al 2016). In the face of these growing disturbances, ensuring the resilience of river SES may also ensure their long-term survival.…”

Spatial and temporal scale framing of a decision on the future of the Mactaquac Dam in New Brunswick, Canada

“…Therefore, dam owners must decide whether they should be rebuilt/refurbished or removed altogether. Removal is increasingly considered a viable choice because of the cost of rebuilding dams that may no longer provide useful functions or have become a risk to public health and safety, and because removal can restore the original river environment (World Commission on Dams 2000, Doyle et al 2003, Gowan et al 2006, Fox et al 2016. However, many of these dams still offer benefits in stabilizing water supply, generating hydropower, and controlling flooding (World Commission on Dams 2000, Poff and Hart 2002), as well as enhancing river transportation and some recreational boating and fishing (Auerbach et al 2014).…”

“…Although these end-of-life decisions on dams are taking place at a time when stakeholder participation is a priority for environmental decision makers (Reed 2008, Freeman et al 2010, Susskind 2013, Kochskämper et al 2016, stakeholders' perceptions of the decisions and their impacts have been little studied (Born et al 1998, Johnson and Graber 2002, Lejon et al 2009, Jørgensen and Renöfält 2012, Fox et al 2016, Reilly and Adamowski 2017. There is a need to better understand why stakeholders often have diverging views on whether a dam should be removed or rebuilt/refurbished to anticipate and mediate any resulting conflict and to incorporate their perspectives into decisions (Johnson and Graber 2002, Lejon et al 2009, Jørgensen and Renöfält 2012, Fox et al 2016.…”

“…There is a need to better understand why stakeholders often have diverging views on whether a dam should be removed or rebuilt/refurbished to anticipate and mediate any resulting conflict and to incorporate their perspectives into decisions (Johnson and Graber 2002, Lejon et al 2009, Jørgensen and Renöfält 2012, Fox et al 2016.…”