Dam Busters 2026

1. If you are working on or have identified one dam along a waterway that may be in disrepair—while other dams on the same river appear to be in better condition but may be hydraulically dependent on upstream releases—how do you assess the broader, system-wide impacts of removing a single dam? Is this type of cumulative impact typically included in hydrology and hydraulics (H&H) modeling upfront, and how far upstream or downstream does that modeling extend?

The question of how much distance is included in an H&H model is an excellent one for an engineer, but it is outside my specific area of expertise. From the perspective of using decision-support tools to understand interconnected and cumulative impacts, one productive approach is to explore alternatives both independently and in combination.

For example, you might first estimate the consequences of addressing alternatives for a single dam in isolation. Then, you could develop additional alternative “packages” that combine those actions with scenarios that also address upstream (or downstream) dams. Comparing these individual and bundled alternatives helps illuminate how decisions at one site may influence conditions elsewhere along the river system.

2. How did you approach identifying projects that were good candidates for case studies?

Because the Dam Atlas is currently focused on the Narragansett Bay watershed and the coastal watersheds of Rhode Island, we prioritized projects within the study area whenever possible. However, for particularly innovative or instructive projects—such as the Damariscotta Fish Ladder, Alna partial dam removal, Kent Dam, and the Howland bypass channel—we chose to look beyond the watershed boundaries in order to highlight a broader range of strategies and outcomes.

Ideally, we would include many more case studies, but we had to start somewhere. These examples were selected to illustrate different approaches that could be relevant to future projects within the region.

2. Is dam prioritization most appropriately established at the state, regional, or local level? Can the state determine which dams are the highest priority?
 

I strongly believe that decisions about dams should be made at the watershed scale. Rivers function as connected systems, and prioritization needs to account for river connectivity rather than political boundaries such as state lines. That said, I also recognize that funding and regulatory authority are often organized at the state level.

​

Because of this, I see a critical role for local and regional watershed organizations in leading the identification and prioritization of projects. These organizations are often best positioned to understand local conditions, community values, and cumulative impacts across a river system. Their work can then inform state-level prioritization and funding decisions. Given the sheer number of dams in our region, the task can feel overwhelming and requires a multi-scale approach. The nested structure of watersheds—from small sub-watersheds to larger river basins—lends itself well to this kind of coordinated and scalable prioritization.

​

I also think that existing databases and analytical tools can help jump-start the prioritization process. For example, Massachusetts DER’s Restoration Potential Model provides a useful way to identify sites where exploratory conversations with communities about the future of a dam may be most beneficial for improving river connectivity. In addition, dams that are classified as High Hazard and in Poor Condition should be prioritized for exploratory community conversations due to public safety concerns. Starting with these types of criteria can help guide where it may make sense to initiate projects, but this work should ultimately be looped back into broader river- and watershed-scale planning to ensure that individual actions contribute to meaningful system-wide outcomes.