Select Board members intend to do only good (even great) things. They have the best of intentions.

The best of intentions also can result in unintended consequences and can at times be worse than the problem itself and the costs too great. In the case of the Montgomery Dam and Harbor Park, the potential for unintended consequences leaves many questions unanswered and unexplored.

The Interfluve report provides good information and options. Yes, we are given options…and still have questions. So, why does the selectboard say we only have one option? Why do selectmen and the town manager repeatedly say there will be no discussion of options? We’re being told that the flooding of downtown Camden is the reason. Looking at the 100 year flood maps and the experience of the record setting rainfall earlier this summer with the dam in place, flooding doesn’t seem to be imminent.

The flooding we have had has been attributed to sewer/storm water systems issues or higher tides. And the dam on the river does nothing but provide some control of water into the harbor, not offset any rising tides due to climate changebest of intentions also can result in unintended consequences

If climate change is of concern, then shouldn’t drought be included? Flooding is a major driver we’re told. But, if the dam is removed, when we have drought conditions - what is the plan for keeping the river flowing?

With the dam removed, we are told we will have a new abundant ecosystem. If all the dams below Seabright are removed, it seems the only option for remedying low flow is reducing water levels either above Seabright dam or in Megunticook Lake. If Megunticook is used, would Lincolnville residents have a say? Would the need to lower the water levels from either be a consequence? If so, shouldn’t there be agreement with all stakeholders fully informed.

And what if they don’t agree? Will Camden now be without the dam/pond/waterfalls, have altered the historic Harbor Park, and possibly be without needed flows in the river?

If we are going to remove the dam for the benefit of fish migration (all the way to Megunticook Lake), shouldn’t we have a comprehensive plan for the entire river below Seabright dam before proceeding? Don’t we need the cost analysis for the entire project and the costs for the other dams’ removal, silt remediation (remember the river around the old Tannery has been of great concern), and other related project costs?

Without these costs approved, we may have fish migrating to Washington Street and going nowhere. Could we be backed into spending dollars to complete the project before we understand the full costs?

What about Seabright dam, and East/West dams where two fish ladders would be needed for the ecosystem to be realized?

For the Camden Harbor, we are being told that fish ladder construction and maintenance are cost prohibitive. So why would the upper dams be different? If these aren’t funded, fish are only up to Seabright dam even if the other dams are removed. Comprehensive planning is needed.

The report also states that dam removal “will lower the water levels” ¹ and because of that, regarding structural risk factors, “… most plausible unfavorable conditions to result from reduced water levels at this location include the potential reduction in frost protection” ², “the majority of the structures have at least one foundation element which may have increased exposure to frost”³, and “challenging to specifically assess the impact of the projected water surface profiles on the structures within the river due to a variety of unknowns”⁴. 

Also mentioned are ice, sediment, and other identified considerations. So, what are the consequences (and costs) of choosing this plan prior to knowing how our Main Street will be affected? Could buildings be damaged or require taxpayer funded improvements?

Costs: Per the Interfluve report, the total 50-year cost estimates to keep the dam is not the lowest and would be $1,326,700 ($185,900 up-front)⁵. The lowest total cost, remove the dam and restore the channel, is $1,326,300 ($745,100 up-front) ⁵. That’s right, it will cost us $400 more OVER 50 years to keep the dam. We could spend $400 and then fully explore fish passageways in order find out the real cost to restore fish to the Megunticook via migration. Or, we go with the only option being discussed and save $8 a year for 50 years, and spend $560,000 more now, taking our chances with the consequences.

¹inter^.fluve, Feasibility/Alternatives Analysis Report, Montgomery Dam, Megunticook River, Camden, ME, (May 3, 2019), Section 6.1.2, p 55

²inter^.fluve, 6.1.2, 55

³inter^.fluve, 6.1.2, 55

⁴inter^.fluve, Appendix B - Gartley & Dorsky, Montgomery Dam, Structural Conditions Assessment, (Dec. 12, 2018), p 8

⁵inter^.fluve, Section 8.2, p 83

Ann Mischissin lives in Camden