With political signage (both for and against) going up all over town, Warrant Article 7 appears to be the hot topic for the residents of Camden this year.  

After reviewing all of the available resources on the topic, I will be voting in favor of this Article.  There are several points worthy of consideration.  Cost, ecological impact, storm resiliency, historical significance, aesthetics and tourism have all been mentioned.

Cost:
Although there would be a cost associated with removing the dam and adjusting the angle of water flow into the harbor, the way this Article is written, it would not be at the Camden taxpayer’s expense.  As opposed to a no vote on this Article, which would pass $6 million dollars in cost to the taxpayers for dam and seawall repairs, plus ongoing maintenance. 

Ecological/Climate Changes:
The Megunticook river dams do not appear to have been built with our current climate change issues (which include higher levels of water flow) in mind.  Removing the dam would decrease upstream flooding and enable access to grants for other upstream dam repair and removal as well as seawall repair, relieving tax payors of that burden.

Historical Significance:
Does a man-made dam carry enough historical significance to create sentimental value to the community?  Maybe.  This appears to be animating some in the community to side with Keep the Dam.  People are throwing around the names of Mary Louise Curtis Bok and the Olmsted Brothers as a means of attaching their historical significance to this dam.  However, it would appear they had very little to do with the dam itself and actually attempted to block the view of the then privately owned dam by planting trees as they designed Harbor Park.

Rather than attempting to preserve a relic of our past, I would turn this issue on its head and make a statement to future generations. The people of Camden in 2025 valued improvements in natural resources over preserving blocks of granite and cement.  We cared more about the health and longevity of the river’s and harbor’s ecosystems.

Aesthetics:
Both proposals (keep the dam and remove the dam) have aesthetically pleasing results, although these should not be overstated.   On the Keep the dam side, the Dam and its impoundment are often referred to as a “Reflecting pool and Waterfall”.  Most times when I look at the stagnant, impoundment of water, it is a few feet deep, full of algae growth, and it is spilling water over the dam in what would be difficult to call a “Waterfall”.  I do not see what some call “the tourism appeal” of the structure as it sits today.  

On the other hand, I would find a free-flowing river with planned natural river pools, and water cascading down over the ledge, much more appealing to locals and visitors.  

Click the following link for Before and After image comparisons.  Other parts of this website are quite informative as well; explaining various scenarios and their associated costs and answering FAQ.  

https://www.megunticookriverkeepers.org/what-will-it-look-like

 I would love to see fish moving through this river, between the harbor and the lake, whether they historically made this run, or not. Adding safe wildlife habitat in human-populated areas also provides great opportunities for teaching about the sharing of resources.  Montgomery’s removal provides a meaningful step in this process.  This is why I will vote Yes on Article 7.

Jay Heckerd lives in Camden