I was born and raised in Camden on the banks of the Megunticook River although my parents came from away. Not very far away —one was from Machias and the other from Thomaston. Nonetheless, if native status is a qualification, I feel qualified to comment on the current dispute.

Let me say, first of all, that I am dismayed at the way the poisonous discord that infects our national politics has contaminated my home town. Surely, we are better than this, better than the ad hominem attacks, the misstatements of facts, the careless hurling of insults in all directions. Those who sling mud often, alas, find that it sticks to their own muddy hands.

The question before us is the dismantling of the so-called Montgomery Dam (I don’t recall that name from 50 or 60 years ago). I’ve stood at the base of the falls and marveled at the immense energy produced by the Megunticook River after a heavy rain. It doesn’t take a stretch of the imagination to figure out why early settlers selected this spot: that energy at one time drove saw mills, grist mills, and many kinds of manufacturing enterprises.

But it doesn’t do that any longer. Even an attempt some years back to harness the river’s energy to produce electricity at the Seabright Dam, upriver from Montgomery, failed. Times have changed, our needs are different, and our respect for our environment, so precious in this part of the world, has increased as we accept responsibility for protecting it.

Which leads me now to state the reasons why I intend to vote to dismantle the dam:

On the negative side:

1. It is a no longer useful construction with no inherent aesthetic, economic, or environmental value, built originally to power mills that have long since disappeared. Even as a tourist lure, the waterfall counts for very little, despite what many locals believe. I’ve surfed the internet through a number of sites that rate such attractions — Conde Nast Traveler, Travel + Leisure, Trip Advisor, et al. — and I find almost no mention of the waterfall, let alone the dam. Trip Advisor lists the waterfall in 16th place among Camden’s attractions, actually right below Pitcher Pond!
   
   
2. Maintenance of the existing structure, which is severely degraded and continuing to crumble, is costly, and will be even more so for our children and grandchildren since the town is obligated to pay for it through taxes. It’s surely worth mentioning that upkeep of the dam was too expensive for Phil Montgomery, previous owner of the dam, who asked the town to help defray the cost. For various reasons, the town was unable to do that, which is why he persuaded Camden to accept his “gift.” Essentially and cleverly, he shifted responsibility from his own shoulders as owner to the taxpayers of the town, which unwisely accepted the gift.

In addition to upkeep, the dam is also a nuisance, requiring constant management by town employees to prevent and control upstream flooding. And the dam pond has to be drained, a tedious and costly process, when any work is required on adjacent buildings

1. It is, quite frankly, an eyesore for much of its natural life; only when heavy rains produce a forceful outflow is the drama of the waterfall apparent; the rest of the time it is simply a concrete (or cement?) tank, filled with stagnant and often smelly water, an undesirable sight from the back porch of the Camden Deli and from other enterprises on that side of Main Street. 

On the positive side:

1. Returning the river to its natural flow will produce an elegant, free-form water course, a stream that will flow over the bedrock ledges and be fully as appealing as the occasional bursts from the dam that we see today. A fish ladder is not envisioned as it’s deemed unnecessary.
2. The current plan, on which we are asked to vote, is to fund the removal of the dam through available grants, thus relieving townspeople from the tax burdens inherent in the present situation. No further funding is viewed as necessary once the dam has been removed. It’s an easy formula: No dam = no costly maintenance. On the other hand, if the dam is left in place, costly upkeep will continue.
3. Finally, after a considerable amount of research and investigation carried out by various bodies — most especially by the Megunticook River Citizens Advisory Committee (on behalf of the Select Board, representing the citizens of Camden) and the Library Board (charged by deed with overseeing Harbor Park and environs) — the conclusion reached was to dismantle the dam. This decision required an awesome amount of time and effort by all parties, which only confirms my respect for their judgment that, yes, indeed, removal of the dam is the smart and sensible option.

With all that in mind, I intend to cast a “yes” vote on June 10. I urge you to do the same. You can also vote earlier by absentee ballot at the Town Office until 3:30 p.m. on June 5.

Nancy Harmon Jenkins lives in Camden