Removing dams can be controversial. Not everyone understands why there’s been this decades-long push to remove dams on Michigan Rivers. I have some firsthand evidence for that:
Several years ago, my Environment Report colleagues and I were on the opposite side of a one-way mirror. We were watching and listening to a group of public radio listeners in a focus group. A grant we received required that we learn how people responded to our stories.
One of those stories was about dams. It explained that recent studies found removing dams was not always a good thing because polluted sediment deposited behind the dam over years could be stirred up and re-suspended in the water column, and that could once again spread pollution in the stream.
After playing the radio story, the moderator asked the group around the table what they thought of that story.
Nobody said anything. The group was silent for what seemed to be a very long time. Finally, one brave woman said, “I don’t understand. We’re Americans. We build dams. Why would you tear one down?”
We had made a significant error in assuming our listeners understood that removing dams was often good, a part of making rivers free and wild again. The dam-removal movement is a significant step toward restoring fish populations, improving water quality, and benefitting aquatic organisms that were disappearing.
The focus group session revealed that it was not common knowledge. Even today, some 20 years later, a lot of people still have not heard how removing some dams can be beneficial.
Series of dams on Michigan rivers have turned what were once clear, cool, running streams into nearly stagnant pools of water that warm up in the summer, depleting much of the oxygen in the water and disrupting the fish and other critters that had evolved in the free-flowing streams.
The dams also block fish, including some popular Great Lakes fish, from reaching their spawning grounds.
The Michigan Department of Natural Resources is currently trumpeting some of the dam removals recently completed by the agency and its partners. One effort has already connected more than 140 miles of streams through a grant awarded by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.
In a news release, the DNR said, “with help from many conservation partners, (the agency) is halfway through completion of a $5 million grant to remove 27 stream barriers.”
You can find the DNR release here, and see some of the individual projects.
“We’re really focused on aging dams, and dams that we’re no longer using, or dams that are too expensive to responsibly maintain, said Kesiree O’Brien, resource analyst for the DNR.
Besides dam removal and clearing other obstructions, the grant money is being used to reestablish native plants and trees, restore streams and remove sediment, and make other improvements at various sites.
Work on an additional 11 projects is planned for next year.
The Michigan DNR efforts are just part of a statewide effort to step up dam removal. Two dams that failed due to unusually heavy rains caused flooding in Midland and surrounding areas in 2020. That brought concerns about climate change and deteriorating infrastructure to the forefront of the attention of the public and politicians.
In the fall of 2023, my colleague, Kelly House at Bridge Michigan (a partner with Michigan Public in the Great Lakes News Collaborative), wrote a story that covered the challenges as the state began to more thoroughly assess the situation and start looking for the money that it would take to remove dams and restore natural areas.
There are several aspects to the need for dam removal, including the benefits and consequences.
Public radio colleague Leona Larson at WMUK in Kalamazoo looked at grants from the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy which amounted to $14.9 million in response to requests that exceeded $100 million.
Masha Smahliuk at WCMU in Mount Pleasant looked at the loss of a treasured lake after a dam was removed.
A report on a 10-year study that looked at a stream before, during, and after dam removal revealed longer-term aspects of the changes.
In 2024, I toured the progress on the removal and river restoration at a dam near Plainwell, which recently was completed, as The Outdoor Wire reported.
While a lot of progress on dam removals has been made in a relatively short time, the pace is likely to slow dramatically.
Kesiree O’Brien at the DNR said the agency will still be able to work on projects in the coming year, but she also said there are some dams that will remain regardless. Michigan will want to preserve many of its human-made lakes.
“We’re the Department of Natural Resources, so we also deal with recreation along with protecting our fish and wildlife. There’s always a balance to be struck. And the only way we can achieve that is to wholistically review our responsibilities with dam management.”
With an estimated $1.1 billion reduction in federal money causing a hole in the state of Michigan budget, and the likelihood of federal grants for dam removal becoming scarce or non-existent, work on the projects will slow. Nonprofits such as the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation cannot pay for all of the work Michigan needs to battle climate-change challenges to all of the state’s deteriorating dams.
