General

Claim:  There are too many unanswered questions for a vote in June.

Truth:  The Town of Camden has conducted extensive research and community engagement in regards to the Montgomery Dam and the additional six dams along the Megunticook River over the last seven years.

• Starting in 2018, the Town of Camden contracted with Inter-Fluve and Gartley & Dorsky to conduct three in-depth feasibility and design studies evaluating current conditions of the dams along the river and modeling options for dam restoration, partial removal, and full removal.

• In 2022, the Megunticook River Citizens Advisory Committee (MRCAC) was formed to assess information gaps, gather data, and conduct community outreach. Over 2.5 years, MRCAC hosted 35 public meetings, 10 expert-led presentations, and two community outreach events; created a public survey and 15 informational newsletters; met with advocacy groups and the Camden Library Trustees, and delivered a 35-page Montgomery Dam Findings and Recommendations report to the Select Board.

• In 2024, Inter-Fluve developed cost estimates for design options for each dam on the river as well as removal, fish passage, and restoration options for the Montgomery Dam.

Claim:  There has been no objective, outside review of the conclusions of the research findings.

Truth:  Inter-Fluve is a nationally recognized consulting firm with a track record of successful projects across the United States. During the highly competitive grant application process that followed the initial assessments, agencies such the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Fish and Wildlife Federation (NFWF) as well as a third-party engineering firm, Stantec, conducted extensive technical and scientific review of the project, including Inter-Fluve’s feasibility assessments. 

Claim:  Voting “yes” to remove the Montgomery Dam means that, in addition to removing the dam, the Town is committing to a $25 million project upstream and the costs will be borne by Camden taxpayers.

Truth:  Voting “yes” would approve the removal of only the Montgomery Dam (and only if it is funded by grants and private donations).

A “no” vote would mean that the costs of repairing and maintaining the Montgomery Dam as well as the high hazard dams will be borne by Camden taxpayers. By enabling fish migration, removing the Montgomery Dam would also unlock funding for dam removal and repair projects upstream. However, if outside funding is not available, 1) tax-payers will not be responsible for funding the removal of the three private dams and 2) Camden residents will vote on tax dollar allocations for updates to the high hazard dams.

Costs

Claim:  If funding is not available to fund the removal and repair of the other six dams, the removal of the Montgomery Dam will be a wasted effort.  

Truth:  Federal funds are currently available for the removal of Montgomery Dam and the three private dams and updates and fish passage installations on the three high hazard dams. Even if funding becomes unavailable for upstream projects, removing the Montgomery Dam is still highly beneficial. It will create a beautiful free-flowing river through downtown, reduce flood risk to downtown buildings, improve water quality and the surrounding ecosystem, and nullify the costs of dam operation, maintenance, and repair.

Funding

Flooding

History & Aesthetics

Claim:  Since Mary Louise Curtis Bok and her landscape architects, the Olmsted Brothers, integrated the dam’s redesign with the overall plan for Harbor Park, it has historical significance and should be preserved.

Truth:  Mary Louise Curtis Bok’s vision was to facilitate to create an oasis of simple, natural beauty in the heart of Camden, set apart and shielded from the industrial and business districts. According to the Camden Public Library Board of Trustees, “Grading of Harbor Park and retention/planting of trees were done specifically to block the view of the dam from Harbor Park and keep the dam out of the landscape frame Olmsted Brothers sought to have their design create.” Olmsted’s interests in the dam were limited to fortifying the structure to address leaking and overflow to allow for the creation of Harbor Park. Since the land parcel containing the deteriorating dam was privately owned by a local businessman not interested in making the repairs, Mrs. Bok had to cover the cost of the work undertaken by Olmsted Brothers herself. 

Claim:  Dam removal will eliminate the waterfall.     

Truth:  While the design and slope will be different, removing the dam will create a natural, free-flowing river with the same volume of water cascading into the harbor. The river will flow over natural ledge along its original channel instead of over a man-made concrete structure.

Sea-Run Fish

Claim:  Sea-run fish such as alewives have not been historically present in the river and introducing them could negatively impact the ecosystem.

Truth:  The slope of the pre-dam river channel was suitable for fish migration. According to the late Reuel Robinson and other early historians, the Megunticook River was a well-known Atlantic Salmon stream. The Kennebec Journal reported that James Richards, one of Camden's earliest European settlers, was known to have speared Atlantic Salmon at "Anchor Factory Falls." The Department of Maine Department of Marine Resources (MDMR) classifies the Megunticook watershed as documented historical sea-run fish habitat and have identified the Megunticook River and Lake as a priority for restoration with assurance that reintroducing sea-run fish species such as alewives, brook trout, and rainbow smelt would not have negative environmental impacts. In fact, sea-run fish play an important role for the ecological health of river systems. Sea-run fish have been successfully restored in neighboring watersheds (e.g. Ducktrap River and St. Georges River watersheds).

Claim:  Removing the Montgomery Dam and enabling alewife migration could attract messy gulls.

Truth:  Unlike fish ladder structures that crowd fish into confined spaces—making them easy targets for predators—a free-flowing river allows alewives to disperse naturally as they migrate upstream, reducing congestion and minimizing the likelihood of large gatherings of gulls. Moreover, the migration is a short-lived event, typically lasting just a few weeks in the spring. Rather than creating a nuisance, the seasonal return of alewives would support a healthy river ecosystem and an enriching Spring-time event for locals and tourists.