Exeter’s colonial buildings look the same as they did ten years ago, but the town sounds different now. There’s a gushing noise in the background as if someone’s breathing through their teeth. For over one hundred years, the Exeter River was guarded by “The Great Dam.” In 2000, however, New Hampshire’s Department of Environmental Services determined that the structure was too weak to survive a major storm and sent Exeter a “letter of deficiency.” The state enforces safety standards because, if a dam broke, it “could cause damage to roads or, in rare cases, even loss of life,” Ted Diers, New Hampshire Dam Bureau Administrator, told The Politic. Although Exeter’s leaders initially wanted to preserve their dam, they winced after learning that reinforcing it would cost almost five hundred thousand dollars. Lawmakers were also aware that the structure “increased the risk of flooding upstream and stopped fish from migrating through the river,” Diers noted. To support wildlife and avoid another century of maintenance, the town finally decided to demolish the dam in 2016. Instead of a flat sheet of water jumping over concrete, children now bike past an unruly stream filled with rocks, rapids, and seagulls snacking on fish.
Dam removal remains a controversial issue in New Hampshire. Durham, a college town on the edge of a bay, is ten miles from Exeter and recently faced a similar dilemma: its Mill Pond Dam was constructed in the early twentieth century and, in 2017, was deemed hazardous by the state. Instead of spending money to repair Mill Pond Dam, Durham’s council members voted to bulldoze it last year. The decision outraged many of the town’s fifteen-thousand residents who felt invested in the dam and, after over one thousand people signed a petition, leaders agreed to host a public referendum. In the five months leading up to the new vote, both supporters and opponents of the dam held rallies and planted signs in their yards. One group of locals launched the “Free Oyster River,” campaign and claimed that removing the Mill Pond Dam would “enhance native fish runs, reduce flooding, improve water quality and respect indigenous history.” Another set of residents organized a rival campaign to “Save Mill Pond Dam” and asserted that the dam formed part of “the long arc of Durham’s history” and provided “recreational benefits to kayakers and ice skaters.” In March, Durham residents voted to remove the dam but the passion on both sides was clear—voter turnout was more than double the average for town elections.
The dams in Exeter and Durham were originally a result of economic development. European settlers built the area’s first dams in the 1640s and spent the next three hundred years harnessing the rivers’ power for industry. Durham was home to a timber mill while early mills in Exeter produced everything from flour to paper. In the mid-nineteenth century, a textile manufacturer opened the largest building in Exeter and employed a wave of immigrants from Ireland and Canada: “the community grew around the mill,” Diers told The Politic. By the early 1900s, however, New Hampshire’s factories relied on electricity rather than water wheels. In 1913, Durham replaced its nineteenth-century dam with a concrete structure and Exeter did the same one year later. The new dams were economically obsolete: they weren’t connected to large factories, were too small to generate electricity, and “provided minimal flood protection,” Diers said. On one hand, people in New Hampshire “felt a sense of gratitude” toward dams and adopted them “as part of local heritage,” Peter Brewitt, the author of Same River Twice, told The Politic. But while many Granite Staters “love historic dams,” they are often “less enthusiastic about funding their upkeep,” Brewitt noted. The dams in Durham and Exeter fell into the hands of local governments during the second half of the twentieth century, were scantily maintained, and, by the early 2000s, had grown decrepit. It’s a story that’s familiar in mill towns across the state—the number of New Hampshire dams classified as “high-hazard,” doubled in 2022.
In the past three decades, dam removal has become a national movement. Among environmentalists, “dams have always been controversial,” Brewitt said. Many of America’s most famous fish, such as Pacific Salmon, live in the ocean but can only breed in freshwater. Dams prevent these species, known as anadromous fish, from traveling upstream to lay eggs. But while the activist Edward Abbey criticized dams in the American West as “abuses of the land,” actually removing dams was uncommon until the 1990s. As the new millennium approached, however, “there was a generational shift,” as leaders who grew up during the environmental movement replaced lawmakers who viewed dams “as a sign of progress,” Brewitt recalled. In 1997, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commision refused to renew the license for the Edwards Dam in Maine because of its impact on local fish; the decision came after years of protest and represented “a watershed moment for dam removal across the country,” Amy Singler, the director of river restoration at American Rivers, told The Politic. Federal agencies started to incentivize dam removal through competitive grants and environmentalists founded groups like American Rivers to educate citizens about the process. With examples to follow and national support, people in New Hampshire have begun thinking about dams more holistically. “The conversation in Durham couldn’t have taken place 20 years ago,” Singler said.
People everywhere in America need to reevaluate the dams in their communities. In some cases, the structures are worth maintaining. Singler acknowledges that “many dams are part of our public infrastructure,” and can provide drinking water and opportunities for lakefront recreation. As climate change promises more intense flooding and higher demand for renewable energy, dams that store water or produce electricity seem especially important. But Singler also pointed out that “less than 20 percent of America’s dams are used for hydropower or flood control,” and described many of New Hampshire’s dams as, “relics of the industrial revolution.” The cultural significance of dams is hard to quantify but so is the benefit of free-flowing water. When asked about the results of dam removal in Exeter, Diers smiled. “Take a walk down High Street and see how the river makes you feel.”