Olin Rose-Bardawil: Control of the river highlights risks in harnessing green power

The fish ladder at the Turner Falls Dam on the Connecticut River, built to accomodate salmon, isn’t suited for many species of fish.

The fish ladder at the Turner Falls Dam on the Connecticut River, built to accomodate salmon, isn’t suited for many species of fish. STAFF FILE PHOTO/PAUL FRANZ

By OLIN ROSE-BARDAWIL

Published: 07-12-2024 9:01 AM

For many, the natural beauty of western Massachusetts is a cornerstone of what makes this region so special. For me, the area’s wild places help to shape its distinct regional identity.

Yet as Raymond DiDonato clearly conveyed in a recent guest column, this area’s natural resources are under major threat from people who want to increase renewable energy in the state but have no major stake in local conservation [“Eastern Mass. is coming for our forests, fields, and farmlands,” June 29].

I believe one of the most worrying aspects of this trend is taking place on the Connecticut River, where large hydropower companies are threatening the river’s future.

As far as pollution goes, the Connecticut River is in far better condition than it once was. During the Industrial Revolution, it often served as a dumping ground for trash and factory waste.

The condition of the river has gradually improved, with a series of important pieces of legislation like the 1972 Clean Water Act being instituted in the latter decades of the 20th century.

So, while the river — which is largely responsible for the Valley’s fertile land — may not be nearly as polluted as is once was, the misuse and mismanagement of the river watershed by hydropower companies is just as endangering to the river and all the living things that depend on it.

There are currently 65 major dams up and down the Connecticut River watershed. According to the Army Corps of Engineers, the number of dams per watershed area in the Connecticut is “among the highest of all rivers in North America.”

Like many of the large energy companies profiting off of western Mass. resources, FirstLight is controlled from outside the area, with the company most recently acquired in 2016 by PSP Investments, a Canadian corporation.

Article continues after...

Yesterday's Most Read Articles

FirstLight decides when to release water from their dams, and they even maintain the right to drain sections of the river below and above the dam, which is obviously devastating for aquatic species living in the river.

Many biologists and wildlife experts will note the immense toll dams take on native fish populations in particular, which rely on upstream travel in order to spawn. Thousands of fish die attempting to travel through dam barriers each year.

To mitigate this damage, some dams, including the Turners Falls Dam and the Holyoke Dam, have installed fish ladders or fish elevators to make it easier for fish to cross the dam and continue their journeys on the other side.

The Turners Falls Dam’s fish ladders are effectively a design failure, though, as its design does not allow most fish species to use it. The ladders are built around the specifications of salmon, despite the fact that very few wild salmon have been found in the river in the past decade, where the population has long been dwindling. The Holyoke Dam’s fish elevator has similar issues and has shown little effectiveness since it was installed.

Companies like FirstLight also own many access points to the river within a large radius of their dams, making it difficult for the public to enjoy these areas for recreation and natural exploration.

There have been calls to remove dams like the one in Turners Falls, and these calls have begun to be heeded. In 2018 alone, 111 dams were removed across the country, suggesting that people could be waking up to the disastrous environmental effects of dams just as they woke up to the chemical pollution that once afflicted the Connecticut River decades ago.

In the places where dams have been removed, the positive results have been astounding. This has been the case for the Klamath River in Oregon, where the largest river restoration project in the world recently took place. After four dams were removed from the river, wild salmon have begun to repopulate and water quality is showing steady improvement. “We’re bringing the river back to life,” Tom Kiernan, the president of American Rivers, said of the project.

While dam removal on the Connecticut River may sound radical, it is not out of the question, considering the number of the dams that have come down elsewhere.

Even if local dams are not removed in the near future, it is imperative that we reassess the power granted to companies like FirstLight to determine the fate of nature in the place we call home.

As it becomes more and more critical that we develop options for renewable energy, we must also consider how conservation of our rivers and other natural resources will be impacted by this push. Because at the end of the day, it will not matter if we have mitigated the effects of climate change if wilderness and biodiversity are lost in the process.

It is possible to consider both: We can have a renewable energy future while also protecting our forests, fields and rivers. But to do this, we have to remember the role wild places play in making this region what it is. And, perhaps more importantly, we have to imagine what it would be like without them.

Olin Rose-Bardawil of Florence is a student at the Williston Northampton School and the editor in chief of the school’s newspaper. His column appears monthly in the Gazette.