November, 12 2008, 10:26am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Caitlin Jennings, American Rivers, 202-347-7550
Serena McClain, American Rivers, 202-347-7550
64 Dams to Be Removed in 2008
Clean water and safety benefits illustrate need for more green infrastructure investments nationwide
WASHINGTON
American Rivers today released its list of 64 dams in 14 states that have been removed or are slated for removal in 2008. Thanks to the removal of these outdated dams, communities in California, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, North Carolina, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Wisconsin will enjoy better water quality, improved public safety and flood protection, and more abundant fish and wildlife. A list of these projects is available at: www.americanrivers.org/2008DamRemovals.
For more than ten years, American Rivers has led a national effort to restore rivers through removing dams that no longer make sense. This effort has enabled a gradual shift in society's view of dams, and dramatically increased consideration of dam removal as a reasonable and beneficial option for restoring rivers.
"When we tear down old infrastructure like obsolete dams, we build up our natural infrastructure the streams, wetlands and floodplains that give our communities essential services like clean water, flood protection, and other economic benefits," said Rebecca Wodder, president of American Rivers.
While some dams are beneficial to society, many have outlived their usefulness and often do more harm than good. Some dams increase flood risks for communities, and old or poorly maintained dams are at risk of failure. According to the Association of State Dam Safety Officials, there are 10,213 high hazard potential dams across the United States that would pose a threat to human life if they were to fail.
Even small dams can pose a risk to anglers, paddlers, swimmers, and children playing nearby. These dams, with deadly recirculating currents that can appear immediately downstream, have been given the macabre nickname "drowning machines."
Dams can also harm water quality, block migrating fish and wildlife, and limit river recreation opportunities.
"We can't afford to waste money, and dam removal is often the cheapest way to deal with a dam's safety, economic, and environmental problems," said Wodder.
Communities that choose to pull out obsolete dams can benefit from better water quality, revitalized fisheries, new recreational opportunities, increased real estate values, and recovered land suitable for parks and other public use.
"It is time to rethink our nation's water infrastructure. These dam removals are an example of how our communities can reap multiple benefits when we let nature work, and when we let rivers be rivers," said Wodder.
Maxwell Pond Dam on New Hampshire's Black Brook (a tributary of the Merrimack River), which is slated for removal this fall, is one example of a project that will have many benefits for the community. The City of Manchester, the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, and other partners are taking innovative steps to remove this outdated dam and restore eight miles of free-flowing river for alewife, blueback herring, Atlantic salmon, and other migratory fish. The city is planning a major park revitalization effort in anticipation of the new free-flowing stream. The stream restoration project will improve overall water quality and get Black Brook removed from the state's "impaired waters" list.
Another upcoming dam removal that will benefit the local community is the Woodley Dam on the Apple River in Wisconsin. This 18-foot earthen dam partially failed during a flood in April 2001, necessitating an emergency draining of the reservoir. The dam, which once provided a small amount of power, is being removed to alleviate the county's liability for the structure and the impacts of other potential dam failures if the structure were to remain in place. In addition to the removal, restoration plans also include streambank stabilization and the construction of a snowmobile bridge.
" Global warming threatens our clean water supply and increases the risks from floods and droughts. Traditional infrastructure isn't enough to handle these new realities. A new, green approach to water infrastructure will protect public health, safety, and quality of life, and give communities the flexibility and security we need," said Wodder.
Over 700 dam removals have been recorded nationwide. These dams were removed for a variety of reasons but many were in a state of disrepair. This promising trend is the result of renewed appreciation for free-flowing, healthy streams and the aging of much of the nation's dam infrastructure.
American Rivers helps communities remove unneeded dams by providing educational, technical, and financial assistance. The organization works with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Community-based Restoration Program to fund stream barrier removals in select regions nationwide that help restore rivers, enhance public safety and community resilience, and have clear and identifiable benefits to diadromous fish populations. Applications are currently being accepted until December 3, 2008 for 2009 project funding. American Rivers also provides funding and technical assistance for dam removal and river restoration projects in Pennsylvania in partnership with the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection's Growing Greener Program.
American Rivers is the only national organization standing up for healthy rivers so our communities can thrive. Through national advocacy, innovative solutions and our growing network of strategic partners, we protect and promote our rivers as valuable assets that are vital to our health, safety and quality of life. Founded in 1973, American Rivers has more than 65,000 members and supporters nationwide, with offices in Washington, DC and the Mid-Atlantic, Northeast, Midwest, Southeast, California and Northwest regions.
LATEST NEWS
'Do Not Get Numb to This': Trump Admin Kills 3 More People in Caribbean
"The illegality is compounding," said one expert. "Every strike takes us farther from the rule of law."
Feb 24, 2026
The ramp-up of deadly boat bombings in the Caribbean since General Francis L. Donovan took over as head of US Southern Command continued on Monday, with three more people killed in a strike on a vessel that the Department of Defense claimed was operated by "Designated Terrorist Organizations."
Donovan took over as commander of US Southern Command on February 5 following the abrupt retirement of Admiral Alvin Hosley, who had reportedly raised concerns about the Pentagon's campaign of striking boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean—a policy that Trump administration officials have insisted is aimed at stopping drug trafficking from Venezuela.
Venezuela plays virtually no role in the trafficking of fentanyl, the drug involved in most overdoses in the US, and the administration has provided no evidence that the dozens of strikes it's carried out since September have actually been aimed at drug trafficking boats.
Even if the targets were involved in transporting illicit substances to the US, legal experts say the strikes have violated international law.
Following the attack on Monday, the death toll in the Trump administration's maritime operations in the region since September has reached at least 150, and Adam Isacson of the Washington Office on Latin America emphasized that this month, there has been a clear acceleration of boat bombings.
Twenty-five people have been killed in the administration's boat attacks in just 19 days.
"None posed imminent threats," said Isacson. "None faced more than an accusation of guilt for a non-capital crime—'take our word for it.' The illegality is compounding. Every strike takes us farther from the rule of law."
"Do not get numb to this," he added.
Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch, said Southern Command's killing of three people Monday amounted to "more summary executions."
On Sunday, after another strike that killed three people, the Freedom of the Press Foundation noted that "despite the rising death toll, the government’s legal rationale for these likely illegal attacks remains secret."
"By keeping the legal justifications hidden, the government is sidestepping accountability for what appear to be extrajudicial killings," said Lauren Harper, the group's Daniel Ellsberg chair on government secrecy.
President Donald Trump told Congress in October that the US is in an "armed conflict" with drug cartels. At the time, Gregory Corn, a former senior adviser for law-of-war issues for the US Army, said the president was crossing a "major legal line."
The boat bombing campaign led up to the US government's invasion of Venezuela in January and its abduction of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, who were brought to the US and charged with drug trafficking. They pleaded not guilty in court last month. Since that military operation, the Trump administration has sought to take control of Venezuela's oil.
Both Democratic and Republican members of Congress have spoken out against the boat bombings and have introduced war powers resolutions to stop the US from continuing the campaign and from attacking Venezuela, but so far, the vast majority of GOP lawmakers have voted down the efforts.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Admits War Would Be Disastrous for Ordinary Iranians as He Weighs Military Assault
"The stakes are clear," said the National Iranian American Council. "There’s a chance to avert war and disastrous outcomes for the people of Iran, but time may be running out."
Feb 24, 2026
President Donald Trump admitted Monday that a US assault on Iran would be disastrous for the Middle East nation's people as he considers options for a military attack, reportedly drawing private warnings from the United States' top general.
In a Truth Social post, Trump pushed back against reports that Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has voiced concerns about the potentially massive risks of attacking Iran, a country of more than 90 million people. Trump has previously claimed that Caine believed any military conflict with Iran would be "something easily won."
"He has not spoken of not doing Iran, or even the fake limited strikes that I have been reading about, he only knows one thing, how to WIN and, if he is told to do so, he will be leading the pack," Trump wrote of Caine in his Monday post.
The US president—who blew up a landmark diplomatic agreement with Iran during his first term—added that if a new deal with the Iranian government doesn't materialize, "it will be a very bad day for that Country and, very sadly, its people, because they are great and wonderful, and something like this should never have happened to them."
Trump's acknowledgment that a US military assault would likely be devastating for ordinary Iranians runs counter to the narrative pushed by supporters of war, who claim conflict and regime change is necessary to aid Iran's population.
"The stakes are clear," the National Iranian American Council, an advocacy organization that has vocally opposed a US attack on Iran, wrote late Monday. "President Trump himself says that war with Iran will mean a 'very bad day' for Iran and 'very sadly, its people.' There’s a chance to avert war and disastrous outcomes for the people of Iran, but time may be running out."
Lawmakers in the US House of Representatives are expected to vote this week on a resolution aimed at preventing war with Iran without congressional authorization, but the measure stands little chance of reaching Trump's desk.
The president, meanwhile, has shown no indication that he intends to seek congressional authorization for any attack on Iran. One poll conducted earlier this month showed that just 21% of Americans would support the Trump administration "initiating an attack on Iran."
The New York Times reported over the weekend that Trump is considering an "initial targeted US attack" on Iran followed by "a much bigger attack in the coming months" if the nation's government doesn't capitulate to Washington's demands, principally that Iran abandon its nuclear program. Negotiators from the US and Iran are scheduled to meet in Geneva later this week.
"Behind the scenes, a new proposal is being considered by both sides that could create an off-ramp to military conflict: a very limited nuclear enrichment program that Iran could carry out solely for purposes of medical research and treatments," the Times reported. "It is unclear whether either side would agree. But the last-minute proposal comes as two aircraft carrier groups and dozens of fighter jets, bombers,k and refueling aircraft are now massing within striking distance of Iran."
Multiple outlets reported Monday that Caine, the top US general, has offered warnings about the potential risks of attacking Iran. According to the Washington Post, Caine voiced concerns at a recent White House meeting that "any major operation against Iran will face challenges because the US munitions stockpile has been significantly depleted by Washington’s ongoing defense of Israel and support for Ukraine."
The Trump administration's march to war with Iran has also drawn significant outside opposition.
Matt Duss, executive vice president of the Center for International Policy and a former foreign policy adviser to US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), said Monday that "like the June 2025 bombings that failed to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, another US strike would be an illegal act of war."
"As with his false claims that last year’s attack had ‘completely and totally obliterated’ Iran’s nuclear capacity, the president has now dropped the pretense that military intervention would be aimed at protecting Iranian protestors who bravely faced a deadly crackdown to demonstrate against the regime’s many human rights violations," said Duss.
"With Trump sending mixed signals over the timing and scope of possible strikes—and given his record of attacking even when active diplomacy is taking place—Congress must act swiftly to make clear that the president does not have its authorization for the use of the U.S. Armed Forces against Iran," he added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Republican Lawmakers' Bid to Execute Tennessee Abortion Patients Slammed as 'Christofascism'
"This is about the future of the anti-abortion movement in the Republican Party and the way that they are embracing extremism at a rate that is so fucking alarming," said one critic.
Feb 23, 2026
“If you kill a baby from embryo on up with a pill or a scalpel, we oughta execute you."
That's not social media rage bait by some random zealot, it's the premise of legislation recently introduced by Republican state lawmakers in Tennessee to make abortion a capital offense, as voiced by one of the measure's sponsors. And it's setting off alarm bells in recent days across a nation in which attacks on remaining reproductive rights have been accelerating in the years since the right-wing US Supreme Court overturned its landmark Roe v. Wade ruling nearly four years ago.
An amendment to HB 570/SB 738 was filed by primary sponsors Rep. Jody Barrett (R-69) and Sen. Mark Pody (R-17) and co-sponsored by five of their GOP colleagues, all men, including Rep. Monty Fritts (R-32), who is also running for governor—and who is the source of the quote in this article's lede. Fritts spoke those words at a meeting in Jonesborough, where TN Repro News publisher Rachel Wells last year interviewed a pregnant woman who was allegedly denied prenatal care under Tennessee's Medical Ethics Defense Act because she is unmarried to her partner of 15 years.
If passed, Barrett and Pody's amendment—which was still adding co-sponsors as of Monday—would classify abortion as "homicide of an unborn child," punishable by life imprisonment with or without parole—or even death by lethal injection. The measure contains very narrow exceptions, including for spontaneous miscarriage or when abortion is needed to save a mother's life. The amendment is currently under committee review has not yet been scheduled for a vote.
Tennessee already has some of the strictest abortion laws in the United States, with a near-total ban on the procedure in effect since Republican Gov. Bill Lee signed it in August 2022. Abortion is banned from fertilization, with limited exceptions.
While religious groups including the Southern Baptist Convention and Foundation to Abolish Abortion hailed the proposal as a life-saving measure that serves the will of the Abrahamic deity figure "God," reproductive rights defenders expressed alarm and outrage.
"We are talking about a gubernatorial candidate openly calling for women who end their pregnancies to be charged with a capital crime and spend their life in prison or for the to get the death penalty. That is where we're at right now," Abortion, Every Day publisher Jessica Valenti said in a video posted on social media.
"This is not just about this one guy," she continued. "This is about the future of the anti-abortion movement in the Republican Party and the way that they are embracing extremism at a rate that is so fucking alarming."
Meet Rep. Monty Fritts— a Tennessee lawmaker running for governor. If you’re one of the millions of American women who’s had an abortion, he thinks that you should be given the death penalty
[image or embed]
— Jessica Valenti (@jessicavalenti.bsky.social) February 18, 2026 at 7:57 PM
"Saying that women should be punished for having abortions was once... an unthinkable thing to say within the anti-abortion movement," Valenti added. "Now they're openly embracing it. Over a dozen states over the last year have introduced or advanced equal protection legislation... that would punish abortion patients as murders, which in some states can mean the death penalty, it could mean life in prison."
"This is not some fringe element," she stressed. "This is becoming the mainstream of the movement. Right now in Texas... the Republican Party platform calls for equal protection. It calls for the execution of women or life in prison for women who have abortions. This is not fringe."
In South Carolina, where a bill to execute people who have abortions garnered more than 20 GOP votes on its way to defeat but performing the procedure is a felony, the Sumter County Sheriff's Office last week launched an investigation into a fetus that was found at a water treatment plant. Investigators will test tissue samples from the fetus "to determine the race and locate the mother."
Numerous deaths have been attributed to abortion bans in states including Texas and Georgia.
Back in Tennessee, Fritts—who is polling at around 5-7% in the GOP gubernatorial primary, depending on the survey—has been busy defending his proposal to kill people who have abortions.
“Murder is murder. I know that’s hard for people to hear, and I don’t mean to be hard with it, I promise,” he told the Tennessee Holler, comparing abortion pills to cyanide capsules.
Fritts' campaign slogan is "liberty & less government."
Responding to Fritts' co-sponsorship of the death penalty amendment, Jon Tate's Daily Practice publisher Jon Tate wrote, "Disgusting."
"While I was busy and not paying attention, my state was apparently becoming ground zero for white-supremacist Christofascism," he added. "It breaks my brain and my heart."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


