Good News, Bad News on Dams

There was a good-news story in your paper. It is that a useless dam will be removed in Randolph (“Randolph Dam Removal Helps Trout,” March 31).  I commend the New Hampshire Charitable Foundation, the White River Partnership, and other participants for their public-spirited generosity. There is also bad news.  Your story also points to the fact that there are problems with abandoned dams around New England, and the reasons why: They cost a lot of money to remove. I write to reveal those reasons, and to declare this manifesto.

A dam is not a house. It is not real estate. It is a license coupled with an interest. The dam owner owns not the stream bed. When the interest expires, so does the license. Yet the dam remains. This is true for dams big and small.

In this case, the stated purpose indicates that the dam in question was built by either the town of Randolph, or the state of Vermont. The reason for the dam no longer exists. Whoever built the dam should remove it. Yet the state has no money for such purposes and neither does the town of Randolph. Hence, as is most often the case for old power plants and dams alike, it is for those who wish to remove a dam to pay for it — as well as to obtain approval from all parties concerned.

The West Fairlee dam story reveals this bad news as well. Since it was built on private land across a river that feeds the Connecticut for purposes of a small hydro generator, in all likelihood, it required a federal license. The man who built it is dead. Apparently, the generator has fallen into disuse and the license has expired, or is no longer of interest to anyone. And yet, the dam remains, and no one feels obliged to pay for its removal. 

In theory, abandoned and neglected dams should be removed by those who built them. In fact, they are not. This is why there are so many of them around New England. 

Tyler P. Harwell

New London

Thanks for the Support

A big thank you to the voters of Bradford, Newbury, Corinth, Topsham, Fairlee and West Fairlee, the six towns served by the Orange East Senior Center, for approving town funding. OESC will work hard to serve your needs with daily meals enjoyed at our site, home-delivered meals, exercise classes, balance and foot clinics, line dancing, medical equipment, felting and computer classes, flu clinics and tax preparation. Your town funds are greatly appreciated and help us keep our many programs going.

Diane Smarro

Secretary, OESC Board of Directors

Bradford

Which Is The Party of War?

 I write in response to Robert Pollard’s March 15 letter in which he refers to the “college of warmongers”: Bush, Cheney and other Republicans.

The narrative that the Republicans have been the party of war and Democrats all peace-loving doves, is an absurd fiction.

Republicans voice their support for wars and Democrats voice their protests, but turn around and vote for the wars anyway. All of the major U.S. wars in the 20th century — World War I, II, Korea and Vietnam — were entered by Democratic administrations. Harry Truman, a Democrat, is still the only world leader to use a nuclear bomb on a population. And with the exception of World War II, where almost all anti-war sentiment collapsed after Pearl Harbor, these wars were entered over the objections of the left wing of the Democratic Party. But while the presence of that left wing has guaranteed that anti-war liberals rally to the Democratic side, it has not yet stopped a Democratic administration from going to war.

As for Obama, the favorite of the pseudo-liberal devotees of the New York Times, he didn’t technically violate his promises about leaving Iraq and Afghanistan. An adept lawyer and legal scholar, he never said he would end the Iraq war immediately on gaining office, only that he would start ending it immediately, the kind of technically-not-lying he excels at. And, in reality, U.S. troops have been redeployed to both areas. Some will claim that he had no choice, but the reality is our military in these countries has only increased the terrorist presence. This in turn justifies our involvement, which may be the actual intent anyway: to ensure that war is never ending.

The reality of our wars is that for a select few, they are extremely profitable. A profit made in blood. The system cannot be changed from the outside through protests or petitions however peaceful or well-intended. The two-party system is rotten to the core.

 Randy Cole

West Fairlee