Before tearing down dams, remember why they were built

By Greg Walcher | Commentary, GregWalcher.com

A Montana friend reminded me of an old cowboy adage: “Before you take down a fence, you ought to pause long enough to ask why it was put there.” It’s a principle called “Chesterton’s Fence,” coined by writer G.K. Chesterton who cautioned against acting rashly. He wrote, “a ‘modern reformer’ says of the fence, ‘I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.’ But someone more intelligent refuses until learning why it’s there.”

It is the perfect analogy for today’s debate about removing dams, a popular global trend for the past few years. Chesterton’s 1929 book, The Thing, explains the logic that should prevail: “This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable.”

The dam removal craze began in the 1990s with Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, who famously boasted to a Trout Unlimited audience that he wanted to be the first “to tear down a really large dam.” In 1997, he personally wielded a sledgehammer on Quaker Neck dam in North Carolina, then on dams at Kennebec in Maine, on the Baraboo River in Wisconsin, the Rogue River in Oregon, Butte and Clear Creeks in California. There have been 100 others since then.

Babbitt’s allies set their sights on four Lower Snake River dams, hydroelectric projects called Ice Harbor, Lower Monumental, Little Goose and Lower Granite. The pressure intensified until 2024 when Washington’s Governor signed an executive order requiring studies to find ways to replace the power those dams generate, so they could be torn down to benefit fish. Sierra Club president Carl Pope said, “If salmon are to survive climate change, four of these dams on the Lower Snake River must go.” Removal of those dams became a great cause, and Congress will probably authorize it before much longer.

Last year Pennsylvania destroyed 14 dams, Massachusetts 11, and Vermont 9. Some were old, dubbed by activists “deadbeat dams,” mostly because they were small, and someone decided they no longer served a purpose. Certainly some dams are obsolete, like those that powered historic grist mills. Some create stagnant water and prevent fish from reaching upstream habitat. Many are at risk of failing, though activists use that as an excuse to tear them down, rather than repair them.

The trend soon reached Europe, too. A dam in Iceland is the latest of over 600 such structures removed in the last year, in Macedonia, Sweden, Finland, Spain, and the UK. A coalition called Dam Removal Europe wants “tens of thousands” more removed.

There has been some pushback, such as a 2025 UK government study outlining how removing dams facilitates the spread of invasive species.

Removing one of the Klamath River dams, 2025

But the far bigger issue is Chesterton’s Fence. Few activists really study the reason so many dams were built in the first place. Dams have always been expensive, and people do not waste time, money, sweat, and toil for no reason. More than 10,000 dams were built at least partly for flood control. Floods have killed millions of people around the world. In 1930 over 400,000 people died in floods, but in recent decades, that number has shrunk to less than 10,000 a year, almost none in the U.S. – largely because of flood control systems, including dams. Do we really want to bring back that perennial danger?

Dams also generate over 15 percent of all the electricity on Earth, in the U.S. more than a fourth of all utility-scale power. Hydroelectric is the oldest and largest source of renewable energy. Glen Canyon, Hoover, Grand Coulee, and other western dams supply power to over 25 million people in 9 states and Canada. Of course, energy can be replaced by other sources, but they all have environmental impacts, too.

Finally, some activists condemn dams built just to create swimming or fishing holes, as if there is something intrinsically wrong with swimming and fishing. In fact, reservoir recreation is a major segment of America’s $1.3 trillion outdoor recreation economy.

Before going hog wild decommissioning dams all over the world, we ought at least to consider how and why they got there. As Chesterton wrote, “If he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.”

Read more from Greg Walcher at GregWalcher.com

Greg Walcher is president of the Natural Resources Group and author of “Smoking Them Out: The Theft of the Environment and How to Take it Back.” He is a former head of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, former President of Club 20, and a fellow at the Common Sense Institute.

Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in commentary pieces are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the management of the Rocky Mountain Voice, but even so we support the constitutional right of the author to express those opinions.