Dam Removal and the Federal Role
October 27, 2021
Dam owners sometimes consider dam removal as a policy option to address dam safety,
ecosystem restoration, or other concerns. The National Inventory of Dams (NID) lists more than
Anna E. Normand
90,000 dams in the United States, many of which function as part of the nation’s water
Analyst in Natural
infrastructure and provide benefits (e.g., flood control, hydroelectric power, recreation,
Resources Policy
navigation, and water supply). Stakeholders may consider the removal of a dam for various

reasons—for example, if a certain dam requires major dam safety modifications or no longer
provides its intended benefits. In addition, dams often affect ecosystem processes and aquatic

species mobility; these effects may be costly to mitigate and may prompt consideration of dam
removal. According to a stakeholder database that tracks dam removals, nearly 1,800 dams were removed in the United
States from 1912 to 2020, with approximately 800 removed from 2011 to 2020. Small, nonfederal dams accounted for most
of these removals; removal of federally owned or regulated dams was less frequent during the 1912-2020 period (e.g.,
approximately 70 of the dams removed since 1912 were federally owned).
Dam removal is a multistep process. The decision to remove a dam usually starts with the dam owner. Approximately 97% of
dams are owned by private entities, state or local governments, or public utilities; the federal government owns 3% of dams
in the NID. Stakeholders, such as communities, policymakers, river-dependent industries, tribes, nongovernmental
organizations, scientists, and academics, among others, also may participate in the dam removal consideration process. This
process often involves an evaluation of potential alternatives, which can include changes to dam operations, dam
rehabilitation or repair, modifications to add or improve fish passage, dam removal, and/or a “no action” option.
The federal government’s role in dam removal varies based on ownership (e.g., federal versus nonfederal), purpose (e.g.,
federally regulated hydropower facilities), location (e.g., a nonfederal dam on federal land), and other factors. Federal law
and associated regulations may require the involvement of applicable federal agencies for a proposed dam removal project.
Such involvement may include the issuance of a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit (33 U.S.C. §1344) from the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE), a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. §§4321 et seq.) review process, and
consultations with government agencies to meet requirements of federal laws. The Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. §§791 et
seq.) regulates nonfederal hydropower projects, and the relicensing process under this authority has in some cases spurred
consideration of dam removal.
The congressional role in removal of a federal dam typically depends on whether Congress authorized the dam. For federally
owned dams that Congress authorized for specific purposes, such as dams owned and operated by federal water resource
agencies (e.g., USACE, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation), removal generally requires specific congressional authorization
following a feasibility study that selects dam removal as the preferred alternative. By contrast, federal agencies generally may
remove federally owned dams without specific congressional authorization at their discretion, based on agency policies and
in adherence to state and federal law. For example, federal land management agencies may consider removal of dams when
seeking to reduce operation and safety costs while pursing restoration initiatives. At times, Congress has considered
prohibiting removal of certain federal dams.
The federal government is sometimes involved in the removal of nonfederal dams. Although there is no underlying statutory
authority for federal involvement in nonfederal dam removal, Congress has authorized involvement in some individual dam
removals when it found a compelling reason to do so, often due to a federal nexus (e.g., proximity to federal land or project,
tribal responsibilities, listed species). Additionally, Congress has authorized programs that provide support (e.g., grants,
loans, technical assistance) to address issues including dam safety, flooding risks, fish and wildlife passage, and watershed
restoration. Some of these efforts may facilitate (or result in) nonfederal dam removal.
In the 117th Congress, several bills would create new authorities related to dam removal or would provide emergency and/or
mandatory appropriations for dam removal activities. Congress may consider the federal government’s role in studying and
executing specific projects for dam removal and whether to change the amount of appropriations for new or existing
programs that fund dam removal activities. In addition, Congress may oversee agency implementation of new or amended
authorities for dam removal and may review the effectiveness, efficiency, and priorities of agencies funding dam removal
activities.
Congressional Research Service

Dam Removal and the Federal Role

Introduction
Dams can provide benefits to society, such as flood control, hydroelectric power, recreation,
navigation, and water supply. However, some dams may no longer provide benefits for which
they were built (e.g., dams that supported mills) or may be abandoned and in disrepair. Dams
often affect ecosystem processes and aquatic species mobility; efforts to mitigate these impacts
(e.g., fish ladders) may be costly for dam owners. Maintaining dam operation and safety also
entails financial costs for operation and maintenance, rehabilitation (i.e., bringing a dam up to
current safety standards), and repair. For these reasons and others, dam removal is a policy option
to address safety, ecosystem restoration, or other concerns.
The United States Society on Dams defines a dam removal project to include all necessary
activities associated with the full or partial removal of a dam and restoration of the river, from
project planning and permitting through design and implementation.1 Analysis of a U.S. dam
removal database shows an apparent increase from 200 dams removed between 1991 and 2000 to
approximately 800 dams removed between 2011 and 2020.2 The benefits and detriments of a dam
are case specific, and the feasibility of dam removal often relies on an evaluation of tradeoffs.
Dam owners and other stakeholders may participate in the evaluation process; stakeholders may
include communities, policymakers, river-dependent industries, tribes, nongovernmental
organizations, scientists, and academics, among others. Dam removal can range from partial
removal to full removal of the dam itself and structures associated with the dam.3
The federal government’s role in dam removal varies based on ownership (e.g., federal versus
nonfederal), purpose (e.g., federally regulated hydropower facilities), location (e.g., a nonfederal
dam on federal land), and other factors. This report discusses the U.S. portfolio of dams, dam
removal trends, and tradeoffs when considering the consequences of dam removal. It also
addresses federal authorities, regulatory requirements, and assistance for dam removal. In
addition, it provides examples of prior federal involvement in dam removal projects. Finally, the
report summarizes legislation related to dam removal that has been introduced in the 117th
Congress.
Dams and Dam Removal in the United States
Dams and their associated structures range in size, design, purpose, ownership, age, potential risk,
and current condition. These factors are important considerations when determining future
management options for dams, including the option of removal. Most dam removal projects in the
United States have been for small, nonfederal dams; in many cases, these projects may not be
illustrative of the challenges and tradeoffs inherent to removal of larger dams.4 Where dam
removal has been pursued, considerations in favor of doing so have included benefits such as the

1 United States Society on Dams (USSD), Guidelines for Dam Decommissioning Projects, July 2015, at
https://www.ussdams.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/15Decommissioning.pdf. Hereinafter, USSD, Guidelines.
2 American Rivers, “American Rivers Dam Removal Database,” February 17, 2021, at https://doi.org/10.6084/
m9.figshare.5234068 (retrieved on September 14, 2021). Hereinafter, American Rivers, “Database.”
3 For partial removal, the dam height and storage capacity may be reduced to the point that the structure no longer
meets the statutory definition of a dam (which varies from state to state) or no longer presents a downstream hazard. A
controlled breach of a dam also may constitute a method of dam removal. USSD, Guidelines.
4 A narrative list of some of the dams removed from 1999 to 2020 can be found at American Rivers, “69 Dams
Removed in 2020 to Restore Rivers,” at https://www.americanrivers.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/
DamsRemoved_1999-2020.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

1

Dam Removal and the Federal Role

potential for ecosystem restoration and improved dam safety (i.e., prevention of full or partial
dam failure), as well as the possibility of replacing benefits provided by dams by other means,
among other issues. Opponents of some dam removals cite their potential to lessen or eliminate
existing benefits, such as energy generation, water supply, and flood risk reduction, or their
potential to release sediments or impact associated infrastructure.
Dams by the Numbers
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) maintains the National Inventory of Dams (NID), a
database of dams in the United States.5 The NID defines a dam as any artificial barrier with the
ability to impound water, wastewater, or any liquid-borne material for the purpose of storage or
control of water that (1) is at least 25 feet in height, with a storage capacity of more than 15 acre-
feet; (2) is greater than 6 feet in height, with a storage capacity of at least 50 acre-feet; or (3)
poses a significant threat to human life or property should it fail (i.e., high- or significant-hazard
dams).6 The 2018 NID included 91,468 dams. Thousands of dams do not meet these criteria and
are not included in the NID.
Most dams in the United States are owned by private entities, state or local governments, or
public utilities; in 2018, the federal government owned approximately 3% of NID dams.7 States
have regulatory authority for more than 69% of NID-listed dams. Federal agencies regulate dams
associated with hydropower projects, certain mining activities, and nuclear facilities and
materials.8
The most common type of dam is an earthen dam, which is made from natural soil or rock. Other
dams include concrete dams, tailings dams (i.e., dams that store mining byproducts), overflow
dams (i.e., dams regulating downstream flow), and dikes (i.e., dams constructed at a low point of
a reservoir of water).9 Some dams create reservoirs, which store water for various uses. Other
dams that have limited storage (i.e., pondage) are called run-of-the-river dams.10 (This report does
not cover levees, which are man-made structures designed to control water movement along a
landscape.) Dams have various purposes: recreation, flood control, fish and wildlife management,
municipal and industrial and/or agricultural water supply, hydroelectric power generation,
navigation, mining, and others.11 Some dams serve multiple purposes.
Dams are built to engineering and construction standards and regulations corresponding to the
time of their construction or rehabilitation. Some dams, including older dams, may not meet
current dam safety standards, which have evolved over time as scientific data and engineering

5 Online National Inventory of Dams (NID) data are used throughout this report unless otherwise specified. State and
federal agencies self-report dam information to the NID. As of October 2021, the NID was last updated in 2019 with
2018 data. In this report, the number of dams owned by federal agencies is based on federal agency reporting to the
NID. State agencies also reported additional dams owned by the federal government, though CRS could not confirm
ownership of these dams. The NID can be accessed at https://nid.sec.usace.army.mil. Hereinafter, 2018 NID.
6 33 U.S.C. §467. One acre-foot equals about 326,000 gallons, or enough water to cover 1 acre of land, about the size
of a football field, 1 foot deep.
7 2018 NID.
8 For more information, see CRS Report R45981, Dam Safety Overview and the Federal Role, by Anna E. Normand.
9 USSD, “Types of Dams,” at https://www.ussdams.org/dam-levee-education/overview/types-of-dams/.
10 International Hydropower Association, “Types of Hydropower,” at https://www.hydropower.org/iha/discover-types-
of-hydropower.
11 2018 NID.
Congressional Research Service

2

Dam Removal and the Federal Role

have improved.12 Of the 91,468 dams in the 2018 NID, 15,426 (17%) did not report a
construction date. Of the 76,042 dams that reported a construction date in the 2018 NID, 50,135
were built more than 50 years ago.
Federal guidelines set out a hazard potential rating to quantify the potential harm associated with
a dam’s failure or misoperation.13 The three hazard ratings (low, significant, and high) do not
indicate the likelihood of failure; instead, the ratings reflect the amount and type of damage a
failure would cause:
 High hazard: Loss of at least one life is probable
 Significant hazard: No probable loss of human life but could result in economic
loss, environmental damage, disruption of lifeline facilities, etc.
 Low hazard: No probable loss of human life and few economic or environmental
losses that generally are limited to the owner
Of dams in the 2018 NID, 17% were classified as high hazard and 5% did not have a hazard
classification. From 2000 to 2018, thousands of dams were reclassified, increasing the number of
high-hazard dams from 9,921 to 15,629.14
The NID also includes condition assessments—assessments of relative dam deficiencies
determined from inspections—as reported by federal and state agencies.15 Of the high-hazard-
potential dams in the 2018 NID, 15% had a poor or unsatisfactory condition assessment and 22%
were not rated.16
Dam Removal by the Numbers
Removal of dams in the United States has occurred primarily for environmental, dam safety, and
economic reasons.17 Most dam removals have involved small, nonfederal dams, including run-of-
the-river dams, with costs ranging from thousands to millions of dollars.18 A lesser number of
large, federally owned or regulated dams have been removed.

12 For more information on dam safety, see CRS Report R45981, Dam Safety Overview and the Federal Role, by Anna
E. Normand. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2021 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure: Dams,
2021, at https://infrastructurereportcard.org/cat-item/dams/ (hereinafter, ASCE, Infrastructure Report Card).
13 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety: Hazard Potential
Classification System for Dams, 2004, at https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/fema-333.pdf.
14 According to FEMA, the primary factor increasing dams’ hazard potential is development upstream and downstream
of a dam. Reclassification from low hazard potential to high or significant hazard potential may trigger more stringent
requirements by regulatory agencies, such as increased spillway capacity, structural improvements, more frequent
inspections, and requirements to create or update an emergency action plan. 2018 NID; FEMA, The National Dam
Safety Program: Biennial Report to the United States Congress, Fiscal Years 2016-2017, May 2019, at
https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-08/national-dam-safety_biennial-report-2016-2017.pdf;
ASCE, Infrastructure Report Card.
15 FEMA, The National Dam Safety Program: Biennial Report to the United States Congress, Fiscal Years 2012-2013,
2014, at https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/risk-management/dam-safety/progress-report.
16 Poor condition means one or more dam safety deficiencies are recognized for hydrologic conditions that may
realistically occur and remedial action is necessary. Unsatisfactory condition means one or more dam safety
deficiencies are recognized that require immediate action or emergency remedial action for problem resolution. 2018
NID.
17 USSD, Guidelines.
18 Headwater Economics, Dam Removal: Case Studies on the Fiscal, Economic, Social, and Environmental Benefits of
Dam Removal, October 2016, at https://headwaterseconomics.org/economic-development/dam-removal-case-studies/;
Congressional Research Service

3

Dam Removal and the Federal Role

According to a stakeholder database that tracks dam removals, nearly 1,800 dams were removed
in the United States from 1912 to 2020, although this list is likely incomplete due to reporting
challenges.19 Approximately 70 of these removed dams were federally owned, of which 51 were
U.S. Forest Service (FS) dams removed between 2015 and 2020. Although a majority of existing
dams within the NID are concentrated in the Plains states and the Southeast, most dam removals
have been in the Northeast, upper Midwest, and western coastal states.20 According to the
database, Pennsylvania has removed the most dams of any state (342); California has removed
the second-largest number (178), with nearly half of these from one national forest; and
Wisconsin has removed the third-largest number (142), with assistance from a long-running state
grant program for dam removals.21 In 2020, 69 dams were removed across 23 states—11 in Ohio,
6 in Massachusetts, and 6 in New York.22 A recent study projects the removal of thousands of
NID dams by 2050, based on current trends.23
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) also has developed an online site called the Dam Removal
Information Portal (DRIP) that provides a map-based visualization of dam removal information
and associated scientific studies.24 A 2017 review of these studies found that scientific evaluation
has occurred at fewer than 10% of dam removals and that most of these studies were short in
duration (< four years), with limited pre-removal monitoring.25
Considerations for Dam Removal
Dams may be considered for removal for various reasons. Many dams continue to operate after
their design lives and, if the dams are not properly maintained and rehabilitated as necessary,
safety issues may arise or sediment buildup in reservoirs may affect dam benefits.26 In some

H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment, Dam Removal: Science and Decision Making,
2002, at https://semspub.epa.gov/work/01/273439.pdf (hereinafter, Heinz Center, Dam Removal).
19 American Rivers, “Database.”
20 Dams removed in the Northeast tend to be dams with safety issues after decades or centuries of inadequate
maintenance or dams that no longer serve their initial purpose, such as powering mills. The concentration of dam
removals in the Pacific Northwest may be due to concerns over endangered species and tribal culture affected by dams,
as well as to companies choosing to decommission dams rather than invest in Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) relicensing requirements, such as fish passage construction. Melissa M. Foley et al., “Dam Removal: Listening
In,” Water Resources Research, vol. 53, no. 7 (2017), pp. 5229-5246; Heinz Center, Dam Removal.
21 American Rivers, “Database”; Vincent Gonzales and Margaret A. Walls, Dams and Dam Removals in the United
States, Resources for the Future, October 22, 2020, at https://www.rff.org/publications/reports/dams-and-dam-
removals-united-states/ (hereinafter, Resources for the Future, Dam Removals).
22 American Rivers, “69 Dams Removed in 2020,” February 18, 2021, at https://www.americanrivers.org/2021/02/69-
dams-removed-in-2020/.
23 Zbigniew J. Grabowski, Heejun Chang, and Elise F. Granek, “Fracturing Dams, Fractured Data: Empirical Trends
and Characteristics of Existing and Removed Dams in the United States,” River Research and Applications, vol. 34, no.
6 (2018), pp. 526-537. Hereinafter, Grabowski, “Empirical Trends.”
24 U.S. Geological Survey, “Dam Removal Information Portal (DRIP),” at https://data.usgs.gov/drip-dashboard/.
25 The majority of studies focused on hydrologic and physical responses to dam removal rather than biological and
water quality responses, and few studies were published on linkages between these physical and ecological
components. J. Ryan Bellmore et al., “Status and Trends of Dam Removal Research in the United States,” Wiley
Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, vol. 4, no. 2 (2017), p. e1164.
26 Most dam infrastructure is designed with expected operation life of 50 years for the dam’s purpose; however, proper
maintenance and necessary rehabilitation and repair may extend operation lifecycles. ASCE, Infrastructure Report
Card; Duminda Perera et al., Ageing Water Storage Infrastructure: An Emerging Global Risk, UNU-INWEH Report
Series 11, 2021, at https://inweh.unu.edu/ageing-water-storage-infrastructure-an-emerging-global-risk/ (hereinafter,
Perera et al., Ageing Infrastructure).
Congressional Research Service

4

Dam Removal and the Federal Role

cases, a dam’s original purposes are no longer necessary or dam removal may provide
environmental benefits. Dam removal may be a viable management option when the benefits lost
by removing a dam or reservoir could be achieved through alternative means; however, it may be
difficult to replace some benefits that dams provide, such as water storage, flood control, and
multiple benefits.27
The decision to remove a dam typically involves an evaluation of potential alternatives to address
specific concerns relating to the dam. These alternatives may include changes to dam operations,
dam rehabilitation or repair, modifications to include or improve fish passage, dam removal, and
a “no action” option.28 In some cases, the specific concerns can be addressed by partial removal
of the dam rather than by full removal of the dam and associated facilities.
Identifying and assessing potential dam removal projects involves consideration of diverse
tradeoffs that may vary in relevance and importance based on the type of dam, the landscape of
the dam, and the stakeholders involved.29 Factors in a decision to pursue a dam removal project
also depend in part on the type of dam ownership (e.g., federal government, nonfederal
government, private, abandoned). Below are tradeoffs that owners, and other stakeholders, may
evaluate when considering dam removal.
Fish Passage and Aquatic Migration. A dam may hinder or prevent the passage of anadromous
fish and other fish species.30 Blocked passage may affect migration upstream to historic spawning
or nursery grounds and downstream during various seasons important to fish migration.31
Fish passage can be a key environmental factor for fish species and is often cited as a primary
consideration for dam removal, especially for dams affecting species listed as either endangered
or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA;, 16 U.S.C. §§1531-1544).32 Fish passage
alternatives for large dams, such as fish ladders or trap-and-haul operations, can be expensive and
may be less effective than fish passage provided by dam removal.33 Dam removal may rejuvenate
certain riverine fisheries near and upstream of the former dam location; however, if there is a dam
downstream of the removed dam, fish migration may remain limited.34

27 Advisory Committee on Water Information, Subcommittee on Sedimentation, U.S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), Dam Removal Analysis Guidelines for Sediment, December 2017, at
https://rsm.usace.army.mil/initiatives/other/DamRemovalAnalysisGuidelines2017_508.pdf. Hereinafter, Reclamation,
Sediment Guidelines.
28 David D. Hart et al., “Dam Removal: Challenges and Opportunities for Ecological Research and River Restoration:
We Develop a Risk Assessment Framework for Understanding How Potential Responses to Dam Removal Vary with
Dam and Watershed Characteristics, Which Can Lead to More Effective Use of This Restoration Method,” BioScience,
vol. 52, no. 8 (2002), pp. 669-682, at https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/52/8/669/254910.
29 Natallia L. Diessner et al., “I’ll Be Dammed! Public Preferences Regarding Dam Removal in New Hampshire,”
Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene, vol. 8, no. 1 (2020), at https://online.ucpress.edu/elementa/article/8/1/003/
114206/I-ll-be-dammed-Public-preferences-regarding-dam; F. J. Magilligan, C. S. Sneddon, and C. A. Fox, “The
Social, Historical, and Institutional Contingencies of Dam Removal,” Environmental Management, vol. 59, no. 6
(2017), pp. 982-994, at https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00267-017-0835-2.pdf (hereinafter, Magilligan,
“Contingencies of Dam Removal”).
30 Anadromous fish are fish that live as juveniles in fresh water, migrate to the ocean to develop, and, when sexually
mature, return to freshwater to spawn.
31 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries, “Reopening Rivers to Migratory Fish in the
Northeast,” at https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/c7dfb5ea18da4c7db9eb77848b827b6f; USSD, Guidelines.
32 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), “What Is Fish Passage?,” at https://www.fws.gov/fisheries/fish-passage/what-
is-fish-passage.html.
33 USSD, Guidelines.
34 FWS, “Dam Removal: An Opportunity for Our Rivers,” fact sheet, at https://www.fws.gov/southeast/pdf/fact-sheet/
Congressional Research Service

5

Dam Removal and the Federal Role

At the same time, dam removal may jeopardize recreational fisheries for species supported by the
reservoir habitat.35 Further, reservoirs created by dams may provide reliable fish refuge habitat
under reduced rainfall and flow conditions in regions where human-induced climate change may
be affecting precipitation trends.36 In addition, a dam may provide a beneficial impediment to
aquatic species migration, such as in the case of exotic or invasive species that could negatively
impact upstream populations of native or managed fish species.37
River Restoration. Waters impounded by a dam may result in a lake-like habitat of warmer
water or stratified water temperatures, and dam removal may result in more free-flowing cold
water habitat found in riverine environments. In addition to lower water temperatures, dam
removal may result in increased dissolved oxygen and improved aquatic habitat diversity and
availability. For example, dam removal may lead to revegetation of the formerly inundated areas,
which can result in the creation or restoration of riparian buffers or flood plain wetlands
beneficial for birds and other terrestrial species. For this reason, dam removal projects also may
include planting programs and erosion protection measures to accelerate desired revegetation,
preserve water quality, and prevent dust hazards.38 Although limited studies on dam removal have
provided evidence that dammed ecosystems may quickly return to riverine conditions following
dam removal, the studies also show that the post-dam ecosystem may not necessarily be the same
as the pre-dam ecosystem.39
Sediment Management. Sedimentation behind a dam may require intensive dam maintenance or
may accelerate the end of the dam’s life.40 Dam removal may reestablish the natural sediment
transport and deposition that supports riverine ecosystems; however, managing the initial release
of trapped sediment, and the potential of that sediment being contaminated, is often a
consideration for a dam removal project.41 Sediment management also may represent a significant
portion of the total dam removal project cost. If removing a dam could release impounded
sediments that may be contaminated at levels above background levels for the river system, then
those sediments may need to be removed or contained to prevent downstream release. Even if
reservoir sediments are not contaminated, sediment release following dam removal may affect
downstream conditions.42 The sudden release of fine and coarse sediments may at least
temporarily increase the suspended sediment concentration, possibly creating lethal conditions for
fish, and may result in sediment deposition along the downstream channel, where there may be
fish spawning beds. If coarse sediment is deposited along a channel, river water surface
elevations may increase and affect flood stages.43

dam-removal.pdf; J. Ryan Bellmore et al., “Conceptualizing Ecological Responses to Dam Removal: If You Remove
It, What’s to Come?,” BioScience, vol. 69, no. 1 (2019), pp. 26-39, at https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/69/1/
26/5285462 (hereinafter, Bellmore, BioScience).
35 Leandro E. Miranda, Reservoir Fish Habitat Management, 2017, at https://www.friendsofreservoirs.com/wp-content/
uploads/2017/01/Reservoir-Fish-Habitat-Management-_Manual.pdf.
36 Stephen Beatty et al., “Rethinking Refuges: Implications of Climate Change for Dam Busting,” Biological
Conservation, vol. 209 (2017), pp. 188-195, at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.02.007.
37 For example, dams throughout the Great Lakes states prevent sea lamprey from migrating upstream into tributary
streams and rivers. Bellmore, BioScience.
38 USSD, Guidelines.
39 Bellmore, BioScience.
40 Perera et al., Ageing Infrastructure.
41 Bellmore, BioScience; Reclamation, Sediment Guidelines.
42 Bellmore, BioScience.
43 USSD, Guidelines.
Congressional Research Service

6

Dam Removal and the Federal Role

Public Safety. Dam owners are responsible for meeting relevant regulatory requirements related
to dam safety.44 Deficient dams may fail due to floods, earthquakes, progressive deterioration, or
lack of maintenance; dam failure can pose a risk to life and property, as well as a loss of dam
benefits. Dam owners may address dam safety concerns through measures other than dam
removal, both nonstructural (e.g., lowering water storage) and structural (e.g., rehabilitation,
repair).45 In some instances, the safety of abandoned dams becomes the responsibility of federal,
state, or local government agencies; in these cases, dam removal and site restoration to ensure
public safety may be a desirable alternative to taking over legal ownership.46 Outside of potential
structural concerns, dams also may pose public safety hazards to recreational users.47
Conversely, removing a dam may increase the potential flood risks to downstream areas (i.e., by
removing a structure that reduces flood risk).48 In some cases, partial dam removal may be a
compromise to reduce downstream hazard potential from dam failure while retaining some of the
dam’s flood control capacity. Otherwise, alternative flood risk reduction measures may need to be
implemented or constructed following dam removal to provide protection from unregulated, high
flows.
Costs of Alternatives. A decision to pursue dam removal can be driven by the costs of ongoing
maintenance, dam safety rehabilitation or repairs, or ecosystem mitigation, particularly if the dam
is no longer serving its original designed purpose (e.g., hydropower) and is providing few or no
benefits. Overall costs for dam removal by the owner may be lower than modifications that
regulatory agencies may require, such as the construction and operation of fish passage structures
or structural modifications to accommodate larger floods or earthquakes.49 The cost of dam
removal varies based on the type and location of the dam. For example, a stakeholder group
estimated that, keeping all other factors constant, dam removal increases in costs by 10% as dam
height increases by 10% and that concrete and cement dams have higher removal costs than
earthen dams.50
Dam removal considerations also include who will pay for dam removal and compensation for
lost benefits of the dam and reservoir.51 Funding issues often limit whether and when dam
removal will move forward, even when the owner and other stakeholders agree to remove a dam.
Dam removal projects with complications that result in added expenses (e.g., projects involving
contaminated sediments) may require supplemental funding beyond what a dam owner can
provide. Specific funding assistance may be available for dam removal that would not be
available for other project alternatives. Some states, nongovernment organizations, and

44 Association of State Dam Safety Officials (ASDSO), “Roadmap to Reducing Dam Safety Risks,” at
https://damsafety.org/Roadmap.
45 Common safety improvements to dams may include increased spillway discharge capacity; replacement of inlet and
outlet structures, gates, and valves; modifications to increase stability of concrete and masonry dams; modifications to
control seepage and piping potential of embankment dams; erosion control improvements for embankment dams and
unlined spillways; and dam overtopping protection. USSD, Guidelines.
46 USSD, Guidelines.
47 ASDSO, “Public Safety Hazard,” at https://damsafety.org/public-safety-hazards.
48 Heinz Center, Dam Removal; Julien Boulange et al., “Role of Dams in Reducing Global Flood Exposure Under
Climate Change,” Nature Communications, vol. 12, no. 1 (2021), pp. 1-7.
49 Costs for these types of modifications may require a significant expenditure of project funds and a temporary loss of
project benefits during construction. USSD, Guidelines.
50 Resources for the Future, Dam Removals.
51 Reclamation, Sediment Guidelines.
Congressional Research Service

7

link to page 21 link to page 22 link to page 22 Dam Removal and the Federal Role

companies have provided funding for dam removal, including for abandoned dams.52 In some
cases, the federal government has provided funding for dam removal.53
Project Benefits and Associated Value. Dam removal may affect the power sector, fisheries,
agriculture, recreation, nearby properties, and cultural heritage. If the dam and reservoir are still
providing benefits, then considerations may include whether those benefits would remain after
dam removal, perhaps through alternate means, or whether stakeholders would be compensated
for lost benefits.54
 Hydropower. Dam removal halts hydropower generation.55 If alternative access
to electricity is available, removing small or obsolete hydropower dams may
have a limited impact on communities using hydropower. By contrast, in
communities where there are no viable power alternatives, hydropower dam
removal may have negative consequences.
 Agricultural Uses. The agricultural sector generally benefits from dams, which
provide a steady water supply source from their reservoirs. However, the
agricultural sector also may benefit from dam removal if it would provide an
opportunity to farm lands previously in the reservoir footprint and if there were
little need for water supply storage from a reservoir.56
 Recreation. The primary purpose of a plurality of dams in the United States is
recreation, which the public may value highly.57 Dam removal may provide new
recreational opportunities for river boating (e.g., rafting and paddling) but may
reduce water activities that require more stable and deep pools (e.g., motor
boating).58 Dam removal also may negatively alter aesthetics by leaving a
reservoir footprint, but this newly exposed zone may establish new ecosystems,
create green space, and spur riverfront revitalization.59 Recreational facilities
(such as public boat ramps and campgrounds) located along the former lakeshore
of a reservoir may need to be relocated closer to the river.
 Property Values. Dam removal may not be desirable for lakefront (i.e.,
reservoir) properties that would no longer be near the water following dam
removal.60 Dam removal may be attractive for those who seek riverfront
properties.61 Some dam removal considerations for property value may include
the value of added land once the reservoir is removed, changes in tax rates, and

52 American Rivers, Paying for Dam Removal: Guide to Selected Funding Sources, October 2000, at
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/Paying-Dam-Removal_513758_7.pdf. Hereinafter, American Rivers, Paying
for Dam Removal.
53 See “Federal Assistance for Nonfederal Dam Removal” and “Congressional Intervention in Nonfederal Dam
Removal.”
54 Although dam removal may result in the loss of project benefits, some project benefits may be achieved by other
means and project lands may be sold or developed for other purposes. USSD, Guidelines.
55 Perera et al., Ageing Infrastructure.
56 Perera et al., Ageing Infrastructure.
57 Recreation was the primary purpose of 31% of dams in the 2018 NID.
58 USSD, Guidelines.
59 USSD, Guidelines.
60 William L. Graf, Dam Removal Research: Status and Prospects, Heinz Center, 2003, at
http://www.riversimulator.org/Resources/NGO/DamResearchFullReport.pdf.
61 Heinz Center, Dam Removal.
Congressional Research Service

8

link to page 15 Dam Removal and the Federal Role

property buyout options due to the loss of reservoir storage and the altered level
of flood protection.62
 Cultural History. Dam removal may impact the cultural history and heritage of
a particular region. Obsolete dams may still hold value to communities because
of their long-standing history and ties to past industries. Commemorating the
location of a former dam or leaving behind some dam remnants, however, may
satisfy those wishing to acknowledge cultural history.63 Dam removal may
restore access to sacred lands or may lead to revival of culturally important
species. At the same time, exposure of previously inundated cultural and
archeological sites may subject these sites to erosion or human disturbance.64
 Associated Infrastructure. The loss of reservoir storage and changes in river
flow from dam removal may affect associated infrastructure. Reservoir
drawdown may impact communities that rely on infrastructure around the
shoreline upstream of dams. Reservoirs also affect groundwater, and dam
removal may alter groundwater flow and groundwater availability downstream of
dams (e.g., water intake, wastewater disposal, local wells and springs).65
Users of reservoir water supply may need to develop alternative water resources or adopt water
conservation measures following dam removal. Legal rights to water diversions may need to be
addressed if there is a loss of water storage. Changes to channel water depths and locking
structures associated with the dam may affect river navigation, and dam removal may eliminate a
river crossing.66 Existing bridges, roadway and railroad embankments, levees, drainage culverts,
and buried or submerged utilities (e.g., water and natural gas pipelines) may be subjected to
higher flow and erosion following dam removal.67 A dam removal project could mitigate for some
or all of these effects, but the decision to pursue dam removal would need to weigh potential
impacts to existing infrastructure against cost and effectiveness of mitigation measures, among
other considerations.
Federal Role and Resources for Dam Removal
The federal government’s involvement in dam removal varies based on dam ownership (e.g.,
federal versus nonfederal), regulations and required permitting related to the dam and removal
activities, and availability of federal assistance for dam removal. Removal of federal dams that
were authorized by Congress for specific purposes, such as those managed and operated by
federal water resource agencies (e.g., USACE, Reclamation), in most cases requires specific
congressional authorization.68 Federal agencies that manage federally owned dams that lack
specific congressionally authorized purposes may exercise their discretion to remove these dams,
in adherence to agency policy and state and federal law.

62 USSD, Guidelines.
63 Magilligan, “Contingencies of Dam Removal.”
64 Perera et al., Ageing Infrastructure; USSD, Guidelines.
65 Desirée D. Tullos et al., “Synthesis of Common Management Concerns Associated with Dam Removal,” JAWRA
Journal of the American Water Resources Association, vol. 52, no. 5 (2016), pp. 1179-1206.
66 USSD, Guidelines.
67 USSD, Guidelines.
68 Removal of congressionally authorized dams owned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) or by
Reclamation has been rare. See below section on “Federal Dams.”
Congressional Research Service

9

Dam Removal and the Federal Role

The Federal Power Act (FPA; 16 U.S.C. §§791-828c) provides the statutory authority for the
regulation of nonfederal hydropower projects. Federal agencies may be involved in most
nonfederal dam removal projects as part of the overall regulatory process, though federal
regulations may not apply to some projects. Congress also has authorized programs that may aid
in nonfederal dam removal and, in very limited cases, has authorized and funded federal
involvement for specific nonfederal dam removal projects.
Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
Federal law and associated regulations may require the involvement of applicable federal
agencies for a proposed dam removal project.69 The following are selected federal laws that
commonly dictate federal agency regulatory actions for dam removal projects.
Clean Water Act, Section 404. Most dam removal projects require a Clean Water Act (CWA)
Section 404 permit from USACE for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the
United States (33 U.S.C. §1344).70 USACE may issue two types of Section 404 permits for a dam
removal project: individual permits or general permits, including nationwide permits (NWPs).
Larger, more complex projects may be reviewed under the individual permit process, whereas
general permits such as NWPs or regional permits may be issued for smaller, less complex dam
removals.71 In January 2017, USACE published a new NWP specifically for low-head dam
removal.72
In conjunction with a CWA Section 404 permit, USACE issues a Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
(RHA) Section 10 permit for activities affecting a navigable waterway (33 U.S.C. §403) if there
is no adverse impact on interstate navigation.73
National Environmental Policy Act. A proposed project with dam removal as an alternative that
qualifies as a major federal action will trigger a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42
U.S.C. §§4321 et seq.) review process.74 For dam removal projects, the most common types of
actions that would trigger NEPA review include consideration of removing a federally owned
dam or a dam on federal land, the process to surrender a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

69 Additional state environmental compliance requirements may vary but generally complement federal regulatory
compliance requirements. Local regulations may require various permits specific to local jurisdictions. USSD,
Guidelines.
70 For more information, see Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “Permit Program Under CWA 404,” at
https://www.epa.gov/cwa-404/permit-program-under-cwa-section-404; and section “Permits, Regulations, and
Enforcement” in CRS Report RL30030, Clean Water Act: A Summary of the Law, by Laura Gatz.
71 EPA, “Frequent Questions on Removal of Obsolete Dams,” EPA-840-F-16-001, December 2016, at
https://www.epa.gov/cwa-404/frequent-questions-removal-obsolete-dams. Hereinafter, EPA, “Frequent Questions.”
72 For the purposes of a nationwide permit, USACE defines the term low-head dam as a dam built across a stream to
pass flows from upstream over all, or nearly all, of the dam’s width on a continual and uncontrolled basis. In general, a
low-head dam does not have a separate spillway or spillway gates and provides little storage. USACE, “Issuance and
Reissuance of Nationwide Permits,” 82 Federal Register 1860, January 6, 2017. Nationwide Permit 53, “Removal of
Low-Head Dams,” is available at https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/p16021coll7/id/8593.
73 American Rivers, Obtaining Permits to Remove a Dam, at http://scrcog.org/wp-content/uploads/hazard_mitigation/
background_material/dam_removal/Obtaining_Permits_to_Remove_a_Dam.pdf. Hereinafter, American Rivers,
Obtaining Permits.
74 The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. §§4321 et seq.) process requires federal agencies to
consider environmental impacts in the decisionmaking process for a major federal action. For more information on the
NEPA process, see CRS Report RL33152, The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): Background and
Implementation, by Linda Luther.
Congressional Research Service

10

Dam Removal and the Federal Role

(FERC) hydropower project licensing, application for a CWA Section 404 permit, or use of
federal funds for a project.
Under NEPA, a project could involve federal issuance of a categorical exclusion (CATEX) or
development of an environmental assessment (EA) or an environmental impact statement (EIS).75
The level of effort, review time, and public comment period vary depending on the level of NEPA
analysis required. Federal agency issuance of a CATEX exempts further analysis and
documentation of the project in an EA or an EIS.76 The development of an EA or an EIS may
require the federal agency to evaluate “no action” and other feasible alternatives and to conduct
analyses to support conclusions regarding environmental impacts.77
Agencies may develop programmatic EAs and EISs for conducting environmental analyses of
similar federal actions.78 For some comprehensive restoration projects across a landscape or
watershed, a region-wide programmatic EA or EIS covering a suite of restoration techniques,
including dam removal, may be pursued rather than addressing specific projects in individual EAs
or EISs.79 If an NWP is used for a dam removal project, then no additional activities pursuant to
NEPA requirements would be needed for issuance of the CWA Section 404 permit.80
Consultations. As part of issuing permits or complying with NEPA, federal agencies, nonfederal
regulatory agencies, or dam owners may need to consult with government agencies and tribes to
meet the requirements of federal laws.81 The following are selected examples of consultations that
are commonly required for dam removal projects.

75 EPA, “Frequent Questions.”
76 For example, the U.S. Forest Service (FS) Categorical Exclusion 18 allows the restoration of wetlands, streams, and
riparian areas by removing, replacing, or modifying water control structures including, but not limited to, dams, levees,
dikes, drainage tiles, ditches, culverts, pipes, valves, gates, and fencing to allow waters to flow into natural channels
and floodplains that restore natural flow regimes to the extent practicable. FS, “US Forest Service Categorical
Exclusions for Soil and Water Restoration Activities,” at https://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nepa/restorationCE/.
77 In many cases, an environmental assessment (EA) would be an appropriate level of analysis for dam removal, as long
as the agency concludes through the EA that there is a finding of no significant impact. However, for more complex
projects with the potential for significant impacts, an environmental impact statement (EIS) may be required. EPA,
“National Environmental Policy Act Review Process,” at https://www.epa.gov/nepa/national-environmental-policy-act-
review-process.
78 NOAA’s Office of Habitat Conservation completed programmatic NEPA documents in 2002, 2006, and 2015
(Restoration Center Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement) to assess the impacts of its habitat restoration
activities, reduce administrative costs, and maximize program efficiency. NOAA Fisheries, “Environmental
Compliance in the Office of Habitat Conservation,” at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/habitat-conservation/
environmental-compliance-office-habitat-conservation.
79 For example, FS evaluated restoration and removal of 81 dams in Cleveland National Forest in a single EA, which
reduced the time and expense to complete the NEPA process compared with conducting EAs for individual dams and
provided flexibility in the timing and removal methods for individual dams. FS, Environmental Assessment Trabuco
District Dam Removal Project: Silverado, Holy Jim, and San Juan Creeks, February 2014, at https://www.fs.usda.gov/
project/?project=41140&exp=overview.
80 EPA, “Frequent Questions”; USSD, Guidelines.
81 USSD, Guidelines; American Rivers, Obtaining Permits.
Congressional Research Service

11

Dam Removal and the Federal Role

 If threatened or endangered species are present at or near the dam, projects may require
Section 7 ESA consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and/or the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding the impact of dam removal on these
species to avoid injury to the species.82
 The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA; 16 U.S.C.
§§1801 et seq.) may require consultation to ensure a dam removal would not adversely
impact essential fish habitat established in any fishery management plan developed by a
fishery management council.83
 Proposed actions affecting Native American interests, including fishing rights and
cultural resources, may involve consultations with the affected tribal governments and the
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).84
 Dam removal activities may trigger an obligation to assess the proposed action’s impact
on historic properties (e.g., potentially exposed archaeological sites, the dam itself) with
the state historic preservation officer, pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. §470f).85
In addition to these consultations, removal activities may trigger federal statutes that require the
state to issue a certification that actions are consistent with the state’s implementation of federal
law. For example, some dam removal activities require a water quality certification pursuant to
CWA Section 401 (33 U.S.C. §1341) to ensure the proposed activity will not violate state water
quality standards. Some removal projects also require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System permit issued by the state pursuant to CWA Section 402 (33 U.S.C. §1342), which sets
conditions and effluent limitations under which a facility may discharge potential pollutants into
navigable waters of the United States.86 If the dam is located in a coastal zone, the state must
issue a certification pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C. §§1451 et seq.)
stating that the proposed activity is consistent with the state’s approved coastal zone management
program.87
Federal Dams
Federal dams are dams owned by the federal government and managed by one or more federal
agencies. According to the 2018 NID, in that year, federal agencies managed 2,714 federally
owned dams, or 3% of the dams in the NID.88 Federally owned dams include dams that were
constructed based on congressional authorizations specific to each dam (e.g., most dams managed
by USACE and Reclamation) and dams that were constructed or acquired through broader
authority not specific to an individual dam (e.g., most dams managed by federal land

82 For more information, see CRS Report R46867, Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 Consultation and
Infrastructure Projects, by Erin H. Ward, R. Eliot Crafton, and Pervaze A. Sheikh.
83 16 U.S.C. §1855(b)(2); USSD, Guidelines; American Rivers, Obtaining Permits.
84 For more information, see CRS Insight IN11606, Tribal Consultation: Administration Guidance and Policy
Consideration, by Tana Fitzpatrick.
85 USSD, Guidelines; American Rivers, Obtaining Permits.
86 For more information, see section “Permits, Regulations, and Enforcement” in CRS Report RL30030, Clean Water
Act: A Summary of the Law, by Laura Gatz.
87 For more information, see CRS Report R45460, Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA): Overview and Issues for
Congress, by Eva Lipiec.
88 2018 NID.
Congressional Research Service

12

Dam Removal and the Federal Role

management agencies).89 For individually authorized dams, the authorizing statute for each dam
provides the primary guidance for the dam’s management to satisfy authorized purposes;
subsequent acts may provide additional operating authority.90
Removal of a federal dam that was constructed or acquired under a project-specific authority may
require authorization by Congress.91 This process generally begins with a federal agency, such as
USACE or Reclamation, conducting a study, under its authority, that considers various
alternatives and environmental laws and regulations.92 If the agency selects removal as the
preferred alternative, then it may recommend that Congress authorize removal.93 If Congress
authorizes the agency recommendation, Congress also would need to appropriate funds to
conduct dam removal, which would be used along with any required cost sharing from a
nonfederal partner.94
Generally, removal of a congressionally authorized dam has been rare.95 A study for removal of
this type of dam would likely only take place if the dam is no longer serving its purpose (e.g.,
commercial navigation); the dam poses a safety threat; the dam is not competitive for dam safety
modification funding; and/or dam removal may provide aquatic ecosystem benefits.96

89 Federal land management agencies include the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), FWS, FS, and National Park
Service (NPS). For more information on federal land management agencies, see https://www.crs.gov/video/detail/
WVB00399.
90 For example, USACE’s Water Control Management Engineering Regulation states that “these public laws generally
authorize the project for construction and operation for certain purposes with details being outlined in referenced
project documents, which USACE carries out, including through the development of water control plans and
appropriate revisions thereto under the discretionary authority of the Chief of Engineers.” USACE, Water Control
Management, Engineering Regulation 1110-2-240, May 30, 2016, at https://www.publications.usace.army.mil/portals/
76/publications/engineerregulations/er_1110-2-240.pdf.
91 USACE and Reclamation follow the Economic and Environmental Principles for Water and Related Land Resources
Implementation Studies (Principles and Guidelines) established in 1983 for planning and evaluating alternatives for
civil works projects. Larry Oliver et al., Low-Head Dam Removal for Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration in the Corps,
2018, at https://www.nalms.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/38-1-3.pdf. Hereinafter, Oliver et al., Corps Dam
Removal.
92 If a USACE-managed dam no longer serves its authorized purposes, USACE may conduct a disposition study under
its Section 216 authority to review navigation, flood control, and water supply projects (33 U.S.C. §549a). For
example, USACE conducted a disposition study in 2014 for Green River Locks and Dams 3 through 6 and the Barren
River Lock and Dam, which were no longer serving their navigation purposes. USACE, Green and Barren Rivers
Locks and Dams Disposition Feasibility Study, February 2014, at https://www.lrl.usace.army.mil/Portals/64/docs/
CWProjects/Green%20and%20Barren%20dispo/Main%20Report.pdf.
93 In Section 1315 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (WRDA 2016; Title I of P.L. 114-322), Congress
deauthorized Green River Locks and Dams 3 through 6 and the Barren River Lock and Dam, while stipulating the
removal of Green River Locks and Dams 5 and 6 and the Barren River Lock and Dam. Removal of Green River Locks
and Dams 5 and 6 was completed in 2017 and 2021, respectively. USACE, “Conservation Partners Celebrate Green
River Dam Removal,” September 20, 2021, at https://www.lrl.usace.army.mil/Media/News-Releases/Article/2781999/.
94 For example, following construction authorization in the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014
(P.L. 113-121) for aquatic ecosystem restoration, USACE allocated construction appropriations in USACE’s FY2016
work plan to the Marsh Lake, MN, project, which included removal of the Marsh Lake Dam and construction of other
structures. The nonfederal sponsor provided the 35% nonfederal cost share, as required for USACE ecosystem
restoration projects (33 U.S.C. §2213). USACE removed the dam in October 2018 and completed project construction
in June 2020. USACE, “Marsh Lake Ecosystem Restoration Project, Minnesota,” at https://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/
Home/Projects/Article/571148/marsh-lake-ecosystem-restoration-project/.
95 For example, the American Rivers Dam Removal Database lists only seven USACE-managed dams and no
Reclamation-managed dams removed between 2000 and 2020. American Rivers, “Database.”
96 For example, USACE has repeatedly considered deauthorizaton and removal of the New Savannah Bluff Lock and
Dam since commercial navigation ceased through the lock, USACE determined the structure was unsafe, and dam
Congressional Research Service

13

Dam Removal and the Federal Role

Recently, a ruling on litigation by nonfederal groups required the federal government to consider
removing four hydroelectric dams on the lower Snake River, WA, as an alternative in its revision
of Columbia River Basin dam operations to improve fish passage.97 Ultimately, the federal
government did not choose dam removal as its preferred alternative, in part because the dams still
provide for multiple authorized purposes (e.g., navigation, hydroelectric power).98
At times, Congress has considered prohibiting federal agencies from using appropriations for
activities related to the removal of federal dams managed by USACE and Reclamation. For
example, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 3144 in 2018 to prevent any structural
modification, action, study, or engineering plan that may hinder electrical generation from the
Federal Columbia River Power System or navigation along the Snake River unless authorized by
Congress, but the Senate did not act on the legislation.99 The House of Representatives also
passed a provision in H.R. 5895 under Division A, the Energy and Water Development and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2019, that would have prohibited use of any funds provided
by Division A to remove any federally owned or operated dam unless the removal was previously
authorized by Congress. The Senate removed this provision prior to enactment of H.R. 5895.
Federal agencies may remove dams that they manage and that were constructed or acquired
without specific congressional authorization at the agencies’ discretion, based on agency policies
and in adherence to state and federal law.100 For example, federal land management agencies may
pursue dam removal as an alternative to reduce costs for operation, maintenance, and safety work
on dams in poor or unsatisfactory condition and/or to improve fish passage and watershed
restoration.101 When evaluating such projects, the agencies determine if the action complies with
their general authorities and is consistent with the planning document governing the management
of that specific land unit. For example, in assessing dam removal activity in a national forest, FS
would determine if dam removal is consistent with the National Forest Management Act of 1976
(P.L. 94-588), in part by meeting standards and guidelines found in the forest’s land management
plan.102 Funding for dam removal activities from federal land management agencies’

safety modifications did not compete for funding. USACE then identified fish passage construction at the location as a
mitigation strategy for impacts to fish species from USACE’s Savannah Harbor Expansion Project. In 2019, the
USACE Savannah District Commander approved removal of the lock and dam and construction of a fixed weir, in-
stream fish passage, an option authorized by Section 1319 of P.L. 114-322. USACE is awaiting appropriations for the
work, which has faced stakeholder opposition due to potential changes in incidental benefits currently provided by the
lock and dam. USACE Savanah District Website, “SHEP Fish Passage at New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam,” at
https://www.sas.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Savannah-Harbor-Expansion/SHEP-Fish-Passage/.
97 National Wildlife Federations v. NMFS, No. 3:01-CV-00640 (D. Or. May 4, 2016).
98 The EIS noted that breaching (i.e., removing) the lower Snake River dams would require legislative changes to the
agencies’ current authorities and mandates, as well as appropriations to carry out such activities. USACE, Reclamation,
Bonneville Power Administration, Columbia River System Operations Environmental Impact Statement Record of
Decision, 2020, at https://www.nwd.usace.army.mil/CRSO/.
99 The lower Snake River dams are part of the Federal Columbia River Power System.
100 For example, according to BLM’s facility maintenance manual, dams that are “no longer functioning as originally
designed, are no longer cost effective to maintain, and do not meet a resource need ... shall be obliterated as soon as
funding becomes available.” BLM, Facility Maintenance, MS 9104, April 2014, pg. A-3, at https://www.blm.gov/sites/
blm.gov/files/uploads/mediacenter_blmpolicymanual9104.pdf. In 2021, BLM completed an EA proposing to remove
two dam assets that breached in recent years; the agency stated that removal would provide long-term savings in the
annual and deferred maintenance program by decreasing facility assets (see Upper Lone Tree and Double Crossing
Dam Decommissioning Project at https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/2011409/510).
101 For example, NPS removed Cascades Dam in Yosemite National Park in 2003 to protect visitors from consequences
of potential dam failure and to facilitate river restoration of the Merced River, a designated wild and scenic river. NPS,
“Cascades Diversion Dam Removal,” at https://www.nps.gov/yose/learn/nature/dam-removal.htm.
102 16 U.S.C. §1604. For example, in the Environmental Assessment Trabuco District Dam Removal Project: Silverado,
Congressional Research Service

14

link to page 13 link to page 13 Dam Removal and the Federal Role

appropriations may compete with funding needs for other facilities (e.g., roads, buildings). To the
extent that federal land management agencies have deferred maintenance needs for dams they
manage,103 dam removal (as an option to address the deferred maintenance needs) could be
eligible for deferred maintenance funding provided in discretionary or mandatory appropriations.
One such source of funding would be mandatory funds from the National Parks and Public Land
Legacy Restoration Fund established by the Great American Outdoors Act (P.L. 116-152).104
BIA is responsible for all dams on Indian lands, in accordance with the Indian Dams Safety Act of
1994, as amended (IDSA; P.L. 103-302; 25 U.S.C. §§3801 et seq.).105 BIA has no policies and
procedures specific to dam removal, likely because the IDSA does not authorize BIA to conduct
dam removal. IDSA authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to establish a program within BIA to
maintain dams identified under ISDA “in a satisfactory condition on a long-term basis.”106
Federal Involvement in Nonfederal Dam Removal
Some federal agencies are involved in removal of nonfederal dams. This involvement may consist
of voluntary coordination, regulatory actions (including those discussed in the “Statutory and
Regulatory Requirements” section), or activities performed at the specific direction of Congress.
Federal agencies also may provide technical and financial assistance for dam removal activities
under more general authorities, such as those to address dam safety, flood risks, fish and wildlife
passage, and watershed restoration.
Nonfederal Dams on Federal Land
There are over 5,000 nonfederal dams on federal land, mostly located on Bureau of Land
Management and FS land.107 Most federal agencies do not have authorities for regulating these
dams, though some may have policies outlining operating responsibilities established through
agreements.108 For example, FS may allow nonfederal entities to use National Forest System

Holy Jim, and San Juan Creeks, FS stated that the environmental analysis complied with the Cleveland National Forest
Land Management Plan, which was completed in 2006. FS, “Trabuco District Dam Removal Project,” at
https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=41140.
103 Deferred maintenance is defined as maintenance that was not performed as needed or scheduled and was put off to a
future time. See, for example, Financial Accounting Standards Advisory Board, “Statement of Federal Financial
Accounting Standards 42: Deferred Maintenance and Repairs: Amending Statements of Federal Financial Accounting
Standards 6, 14, 29 and 32,” April 25, 2012, p. 5, at http://files.fasab.gov/pdffiles/original_sffas_42.pdf.
104 For more information, see CRS In Focus IF11636, The Great American Outdoors Act (P.L. 116-152), by Carol
Hardy Vincent, Laura B. Comay, and Bill Heniff Jr. For FY2021, CRS identified that the National Parks and Public
Land Legacy Restoration Fund supported at least two dam removal projects managed by BLM (“Joint Explanatory
statement for P.L. 116-260, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021,” Congressional Record, December 21, 2020).
105 BIA manages 126 NID dams on Indian lands, in addition to unclassified dams not in the NID. The agency reports
that it is not aware of all low-hazard dams under its jurisdiction. 2018 NID; Department of the Interior, Reports
Required by: The Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act of 2016, Title III, Subtitle A—Indian
Dam s Safety Subtitle B—Irrigation, April 15, 2017, Appendix A1.
106 25 U.S.C. §3803(a). In testimony before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs in 2016, the BIA Director stated
that the Tribal Safety of Dams Committee (authorized by 5 U.S.C. §3805) could consider recommendations addressing
“the removal of dams in order to eliminate the safety hazards posed by deteriorating dams.” Testimony of BIA Director
Michael Black, in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, S. 2205, S. 2421, S. 2564, and S. 2717, hearing,
114th Cong., 2nd sess., April 13, 2016, S.Hrg. 114-326.
107 2018 NID; FEMA, The National Dam Safety Program, Biennial Report to the United States Congress, Fiscal Years
2014–2015, FEMA P-1067, 2016, at https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-08/national-dam-safety_biennial-
report-2014-2015.pdf.
108For BLM, see 43 C.F.R. Part 2800; for FWS, see 361 FW 2.14. Congress has enacted specific conditions related to
Congressional Research Service

15

link to page 19 link to page 19 Dam Removal and the Federal Role

lands for dams through an agreement called a special use authorization, which establishes the
terms under which the authorized activity must be conducted (e.g., maintenance and dam safety
measures).109 These agreements may end in various ways, such as through planned termination,
voluntary termination by the holder, or agency termination or revocation due to noncompliance
with the agreement’s terms. Generally, upon agreement termination, the holder is responsible for
removing improvements, including dams. If improvements have not been removed within the
time allowed, they become government property and are considered agency-managed dams.
Relicensing of Nonfederal Hydropower Projects Under the Federal Power Act
The FPA authorizes FERC to license new nonfederal hydropower projects, relicense existing
projects, and provide oversight for all ongoing nonfederal projects.110 Licenses, which establish
operating parameters for nonfederal hydropower projects, typically are issued for 30-50 years.111
As part of nonfederal hydropower projects, FERC has jurisdiction over more than 2,500 dams
that together generate approximately 55,500 megawatts of hydropower capacity.112 In September
2021, FERC reported that 178 licensed projects (17% of the total licensed projects in 2021) are
set to expire between FY2022 and FY2026.113 The relicensing process provides an opportunity to
periodically reassess the relative benefits and impacts of hydropower projects.114
A project must adhere to several requirements to be relicensed. In the FPA, Congress gave certain
conditioning and recommendation authorities to federal land management and resource agencies;
BIA, representing Indian tribes; and state agencies. These authorities included the following:115
 Section 4(e) (16 U.S.C. §797) allows FERC to issue licenses for projects located
on public lands and reservations of the United States, only after a finding that the
license will not interfere or be inconsistent with the purposes for which the
reservation was established. Any license issued within a federal reservation is

nonfederal hydropower projects on federal lands (see “Relicensing of Nonfederal Hydropower Projects Under the
Federal Power Act”).
109 Land management agencies generally are responsible for monitoring whether the holders of special use
authorizations comply with these requirements.
110 For more information, see section on “Nonfederal Hydropower” in CRS Report R42579, Hydropower: Federal and
Nonfederal Investment, by Kelsi Bracmort, Adam Vann, and Charles V. Stern; CRS In Focus IF11411, The Legal
Framework of the Federal Power Act, by Adam Vann; and FERC, Hydropower Primer: A Handbook of Hydropower
Basics, 2017, at https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-05/hydropower-primer.pdf (hereinafter, FERC,
Hydropower Primer).
111 FERC has developed three hydropower licensing processes: the Traditional Licensing Process, the Alternative
Licensing Process, and the Integrated Licensing Process, which is the default process. FERC, Hydropower Primer.
112 FERC, Hydropower Primer.
113 FERC, “Licensing, Complete List of Active Licenses,” at https://www.ferc.gov/licensing, accessed September 23,
2021. FERC provides relicensing data that include the number of projects with license applications expected to be filed
for each fiscal year from FY2019 through FY2033. See FERC, “Licensing, Expected Relicense Projects FY2019-
FY2033,” at https://www.ferc.gov/licensing.
114 Jeffrey J. Opperman et al., “The Penobscot River, Maine, USA: A Basin-Scale Approach to Balancing Power
Generation and Ecosystem Restoration,” Ecology and Society, vol. 16, no. 3 (2011). Hereinafter, Opperman et al.,
“Penobscot River.”
115 See Sections 4(e), 10(a), 10(j), and 18 of the Federal Power Act (FPA; 16 U.S.C. §§791-828c); and FERC et al.,
Interagency Task Force Report on Agency Recommendations, Conditions, and Prescriptions Under Part I of the
Federal Power Act, December 2000, at https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/
AgencyRecommendations%2CConditions%2CandPrescriptionsunderPartIoftheFederalPowerAct.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

16

Dam Removal and the Federal Role

also subject to mandatory terms and conditions issued by the federal agency
managing that reservation.
 Section 10(a) (16 U.S.C. §803) requires FERC to give consideration to purposes
other than power generation, including the environmental and recreational
concerns listed in Section 4(e), and states that any project licensed must be, in
FERC’s judgment, best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or
developing a waterway(s) for the benefit of multiple public uses.
 Section 10(j) (16 U.S.C. §803) requires any license issued to include conditions
to protect, mitigate damages to, and enhance fish- and wildlife-related habitat
based on recommendations from federal and state fish and wildlife agencies.
 Section 18 (16 U.S.C. §811) states that FERC must require the construction,
operation, and maintenance by a licensee of such fishways (e.g., fish ladders) as
may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of
Commerce.116
FERC can make various decisions once a relicense application has been filed. Following the
filing of a license application, agencies submit their recommendations and conditions. FERC
considers the agencies’ recommendations and incorporates the requirements into its final NEPA
document (either an EA or an EIS). FERC then rules to grant the license with operating
conditions or to deny the license; denial of the license could trigger decommissioning of the
project and removal of the project’s dam(s).117 FERC also has coordinated the licensing of several
projects in a watershed with agreement among parties to remove some dams in the watershed for
restoration purposes.118
In addition, FERC may approve or deny the surrender of a project license. A project licensee may
choose to surrender a license for various reasons, such as that the project is no longer economical
(e.g., due to mandatory conditions to construct fish passage or dam safety repairs).119 Once a
licensee files an application to surrender, FERC reviews the application and issues an order
approving or denying the request for surrender.120 Licenses may be surrendered only after

116 These prescriptions are mandatory and must be included in the license. The licensee, however, may appeal these
prescriptions with the Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior. FERC, Hydropower Primer.
117 In 1995, FERC issued a policy statement concluding that it had the authority as part of a relicensing proceeding to
deny a relicense application and to order a dam to be removed if FERC determines such an action is in the public
interest. FERC, “Project Decommissioning at Relicensing: Policy Statement,” 60 Federal Register 339, January 4,
1995. For example, FERC exercised this dam removal authority in a 1997 order requiring removal of the Edwards Dam
on the Kennebec River in Maine (Edwards Mfg. Co., 81 FERC 61,225 (1997)). Natural Resources Council of Maine,
“A Brief History of Edwards Dam,” at https://www.nrcm.org/programs/waters/kennebec-restoration/history-edwards-
dam/.
118 In 2004, parties negotiating the relicensing of hydropower projects in the Penobscot River watershed filed with
FERC the Lower Penobscot River Comprehensive Settlement Accord, a multiparty legal agreement designed to
reconfigure hydropower production on the lower Penobscot system to both restore migratory fish populations (through
dam removal and by installing fish passages at certain dams) and maintain hydropower production under new licenses
at selected PPL Corporation dams. The parties involved in negotiations included the PPL Corporation, Penobscot
Indian Nation, State of Maine, Department of the Interior (BIA, FWS, NPS), and five nonprofit conservation
organizations. Opperman et al., “Penobscot River”; 69 Federal Register 41799.
119 Where the entity responsible for a project has indicated its intent to abandon the project but has not filed a surrender
application (e.g., allowing a project to be in a state of disrepair for a long period, with no plan to put it back in
operation in the foreseeable future), FERC may issue an order terminating a license or exemption by implied surrender.
FERC, Hydropower Primer.
120 A licensee must prepare an application for a license surrender as specified in 18 C.F.R. §6.1, which includes the
reason for surrendering the license and a copy of the license and all amendments associated with the project. If
Congressional Research Service

17

link to page 28 Dam Removal and the Federal Role

fulfilling any obligations under the license order that FERC may prescribe and any conditions for
disposing of project works and restoring project lands that FERC and relevant federal and state
fish and wildlife agencies may require.
Federal Assistance for Nonfederal Dam Removal
Congress has authorized and funded various programs that may address dam safety, flood risks,
fish passage, and watershed restoration; these programs may include dam removal as an eligible
activity. For example, in 2020, Congress enacted a new authority for ecosystem restoration under
Reclamation that may include funding the design, study, and construction to remove fish passage
barriers.121 This report’s Appendix includes a table that provides information on selected federal
assistance (e.g., grants, loan programs) for nonfederal dam removal that spans multiple
departments and agencies (e.g., Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]; Departments of
Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Interior, and Homeland Security). Some of these agencies also
may provide technical assistance specific to their expertise to nonfederal entities interested in
pursuing dam removal. For example, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s
(NOAA’s) Community-Based Restoration Program provides technical assistance to owners and
stakeholders for various phases of a dam removal project: feasibility study, permitting and
environmental compliance, project design, implementation, and monitoring.122 Other programs
are available through public-private partnership organizations, such as the National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation’s Five-Star and Urban Waters Restoration Matching Grant Program.123
In addition, dam removal activities may receive financial assistance from payments associated
with natural resource damages.124 When a chemical or oil spill occurs, responsible parties may be
liable for the cost of removal and remedial actions, as well as for natural resource damages.125
Responsible parties may be liable for natural resource damages under one or more federal laws,
particularly the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. §§2701 et seq.) and the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA; 42 U.S.C. §§9601
et seq.). Federal agencies may act as trustees for the payments used for restoration efforts. In
some cases, payments for natural resource damages have supported dam removals as part of
restorative actions to compensate for damages.126 For example, officials from NOAA, FWS, and
Connecticut’s Department of Energy and Environmental Protection designated dam removal
projects as part of a series of Housatonic River watershed projects funded by a 1999 legal
settlement involving natural resource damages.127

appropriate, a NEPA document is prepared before an order is issued. FERC, “How to Surrender a License or
Exemption,” at https://www.ferc.gov/industries-data/hydropower/administration-and-compliance/how-surrender-
license-or-exemption.
121 Section 1109, Title XI, Division FF of P.L. 116-260.
122 NOAA Fisheries, “Providing Technical Support for Habitat Restoration Efforts,” at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/
national/habitat-conservation/providing-technical-support-habitat-restoration-efforts.
123 National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, “Five-Star and Urban Waters Restoration Matching Grant Program,” at
https://www.nfwf.org/programs/five-star-and-urban-waters-restoration-grant-program.
124 American Rivers, Paying for Dam Removal.
125 For more information, see CRS Report R43251, Oil and Chemical Spills: Federal Emergency Response Framework,
by David M. Bearden and Jonathan L. Ramseur.
126 American Rivers, Paying for Dam Removal.
127 NOAA, Office of Response and Restoration, “$2 Million in Aquatic Restoration Projects Proposed for Polluted
Housatonic River in Connecticut,” at https://response.restoration.noaa.gov/about/media/2-million-aquatic-restoration-
projects-proposed-polluted-housatonic-river-connecticut.html.
Congressional Research Service

18

link to page 13 link to page 13 Dam Removal and the Federal Role

In addition to liability for natural resource damages, parties responsible for chemical or oil spills
may be subject to civil penalties for violations under CERCLA or CWA. Enforcement actions
involving these violations may include supplemental environmental projects (SEPs), which are
projects that provide benefits that a party may voluntarily agree to undertake in exchange for
mitigation of penalties.128 EPA has stated that in certain circumstances, dam removal projects
have the potential to meet the conditions for SEPs.129
Another potential incentive for dam removal in certain scenarios may be the opportunity for the
project proponent to receive mitigation credit for the project.130 Under CWA Section 404 and
RHA Sections 9 and 10, USACE has authority to issue permits (see “Statutory and Regulatory
Requirements”). USACE may require these permits to include compensatory mitigation to offset
any unavoidable impacts to waters of the United States that occur as a result of the permitted
activity. Compensatory mitigation refers to the restoration, establishment, enhancement, and/or, in
certain circumstances, preservation of wetlands, streams, or other aquatic resources for the
purpose of offsetting unavoidable adverse impacts. According to USACE guidance, “the removal
of obsolete dams and other obsolete in-stream structures can be an effective approach to restoring
river and stream structure, functions, and dynamics.”131 The guidance further explains that these
restoration activities may be performed by mitigation banks and in lieu fee programs to generate
mitigation credits, which can be sold or transferred to permittees to fulfill compensatory
mitigation requirements. The activities also can be conducted as permittee-responsible mitigation.
Whether mitigation credits may be considered for dam removal depends on the nature of the
specific project and is subject to review by the USACE and other applicable federal and state
agencies.
Congressional Intervention in Nonfederal Dam Removal
Although there is no underlying statutory authority for federal involvement in nonfederal dam
removal, Congress has authorized federal involvement in some individual dam removals when it
found a compelling reason to do so, likely due to a federal nexus (e.g., proximity to federal land
or project, tribal responsibilities, listed species). The “Case Histories” box provides an example of
when Congress directed federal involvement in nonfederal dam removal and an example of when
Congress initially was involved in dam removal studies but ultimately did not authorize federal
involvement for removal. These examples also represent large and complex dam removal
projects. Congress provided $325 million for restoration of the Elwha River, which included the
largest dam removal projects ever executed in the United States at the time.132 Removal of four
Klamath River dams also would be a massive project costing nearly $450 million.133

128 EPA, “Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs),” at https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/supplemental-
environmental-projects-seps.
129 EPA, “Frequent Questions.”
130 This section was written by Laura Gatz, Analyst in Environmental Policy. The Nature Conservancy, Environmental
Markets and Stream Barrier Removal, 2017, at https://www.nature.org/content/dam/tnc/nature/en/documents/
2017_Stream_Barrier_Removal_and_Mitigation_Report.pdf.
131 USACE, Regulatory Guidance Letter 18-01, September 25, 2018, at https://www.nap.usace.army.mil/Portals/39/
docs/regulatory/regs/RGL-18-01-Determination-of-Compensatory-Mitigation-Credits-for-Dams-Structures-
Removal.pdf.
132 NPS, “Elwha River Restoration Frequently Asked Questions,” at https://www.nps.gov/olym/learn/nature/elwha-
faq.htm.
133 Klamath River Renewal Corporation, Definite Plan for the Lower Klamath River, June 2018, at
https://klamathrenewal.org/definite-plan/.
Congressional Research Service

19

link to page 19 link to page 19 Dam Removal and the Federal Role

Case Histories
Elwha and Glines Canyon Dams
The Elwha Dam was built in the 1910s and the Glines Canyon Dam was built in the 1920s on the Elwha River in
Washington’s Olympic Peninsula. Both dams were operated to provide hydropower, and neither had fish passage
facilities. Dam construction impacted cultural resources of the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe; the tribe historically
was sustained by the Elwha River’s fish resources and now resides in the Lower Elwha Klallam Reservation at the
mouth of the river. In 1938, Congress established Olympic National Park (16 U.S.C. §251), which included the
Elwha Dam within its boundaries. These boundaries expanded in 1940 to include the Glines Canyon Dam.
The Elwha Dam was never licensed for hydropower production. The dam’s owner, Crown Zellerbach
Corporation, filed a license application for the Elwha Dam in 1968. Crown Zellerbach Corporation also filed an
application to relicense Glines Canyon Dam in 1973, the year its original license expired. In 1979, the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) consolidated the applications into a single process. In 1986, Congress
amended the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. §§791 et seq.), which required FERC to consider impacts of natural
resources and effects on federal and tribal lands in licensing hydropower projects (see “Relicensing of Nonfederal
Hydropower Projects Under the Federal Power Act”). Also in 1986, the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe filed an
intervening motion aiming to halt relicensing proceedings by FERC and require removal of the dams. FERC
proceeded to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Elwha and Glines Canyon hydroelectric
projects to evaluate their potential impacts for licensing and potential alternative actions. The process was subject
to controversy and delay, due in large part to the policy implications of licensing a project within a national park;
conflicting federal, state, and tribal resource goals; and legal challenges.
After a protracted administrative process, Congress legislated a resolution by enacting the Elwha River Ecosystem
and Fisheries Restoration Act (P.L. 102-459) in 1992. The act directed the Secretary of the Interior to develop a
report for Congress assessing alternatives to ful y restore the native anadromous fisheries and the Elwha River
ecosystem, and it removed FERC’s authority to issue a final licensing decision. In the 1994 Elwha Report to Congress,
the Secretary of the Interior recommended dam removal as the preferred alternative. Under the 1992 act, a
recommendation for dam removal authorized the Department of the Interior (DOI) to acquire the dams at a fixed
cost of $29.5 mil ion and required the Secretary of the Interior to prepare appropriate EISs. The National Park
Service (NPS) issued an EIS and a record of decision in 1995 recommending removal of both dams, and it issued
an implementation EIS in 1996 to address the specific construction methods and mitigation measures.
After DOI acquired the project facilities in 2000, NPS issued a final supplemental EIS in 2005 to account for
changes, including newly listed fish species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA; P.L. 93-205, 16 U.S.C. §§1531-
1544), and to incorporate water quality mitigation plans. Originally, the primary source of funding for dam removal
was the NPS construction budget, but the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (P.L. 111-5) provided the
remaining funding necessary to remove both dams. The total cost of Elwha River restoration was approximately
$325 mil ion and included purchasing the two dams and hydroelectric plants from their previous owner; removing
the dams; and constructing two water treatment plants, flood protection facilities, a fish hatchery, and a
greenhouse to propagate native plants for revegetation. NPS removed the Elwha Dam in 2011 and the Glines
Canyon Dam in 2014. Federal agencies, such as the U.S. Geological Survey, continue to monitor the Elwha River’s
ecosystem restoration progress fol owing dam removal.
Klamath River Dams
Much of the Upper Klamath River Basin relies on economic activity supported by irrigated agriculture and the
Bureau of Reclamation’s Klamath Project within DOI. Mitigating the effects of water management practices, habitat
alteration activities, and other factors on species listed under the ESA is a perennial issue in the basin. The basin
contains seven dams on the Klamath River and its tributaries, built between 1918 and 1962. PacifiCorp, a
regulated utility, originally owned six of these dams. These six dams are known col ectively as the Klamath
Hydroelectric Project (KHP). Historically, all but one of the dams have produced hydroelectric power for the
basin, including relatively low-cost power for Klamath Project irrigators. The original FERC license to operate the
KHP expired in 2006. In 2004, PacifiCorp applied for relicensing of the project, and, in 2007, FERC issued an EIS
for the application. FERC analyzed various alternatives for the application, ultimately recommending a new license
with mandatory prescriptions to create fish ladders. FERC estimated that fish ladders would cost hundreds of
mil ions of dol ars to implement and likely would result in net operating losses for the project. As a result of the
EIS, PacifiCorp entered into basin settlement negotiations with stakeholders and continued to operate the project
under temporary annual licenses.
In 2010, the Secretary of the Interior, the governors of Oregon and California, PacifiCorp, and 44 other parties
announced two interrelated settlement agreements intended to resolve long-standing issues in the basin: the
Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA) and the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA).
The KBRA proposed actions to restore Klamath fisheries and assurances for water deliveries, among other things,
Congressional Research Service

20

Dam Removal and the Federal Role

and the KHSA laid out a process for removal of four of PacifiCorp’s dams, which would be one of the largest and
most complex dam removal projects undertaken in the United States. After a secretarial determination on dam
removal, the dams would be transferred to DOI, which would oversee their removal.
Much of the Klamath settlement agreements’ provisions required congressional action. For the agreements to
enter into force and be carried out, Congress would need to (1) enact legislation authorizing both agreements, (2)
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to make a determination on dam removal, and (3) appropriate funding for
federal components of both agreements. Congress held hearings on proposed legislation in the 113th Congress (S.
2379 and S. 2727) and 114th Congress (S. 133) but did not enact the bil s into law.
Despite the lack of congressional authorization, some work related to the KBRA and the KHSA proceeded under
existing authorities. For example, DOI completed studies to inform the secretarial determination on dam removal;
however, the Secretary of the Interior could not act because Congress did not pass legislation allowing the
Secretary to make a determination to remove the dams.
After some stakeholders argued that Congress was unlikely to act on the agreements, in 2016, the parties
amended the KHSA to not require the transfer of dams to DOI, thus avoiding the need for congressional
authorization. The amended KHSA lays out a process for PacifiCorp to transfer the dams slated for removal to a
new nonprofit entity, the Klamath River Renewal Corporation (KRRC), and to proceed with decommissioning the
projects. In June 2021, FERC approved the transfer of the license from PacifiCorp to KRRC and the States of
Oregon and California, as co-licensees. KRRC states that it plans to commence dam removal in 2023.
Sources: DOI; FERC; KRRC; NPS; PacifiCorp; U.S. Geological Survey; and Julia Guarino, “Tribal Advocacy and
the Art of Dam Removal: The Lower Elwha Klallam and the Elwha Dams,” American Indian Law Journal, vol. 2, no. 1
(2013), pp. 114-145.
Notes: For more information on Upper Klamath River Basin issues, see CRS Insight IN11689, Drought in the
Klamath River Basin, by Charles V. Stern and Pervaze A. Sheikh. The KRRC is led by a 15-member board appointed
by the governors of California and Oregon, the Karuk and Yurok Tribes, and conservation and fishing groups. For
more information on Klamath River restoration and dam removal, see CRS In Focus IF11616, Klamath River
Restoration and Dam Removal, by Charles V. Stern and Pervaze A. Sheikh.
Congress also has authorized and funded removal of nonfederal dams at a lesser expense than the
Elwha and Glines Canyon Dams. At times, these federal actions intervened in what is normally
considered a nonfederal responsibility. For example, Congress authorized and funded USACE to
remove the Embrey Dam, owned by the City of Fredericksburg, VA, on the Rappahannock River,
for $10 million.134 Congress also authorized and funded Reclamation to remove the Savage
Rapids Dam in Oregon, which was owned by an irrigation district, for $39 million.135
In addition, Congress may authorize studies and construction projects that involve dam removal
activities but are not primarily for the purposes of dam removal. For example, a USACE study for
flood risk reduction and/or aquatic ecosystem restoration could include nonfederal dam removal
in the area of study as part of a project alternative. If the USACE Chief of Engineers recommends
that alternative, Congress may authorize a USACE project that includes nonfederal dam removal;
in some cases, USACE can pursue dam removal without further congressional action.136 Congress

134 USACE, “USACE Sets the Rappahannock River Free,” 2004, at https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA596489.pdf. P.L.
106-53 authorized the removal of the Embrey Dam.
135 Reclamation, “Reclamation Starts Savage Rapids Dam Removal,” 2009, at https://www.usbr.gov/newsroom/
newsroomold/newsrelease/detail.cfm?RecordID=27841. Title XII of P.L. 93-493 authorized the removal of the Savage
Rapids Dam. H.Rept. 108-357 accompanying P.L. 108-137, among other appropriations bills, directed funds for the
Embrey Dam and Savage Rapids Dam removal projects.
136 Oliver et al., Corps Dam Removal. In some cases, after completing a feasibility study that recommends dam
removal, USACE may have authority to begin construction of dam removal without additional authorization from
Congress. In January 2015, USACE completed a feasibility study for the Upper Des Plaines River in Illinois, which
Section 419 of the WRDA of 1999 (P.L. 106-53) authorized to address flood control and ecosystem restoration.
Although USACE recommended the removal of five dams as part of the preferred alternative, USACE chose to remove
the dams under its Section 206 Continuing Authorizations Program (33 U.S.C. §2330) authority, which does not
require congressional authorization for construction. Other aspects of the preferred alternative were authorized in
Congressional Research Service

21

Dam Removal and the Federal Role

may consider whether the federal government should have a more limited or an expanded role in
studying and executing specific projects for nonfederal dam removal, especially in regard to the
federal nexus for pursuing such projects.
Dam Removal Legislation in the 117th Congress
In the 117th Congress, legislation has been introduced to create new authorities related to dam
removal and to provide emergency and mandatory appropriations for certain activities that may
include dam removal.137 These provisions are summarized below.
Several bills introduced in the House and the Senate contain multiple provisions related to dams,
including dam removal. Title II of H.R. 4375, the Twenty-First Century Dams Act, would create a
new 30% federal tax incentive, with a direct pay option, to support efforts by private, state, local,
and nonprofit groups to remove obsolete dam obstructions.138 Eligible expenses include the
removal, in whole or in part, of powered and non-powered dams, with the dam owner’s consent,
along with any remediation and ecosystem restoration costs associated with a removal project.139
Title III of H.R. 4375 also would direct USACE to establish a new dam removal program; it
would authorize appropriations for the program at $7.5 billion over five years, which would fund
dam removal projects or dam removal technical assistance programs aimed at protecting human
health and safety, restoring aquatic habitat and riverine processes, and enhancing river-based
recreation, among other objectives.140 The bill would establish a dam removal council comprising
the heads of multiple federal agencies to develop a strategy to remove dams and to make
recommendations to USACE regarding dam removal projects and technical assistance programs.
The council also would establish an advisory board of tribal representatives, state agencies,
nongovernmental organizations, and organizations representing dam owners to provide advice
and recommendations to the council. Title IV of H.R. 4375 would direct the USGS and the
Department of Energy to conduct a national dam assessment to assimilate data for stakeholders
and federal agencies to determine whether government and privately owned powered and non-
powered dams may be appropriate candidates for removal, upgrading, enhancement for
environmental performance, or retrofitting for hydropower production.141

WRDA 2016 (Title I of P.L. 114-322). USACE, Upper Des Plaines River and Tributaries, IL and WI: Integrated
Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment, January 2015, at https://www.lrc.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-
Works-Projects/Des-Plaines-River-Phase-II/. USACE also removed the Sandy River Delta Dam in 2013 under the
authority of Section 536 of the WRDA of 2000 (P.L. 106-541), which authorized USACE to conduct studies and
implement ecosystem restoration projects necessary to protect, monitor, and restore fish and wildlife habitat in the
lower Columbia River and Tillamook Bay estuaries. USACE, Sandy River Delta Section 536 Ecosystem Restoration
Project Environmental Assessment, June 2013, at https://www.nwp.usace.army.mil/Missions/Current/Sandy-River-
Delta/.
137 In addition, Representative Simpson released a $3.35 billion legislative framework in February 2021 that proposed
breaching the four lower Snake River dams while compensating for lost benefits with programs related to energy,
transportation, and other services. United States Congressman Mike Simpson, “The Columbia Basin Initiative,” at
https://simpson.house.gov/salmon/.
138 The amount of the credit would be 30% of the taxpayer’s basis in eligible property (generally, the cost of dam
removal). A direct pay option would allow taxpayers to elect a cash payment in lieu of the tax credit.
139 The provision does not include demolishing or removing a federal hydroelectric dam.
140 The program would not support dam removal of federal hydropower dams. The federal share of the cost of a dam
removal project would be 100%, unless a different federal share is required by the program of the agency executing the
project. Monitoring would be an eligible use of funds. Of the authorized appropriations, $30 million would be for
nonfederal dam removal technical assistance programs.
141 The bill states that the assessment would be for data gathering and analysis tools and would not make
Congressional Research Service

22

link to page 28 Dam Removal and the Federal Role

S. 2356, also titled the Twenty-First Century Dams Act, includes the same dam removal
provisions that appear in Titles III and IV of H.R. 4375 but does not include the tax provisions in
Title II of H.R. 4375. Separate legislation, the Maintaining and Enhancing Hydroelectric and
River Restoration Act (S. 2306 and H.R. 4499) includes tax provisions similar to those in Title II
of H.R. 4375. Section 204 of H.R. 3404, the FUTURE Western Water Infrastructure and Drought
Resiliency Act, would direct the Secretary of the Interior to arrange for a study with the National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine on sediment transport following dam
removal.
In August 2021, the Senate passed H.R. 3684, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021,
which includes new authorizations related to dam removal and emergency appropriations under
new and existing authorities related to dam removal. The bill would authorize a new $80 million
collaborative-based, landscape-scale restoration program from FY2022 through FY2026. The
program would be administered by the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior and would aim
to restore water quality or fish passage on federal land, including Indian forest land or
rangeland.142 Under the program, the Secretaries would solicit collaboratively developed
proposals for up to $5 million in funding for five-year projects to restore fish passage or water
quality on federal and nonfederal land.143 The bill also would authorize $250 million for FY2022
through FY2026 to Reclamation for the design, study, and construction of aquatic ecosystem
restoration and protection projects, which may include removing fish passage barriers.144 The bill
includes emergency appropriations that may fund dam removal, such as the following:145
 $115 million for USACE’s Section 206 Continuing Authorizations Program (33
U.S.C. §2330) to restore fish and wildlife passage by removing in-stream barriers
and providing technical assistance to nonfederal interests carrying out such
activities146
 $250 million from FY2022 through FY2026 for Reclamation to design, study,
and construct aquatic ecosystem restoration and protection projects, which may
include removing fish passage barriers147
 $400 million through FY2026 for NOAA’s Community-Based Restoration
Program (16 U.S.C. §1891a) to restore fish passage by removing in-stream
barriers and providing technical assistance148

recommendations on individual dams.
142 Sections 40804(b)(10) and 40804(f) of Division D of H.R. 3684.
143 The bill would direct the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to fund project proposals that would result in the
most miles of streams being restored for the lowest amount of federal funding and to discontinue funding for a project
that fails to achieve its intended results after two consecutive years.
144 The authorization of appropriations would be in accordance with Section 1109 of Division FF of P.L. 116-260.
145 Details of many these programs are in the Appendix.
146 The bill would provide that USACE would execute these projects at full federal expense (instead of 35% nonfederal
cost share) and without a cost limit (Section 206 Continuing Authorities Program projects normally are limited to $10
million in federal funds).
147 Section 40901, Division D, of H.R. 3684 would authorize appropriations in accordance with Section 1109 of
Division FF of P.L. 116-260.
148 The provision would prohibit appropriations to this program for removing, breaching, or otherwise altering the
operations of a federal hydropower dam. It also states that dam removal projects must include the dam owner’s written
consent. The provision would provide up to 15% of appropriations to the program for projects pursued by Indian tribes
or partnerships of Indian tribes.
Congressional Research Service

23

Dam Removal and the Federal Role

 $585 for the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA’s) High Hazard
Dam Mitigation Grant Program (33 U.S.C. §467f–2), of which $75 million is for
the removal of nonfederal dams149
 $200 million from FY2022 through FY2026 for FWS’s National Fish Passage
Program to provide technical assistance and restore fish and wildlife passage by
removing in-stream barriers
 $10 million from FY2022 through FY2026 for FS’s Capital Improvement and
Maintenance account for the removal of non-hydropower federal dams and to
provide dam removal technical assistance
 $2.9 billion from FY2022 through FY2026 for FS to carry out activities in
Sections 40803-40804 of Division D of H.R. 3684150 (Section 40804 would
authorize $80 million for the program described above to restore water quality or
fish passage on federal land)
The 21st Century Conservation Corps Act (S. 487 and H.R. 1162) also would provide emergency
appropriations from FY2021 through FY2023 to the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior
for federal land management and conservation, such as fish passage.
In addition, Congress is debating whether to provide mandatory appropriations for environmental
restoration in the FY2022 budget reconciliation process, and funding allocated for environmental
restoration activities could include dam removal. H.R. 5376—approved by the House Committee
on the Budget on September 27, 2021, in response to reconciliation directives from S.Con.Res.
14—includes provisions in Title VII related to environmental restoration.151 Some of the
provisions would provide mandatory appropriations for activities such as habitat restoration and
restoration of natural resources, among other purposes.152 H.R. 5376 also would provide $250
million in mandatory appropriations for Reclamation’s aquatic ecosystem restoration program,
which may include projects that remove fish passage barriers, to be expended between FY2027
and FY2031.153
The 117th Congress may debate whether to enact new authorities related to dam removal and
whether to provide additional appropriations for programs that may fund dam removal activities.
It also may engage in oversight of federal agency activities pursuant to new or amended
authorities related to dam removal and may review the effectiveness, efficiency, and priorities of
agencies funding dam removal activities.

149 The provision states that dam removal projects must include written consent of the dam owner, if ownership is
established.
150 This provision would allow FS to allocate the money among the many purposes outlined in Sections 40803-40804
of Division D of H.R. 3684. FS would have the discretion to use or not use the money for all of the purposes in those
sections. The bill also would appropriate $905 million for the Secretary of the Interior to carry out activities that
Section 40804 of Division D would authorize.
151 U.S. House of Representatives, “Markup of Markup to Consider the Committee Print Containing Legislative
Proposals to Comply with the Reconciliation Directive Included in Section 2002 of the Concurrent Resolution on the
Budget for Fiscal Year 2022, S.Con.Res. 14.,” September 2021, at https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?EventID=114022.
152 For example, the Title VII language would appropriate $9.5 billion in mandatory funds to NOAA for coastal and
Great Lakes restoration and technical assistance (Section 70501) and $400 million in mandatory funds to NOAA for
the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund, which has funded dam removal in the past. These funds would be
appropriated in FY2022; would remain available until September 30, 2031; and would not require nonfederal cost
share.
153 Section 70309 would provide mandatory appropriations in accordance with Section 1109 of Division FF of P.L.
116-260.
Congressional Research Service

24

link to page 29 link to page 29 Dam Removal and the Federal Role

Appendix. Federal Assistance for Nonfederal Dam
Removal
Table A-1 provides a list of selected federal assistance (e.g., grants, loan programs) that may be
available for certain nonfederal dam removal projects.154 The table provides general information,
if available, on assistance program authorities, eligible entities or dams, eligible activities and
uses, applicable cost share, relevant authorizations of appropriations,155 recent
appropriations/funding levels, and relevant government websites. The list provides an overview
of relevant assistance and authorities; it may not include all potential sources of federal
assistance.156

154 The federal assistance for dam removal described in Table A-1 is generally applicable to nonfederal dams located
on nonfederal lands.
155 The table includes some authorities enacted in the 116th Congress that have not yet received funding.
156 Some programs are available through public-private partnership organizations, including the National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation’s Bring Back the Native Fish Program (https://www.nfwf.org/programs/bring-back-natives), Five-
Star and Urban Waters Restoration Matching Grant Program (https://www.nfwf.org/programs/five-star-and-urban-
waters-restoration-grant-program/five-star-and-urban-waters-restoration-grant-program-2021-request-proposals),
Columbia Basin Water Transactions Program (https://www.nfwf.org/programs/columbia-basin-water-transactions-
program), and National Fish Habitat Partnership’s programs (http://www.fishhabitat.org/). Some grant programs may
be used to fund dam removal, but dam removal is not the primary purpose of the programs (e.g., North American
Wetlands Conservation Act grants (16 U.S.C. §§4401 et seq.), grants related to National Fish Habitat Action Plans).
Some FS authorities allow the agency to provide assistance for watershed or fisheries projects located on nonfederal
lands in specified circumstances (e.g., Watershed Restoration and Enhancement Agreements (16 U.S.C. §1011a)).
These authorities may apply to dam removal.
Congressional Research Service

25

Table A-1. Selected Federal Assistance for Removal of Nonfederal Dams
Program
Eligible
Eligible Activities
Cost Share
Authorization of
Recent Funding
Website
(Authority)
Entity/Dams
Appropriations
(CRS Contact)
Department of the
Eligible entities
On the request of
An eligible entity is to $15 mil ion annually
Not yet funded.
NA
Interior/Reclamation
include states; tribes;
any eligible entity, the provide no less than
for FY2022 through
(Charlie Stern,
States Aquatic
irrigation districts;
Secretary of the
35% of the costs of
2026.
cstern@crs.loc.gov)
Ecosystem
water districts; water Interior may
project construction
Restoration
or power delivery
negotiate and enter
and 100% of any

(Title XI, Division FF,
authorities;
into an agreement to
operation,
Section 1109 of P.L.
organizations that
fund the design,
maintenance, and
116-260)
own a facility eligible
study, and
replacement and
for upgrade,
construction of an
rehabilitation costs
modification, or
aquatic ecosystem
with respect to the
removal; nonprofit
restoration and
project.
conservation
protection project in
organizations
a Reclamation state
partnering with an
(17 designated states
entity that owns the
west of the
infrastructure or
Mississippi River) if
land; and agencies
the Secretary of the
established under
Interior determines
state law for the joint the project is likely
exercise of powers.
to improve the health
of fisheries, wildlife,
or aquatic habitat,
including through
habitat restoration
and improved fish
passage via the
removal or bypass of
barriers to fish
passage.
CRS-26

Program
Eligible
Eligible Activities
Cost Share
Authorization of
Recent Funding
Website
(Authority)
Entity/Dams
Appropriations
(CRS Contact)
Environmental
States and tribes are
This program awards
Each Section 319
Expired.
$177 mil ion for
https://www.epa.gov/
Protection Agency
eligible for grants for
grants to states and
grant to a state or
FY2021.
nps/319-grant-program-
(EPA) Clean Water
projects consistent
tribes to implement
tribe requires a 40%
states-and-territories
Act Section 319
with a state’s or
their approved state
nonfederal match.
(Laura Gatz,
Nonpoint Source
tribe’s written
nonpoint source
This match is not
lgatz@crs.loc.gov)
Management Grant
nonpoint source
management
required to be met
Program
management program programs. Dam
on a project-by-

(33 U.S.C. §1329)
plan. Project
removal projects
project basis.
proposals may be
need to be consistent
sent to state
with a state’s or
nonpoint source
tribe’s nonpoint
agencies, usually as
source management
part of an annual
program plan (e.g.,
competitive request-
some states/tribes
for-proposals
may have hydrologic
process.
modification or dam
removal as priorities
in their plans). Dam
removal projects that
are consistent with
EPA guidelines also
are eligible.
CRS-27

Program
Eligible
Eligible Activities
Cost Share
Authorization of
Recent Funding
Website
(Authority)
Entity/Dams
Appropriations
(CRS Contact)
EPA Wetland
States, tribes, local
The program assists
None.
Expired.
$14.2 mil ion for
https://www.epa.gov/
Program
governments,
nonfederal
FY2021.
wetlands/wetland-
Development Grants interstate
governments with
program-development-
(33 U.S.C.
associations, and
building or enhancing
grants-and-epa-wetlands-
§1254(b)(3))
intertribal consortia
their wetland
grant-coordinators
are eligible to apply
protection and
(Laura Gatz,
for funds to conduct
restoration
lgatz@crs.loc.gov)
projects that help
programs. Grant
develop and refine
funds could be used

their wetland
to fund studies to
programs.
identify how dam
removal can improve
wetland restoration.
Construction
activities are
specifically
prohibited, unless
those efforts are
undertaken as part of
a scientific
demonstration or
study.
CRS-28

Program
Eligible
Eligible Activities
Cost Share
Authorization of
Recent Funding
Website
(Authority)
Entity/Dams
Appropriations
(CRS Contact)
Federal Emergency
State governments
The program assists
Nonfederal cost
$60 mil ion annually
$12 mil ion in
https://www.fema.gov/
Management Agency
may submit
with technical,
share of no less than
for FY2021 through
FY2021.
emergency-managers/
(FEMA) High-Hazard
applications to FEMA
planning, design, and
35%.
FY2026.
risk-management/dam-
Dam Rehabilitation
on behalf of sub-
construction
safety/grants#hhpd
Grant Program
recipients for eligible
activities toward the
(Anna Normand,
(33 U.S.C. §467f–2)
dams and then may
repair, removal, and
anormand@crs.loc.gov)
distribute any grant
structural/
funding received
nonstructural

from FEMA to sub-
rehabilitation of
recipients for the
eligible high-hazard
dams. Eligible dams
potential dams.
must be in a state
with a dam safety
program, be classified
as high hazard, fail to
meet the state’s
minimum dam safety
standards, and pose
an unacceptable risk
to the public, among
other criteria.
Federally owned
dams, dams built
under the authority
of the Secretary of
Agriculture, and
hydropower dams
with an authorized
installed capacity of
greater than 1.5
megawatts are not
eligible for the
program.
CRS-29

Program
Eligible
Eligible Activities
Cost Share
Authorization of
Recent Funding
Website
(Authority)
Entity/Dams
Appropriations
(CRS Contact)
FEMA Hazard
Eligible applicants
Eligible activities
Nonfederal cost
The program is
The level of
https://www.fema.gov/
Mitigation Grant
include states,
include localized and
share of no less than
funded from the
funding for a given grants/mitigation/hazard-
Program (HMGP)
territories, the
non-localized flood
25%. The recipient
Disaster Relief Fund
disaster is based
mitigation
(Section 404 of P.L.
District of Columbia
risk reduction
may choose to meet
and is available
on a percentage
(Diane Horn,
93-288, as amended;
(DC), and federally
projects,
the cost-share
fol owing a
of the estimated
dhorn@crs.loc.gov)
42 U.S.C. §5170c)
recognized tribes. A
nonstructural
requirement by
presidential major
total federal
federally recognized
retrofitting of existing ensuring a minimum
disaster declaration
assistance under

tribe has the option
buildings, and soil
25% nonfederal cost
or FMAG declaration
the Stafford Act
to apply for HMGP
stabilization. Flood
share for the overall
under the Stafford
for each
directly to FEMA as
risk reduction
award to the state
Act. Once the
presidential major
an applicant or
projects may include
rather than on an
program is approved
disaster
through a state as a
the construction,
individual activity
for an eligible
declaration or
sub-applicant. Eligible
demolition, or
basis.
applicant, HMGP
FMAG
sub-applicants include rehabilitation of
program funding does declaration,
state agencies,
dams. Modifications
not have to be used
subject to a sliding
federally recognized
must be for the
for the particular
scale formula (see
tribes, local
purpose of increasing
disaster for which it
U.S.C. §5170c(a)
governments/
the capacity for risk
was allocated or for
and 44 C.F.R.
communities, and
reduction of the
the particular
§206.432(b)).
private nonprofit
existing structures
location or type of
organizations. A
and cannot constitute
disaster. The
governor or
only repairs.
applicant makes
equivalent may
decisions about
request that HMGP
allocating program
funding be available
funds to sub-
throughout the state,
applicants.
territory, or tribal
area fol owing a
presidential major
disaster declaration
or Fire Management
Assistance Grant
(FMAG) declaration
under Section 420 of
the Stafford Act (42
U.S.C. §5187).
CRS-30

Program
Eligible
Eligible Activities
Cost Share
Authorization of
Recent Funding
Website
(Authority)
Entity/Dams
Appropriations
(CRS Contact)
FEMA Building
Eligible applicants
Eligible activities for
Generally, nonfederal For each major
The notice of
https://www.fema.gov/
Resilient
include states,
BRIC are the same as cost share of no less
disaster declaration
funding
grants/mitigation/
Infrastructure and
territories, DC, and
those described
than 25%. However,
under the Stafford
opportunity for
building-resilient-
Communities (BRIC),
federally recognized
above for HMGP.
small, impoverished
Act, the President
BRIC FY2021 was
infrastructure-
(Section 203 of P.L.
tribes. Tribes have
The priorities for the
communities (as
may set aside from
posted on August
communities
93-288, as amended;
the option to apply
BRIC program in
defined in 42 U.S.C.
the Disaster Relief
9, 2021, with a
(Diane Horn,
42 U.S.C. §5133)
for BRIC funding
FY2021 are (1)
§5133(a)) are eligible
Fund an amount
total of $1 bil ion
dhorn@crs.loc.gov)
directly to FEMA as
natural hazard risk
for an increase in the
equal to 6% of the
available. As of
an applicant or
reduction activities
federal share up to
estimated aggregate
August 31, 2021,

through a state as a
that mitigate risk to
90% of project costs
amount of the grants
there was $1.64

sub-applicant. Eligible
public infrastructure
on request, and the
to be made pursuant
bil ion set aside in
sub-applicants include and disadvantaged
nonfederal cost share to the fol owing
the fund for the
state agencies,
communities; (2)
may be waived for
sections of the
program (see CRS
federally recognized
projects that mitigate
insular areas if the
Stafford Act: 403,
Report R45484,
tribes, and local
risk to one or more
nonfederal share is
406, 407, 408, 410,
The Disaster Relief
governments/
community lifelines;
under $200,000.
416, and 428.
Fund: Overview and
communities. Any
(3) projects that
Issues, for more
states or territories,
incorporate nature-
information on
or federally
based solutions; (4)
the Disaster Relief
recognized tribes
projects that enhance
Fund).
that are entirely or
climate resilience;
partially located in a
and (5) projects
state or territory,
proposed by
that have had a major applicants that adopt
disaster declaration
and enforce
in the seven years
mandatory building
prior to the
codes based on the
application start date
latest published
are eligible to apply.
editions of building
All states, territories,
codes.
and federally
recognized tribes had
COVID-19 disaster
declarations in 2020.
CRS-31

Program
Eligible
Eligible Activities
Cost Share
Authorization of
Recent Funding
Website
(Authority)
Entity/Dams
Appropriations
(CRS Contact)
FEMA Flood
Eligible applicants
Grants may be used
Generally, federal
The program is
$160 mil ion is
https://www.fema.gov/
Mitigation Assistance
include states,
for a number of
funding is available
funded from NFIP
available for FMA
grants/mitigation/floods
Grant Program,
territories, tribal
purposes, including
for up to 75% of
policyholders’
from the National
(Diane Horn,
(Title XIII of P.L. 90-
governments
state and local
eligible costs. FEMA
premiums, fees, and
Flood Insurance
dhorn@crs.loc.gov)
448, as amended; 42
(federally
mitigation planning;
may contribute up to
surcharges. No
Fund for FY2021.
U.S.C. 4104c)
recognized), and local the elevation,
90% for repetitive
funding is

communities, as
relocation,
loss properties and
appropriated for the
defined in 42 U.S.C.
demolition, or flood
up to 100% for
program. Congress
§4003(a)(1) and 2
proofing of
severe repetitive loss
allows FEMA to
U.S.C. §4104c(h)(1).
structures; the
properties, as defined withdraw funds from
Sub-applicants
acquisition of
in 42 U.S.C. §4014(h)
the National Flood
include communities
properties; and other and 44 C.F.R.
Insurance Fund and
and tribal
activities. The same
§79.2(h).
to use those funds to
governments
restrictions on
operate the NFIP,
(including federally
funding identified
but the spending
recognized tribes
above for the HMGP
authority to use
that choose to apply
apply to Flood
these offsetting
as sub-applicants). All
Mitigation Assistance.
col ections for the
sub-applicants must
In addition, mitigation
program must be
be participating in the projects are required
authorized in
National Flood
to meet the minimum
appropriations acts.
Insurance Program
standards set by the
and must not be
NFIP.
withdrawn, on
probation, or
suspended.
Structures identified
in the sub-application
must have an NFIP
policy in effect when
applying and must
maintain it through
the life of the project.
FMA funding does
not require a Stafford
Act declaration.

CRS-32

Program
Eligible
Eligible Activities
Cost Share
Authorization of
Recent Funding
Website
(Authority)
Entity/Dams
Appropriations
(CRS Contact)
FEMA Resilience
There is no FEMA
The revolving loan
Nonfederal cost
The act authorizes
Not yet funded.
No website yet.
Revolving Loan Fund
guidance available at
fund may be used to
share of no less than
the appropriation of
(Diane Horn,
( P.L. 116-284)
this time. In statute,
provide financial
10%.
$100 mil ion annually
dhorn@crs.loc.gov)
eligible entities
assistance for
for FY2022 and
include states, insular
projects or activities
FY2023.

areas, and tribes that
that mitigate the
have received a
impacts of natural
major disaster
hazards, including the
declaration during a
construction, repair,
five-year period
or replacement of a
ending on the date of
nonfederal levee or
enactment of P.L.
other flood control
116-284 P.L. 114-322
structure, in
(January 1, 2021).
consultation with
USACE, among other
activities.
Fish and Wildlife
The program works
Fish passage projects
Pursuant to FWS
NA.
$18.59 mil ion for
https://www.fws.gov/
Service (FWS)
on a voluntary basis
are to restore
policy related to the
FY2021.
fisheries/fish-
National Fish Passage
with federal, state,
unimpeded flows and
Fish Passage
passage.html
Program
local, and tribal
fish movement by
Program, FWS seeks
(R. Eliot Crafton,
(16 U.S.C. §§757a-
agencies, as well as
removing barriers or
to secure at least
rcrafton@crs.loc.gov)
757g; 16 U.S.C.
with private partners
bypass options.
50% of total project
§§5151 et seq.; 16
and stakeholders.
Assistance may be for costs from partners.

U.S.C. §§1531-1544;
Fish passage projects
dam removal, water
This applies to the
16 U.S.C. §§742a-
are not eligible for
diversion, culvert
overall regional
742c; 16 U.S.C.
funding if they are for removal, bypass
program and may not
§742j; 16 U.S.C.
any federal or state
channels, research,
need to be achieved
§§661-667e)
compensatory
inventories, and
on every project.
mitigation or if fish
assessments
Funding matches may
passage is a condition (examples of funded
be in-kind services or
provided by existing
projects:
cash.
federal or state
https://www.fws.gov/
regulatory programs.
fisheries/fish-passage/
fish-passage-projects-
at-work.html).
CRS-34

Program
Eligible
Eligible Activities
Cost Share
Authorization of
Recent Funding
Website
(Authority)
Entity/Dams
Appropriations
(CRS Contact)
FWS Partners for
The voluntary,
The program can
Cost sharing is not
NA.
$56.86 mil ion in
https://www.fws.gov/
Fish and Wildlife (16
incentive-based
assist with
required in statute,
FY2021.
partners/
U.S.C. §3771; 16
program provides
modernizing fish
but FWS states that
(R. Eliot Crafton,
U.S.C. §742a-c; 16
direct technical and
passage structures to
it strives to achieve a
rcrafton@crs.loc.gov)
U.S.C. §742e-742j; 16 financial assistance in
allow safe travel by
minimum cost share
U.S.C. §§661-667e)
the form of
aquatic resources
of 1:1 on selected

cooperative and
and, at the same
projects. Cost share
grant agreements to
time, allow for
may be monetary or
private landowners
structural stability by
in-kind contributions.
to restore and
designing units to
conserve fish and
avoid flood damage.
wildlife habitat for
Other eligible
the benefit of federal
activities are water
trust resources.
control structure and
Projects must be
fencing projects.
implemented on
private property,
with the exception of
efforts that support
projects on private
lands.
CRS-35

Program
Eligible
Eligible Activities
Cost Share
Authorization of
Recent Funding
Website
(Authority)
Entity/Dams
Appropriations
(CRS Contact)
National Oceanic and Eligible applicants are
The grants support
There is no statutory
Expired.
Up to $1 mil ion
https://www.grants.gov/
Atmospheric
institutions of higher
projects providing
matching
for FY2021.
web/grants/view-
Administration
education;
sustainable and
requirement for this
opportunity.html?oppId=
(NOAA) Atlantic
nonprofits;
lasting benefits for
program. NOAA
331374
Salmon Habitat
commercial (for-
Atlantic salmon.
typically leverages its
(Eva Lipiec,
Restoration
profit) organizations;
Proposals that
federal funding with
elipiec@crs.loc.gov)
Partnership Grants
U.S. territories; and
incorporate proven
matching
(16 U.S.C. §661; 16
state, local, and tribal
restoration
contributions from a

U.S.C. §1891a; 16
governments.
techniques and focus
range of sources in
U.S.C. §1535)
Applicants must
on removal of
the public and private
propose work within
barriers wil receive
sectors to implement
one or more Salmon
the highest priority.
restoration.
Habitat Recovery
Dam removals wil
Applicants are
Units in the state of
receive higher
encouraged, but not
Maine.
priority than
required, to
installation of
demonstrate a
structures that
commitment of 1:1
require operations
federal funding to
and maintenance.
nonfederal match.
NOAA considers
cost sharing in the
evaluation criteria.
CRS-36

Program
Eligible
Eligible Activities
Cost Share
Authorization of
Recent Funding
Website
(Authority)
Entity/Dams
Appropriations
(CRS Contact)
NOAA Community-
Eligible applicants are
The grants support
There is no statutory
Expired.
$8.3 mil ion for
https://www.fisheries.no
Based Restoration
institutions of higher
habitat restoration
matching
FY2021.
aa.gov/national/habitat-
Program Coastal and
education;
projects that use an
requirement for this
conservation/
Marine Habitat
nonprofits;
ecosystem-based
program. NOAA
community-based-
Restoration Grants
commercial (for-
approach to foster
typically leverages its
habitat-restoration.
(16 U.S.C. §661; 16
profit) organizations;
species recovery and
federal funding with
(Eva Lipiec,
U.S.C. §1891a; 16
U.S. territories; and
increase populations
matching
elipiec@crs.loc.gov)
U.S.C. §1535)
state, local and tribal
under NOAA’s
contributions from a
governments.
jurisdiction. Projects
broad range of

Applicants must
that restore natural
sources in the public
propose work in
ecosystem function
and private sectors
geographic areas that
and processes wil
to implement coastal
benefit species with a
receive higher
and marine habitat
nexus to NOAA
priority than projects
restoration. NOAA
management.
that install structures
considers cost
that require
sharing in evaluation
maintenance.
criteria.
CRS-37

Program
Eligible
Eligible Activities
Cost Share
Authorization of
Recent Funding
Website
(Authority)
Entity/Dams
Appropriations
(CRS Contact)
NOAA Great Lakes
Eligible applicants are
The grants support
There is no statutory
Expired.
Awards depend
https://www.grants.gov/
Habitat Restoration
institutions of higher
planning and/or on-
matching
on the amount of
web/grants/view-
Regional Partnership
education;
the-ground
requirement for this
funds made
opportunity.html?oppId=
Grants
nonprofits;
restoration activities.
program. NOAA
available to
310918
(16 U.S.C. §661; 16
commercial (for-
Projects can include
typically leverages its
NOAA for this
(Eva Lipiec,
U.S.C. §1891a)
profit) organizations;
fish passage barrier
federal funding with
purpose by the
elipiec@crs.loc.gov)
U.S. territories; and
removal.
matching
EPA (through the
state, local, and tribal
contributions from a
Great Lakes

governments. Eligible
range of sources in
Restoration
applicants may be
the public and private
Initiative—see
located anywhere but
sectors to implement
33 U.S.C.
must propose work
coastal and marine
§1268c(7)(d)(i )).
within the Great
habitat restoration.
Approximately $5
Lakes Basin and
NOAA considers
mil ion was
within one of the
cost sharing in
available for the
eight U.S. Great
evaluation criteria.
FY2019
Lakes states (New
opportunity.
York, Pennsylvania,
Ohio, Michigan,
Indiana, Il inois,
Wisconsin, and
Minnesota).
CRS-38

Program
Eligible
Eligible Activities
Cost Share
Authorization of
Recent Funding
Website
(Authority)
Entity/Dams
Appropriations
(CRS Contact)
NOAA Pacific
The fund makes
Eligible activities
State applicants are
NA.
$65 mil ion for
https://www.grants.gov/
Coastal Salmon
available funding to
include projects that
required to match or
FY2021.
web/grants/view-
Recovery Fund
the states of
address factors
document in-kind
opportunity.html?oppId=
(16 U.S.C.
Washington, Oregon, limiting the
contributions of at
331007
§3645(d)(2))
Idaho, Nevada,
productivity of Pacific least 33% of received
(Eva Lipiec,
California, and Alaska salmon and steelhead
federal funds. Indian
elipiec@crs.loc.gov)
and to federally
listed under the
tribes, representative
recognized tribes of
Endangered Species
tribal commissions,

the Columbia River
Act (16 U.S.C §§1531 and consortia are
and Pacific Coast
et seq.) or those
exempt from any
(including Alaska) for
populations
cost-share
projects necessary
necessary for the
requirement.
for the conservation
exercise of tribal
of certain salmon and treaty fishing rights
steelhead
or native subsistence
populations.
fishing.
U.S. Army Corps of
A nonfederal sponsor Aquatic ecosystem
The nonfederal
$63 mil ion for
$11 mil ion for
https://planning.erdc.dre
Engineers (USACE)
(e.g., a local
restoration projects
sponsor is
FY2021 through
FY2021.
n.mil/toolbox/library/
Section 206 Aquatic
government or
are eligible if they
responsible for 50%
FY2024.
FactSheets/
Ecosystem
nonprofit entity, with
improve the quality
of funding for studies
CAP%20Section%20206
Restoration
local government
of the environment,
above the initial
%20Fact%20Sheet%20an
Continuing
consent) is eligible to
are in the public
$100,000 in federal
d%20Sample%20Request
Authorities Program
request assistance for interest, and are cost
funds. The nonfederal
%20Letter.pdf
(33 U.S.C. §2330)
an ecosystem
effective, including
sponsor is
(Anna Normand,
restoration project.
dam removal. The
responsible for 35%
anormand@crs.loc.gov)
federal cost may not
of total project costs
exceed $10 mil ion.
during the design,
implementation, and
monitoring periods.
The nonfederal
sponsor must
provide all lands,
easements, rights-of-
way, relocations, and
disposal areas
required for the
project.
CRS-39

Program
Eligible
Eligible Activities
Cost Share
Authorization of
Recent Funding
Website
(Authority)
Entity/Dams
Appropriations
(CRS Contact)
USACE Section 506
A nonfederal
Eligible projects
Federal construction
NA.
Funding depends
https://www.lrd.usace.ar
Great Lakes Fishery
sponsor, including a
restore fish and
cost share is 65%.
on the amount of
my.mil/Home/Great-
and Ecosystem
private interest or a
wildlife habitat,
Operation,
funds made
Lakes-Fishery-
Restoration Program
nonprofit entity, may
remove dams and
maintenance, repair,
available to
Ecosystem-Restoration-
(42 U.S.C. §1962d–
partner with USACE
other barriers to fish
rehabilitation, and
USACE for this
Program/
22)
for a project to
migration, prevent
replacement of
purpose by the
(Anna Normand,
support the
and control non-
projects are
EPA (through the
anormand@crs.loc.gov)
restoration of the
native invasive
nonfederal
Great Lakes
fishery, ecosystem,
species, and
responsibilities.
Restoration
and beneficial uses of
contribute to the
Initiative—see
the Great Lakes.
removal of beneficial-
33 U.S.C.
use impairments in
§1268c(7)(d)(i )).
Great Lakes Areas of
Concern.
CRS-40

Program
Eligible
Eligible Activities
Cost Share
Authorization of
Recent Funding
Website
(Authority)
Entity/Dams
Appropriations
(CRS Contact)
U.S. Department of
Only dams
Technical and
Federal funds
$85 mil ion annually
$10 mil ion for
https://www.nrcs.usda.go
Agriculture
constructed under
financial assistance is
account for 65% of
for FY2008 through
FY2021.
v/wps/portal/nrcs/main/
Watershed
the Watershed and
available to project
the total cost of a
FY2023.
national/programs/
Rehabilitation
Flood Prevention
sponsors for the
rehabilitation project.
landscape/wr/
Program
Operations (WFPO)
planning, design, and
Local project
(Megan Stubbs,
(16 U.S.C. §1012)
program and the
construction of
sponsors must
mstubbs@crs.loc.gov)
Resource
rehabilitation efforts
provide 35% of the
Conservation and
addressing health and
total cost of a

Development
safety concerns of
rehabilitation project
(RC&D) program are
eligible dams.
and must obtain
eligible. WFPO
Upgrading or
needed land rights
consists of projects
decommissioning may and permits. Federal
built under two
be considered.
funds cannot be used
authorities—the
for operation and
Watershed
maintenance.
Protection and Flood
Prevention Act of
1954 (P.L. 83-566)
and the Flood
Control Act of 1944
(P.L. 78-534). RC&D
projects are
authorized under
Subtitle H of Title XV
of the Agriculture
and Food Act of
1981 (16 U.S.C.
§§3451 et seq.).
Source: CRS, using federal agency websites (see website column), public laws, and appropriations legislation.
Notes: NA = not applicable. Congress may appropriate funding for programs with expired authorizations of appropriations.
The Stafford Act defines state as the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands (see 42 U.S.C. §5122(4)). Any reference in the Stafford Act to state and local is deemed also to refer to tribal governments, as appropriate (see
42 U.S.C. §5123). The Stafford Act defines Indian tribal government as the governing body of any Indian or Alaskan Native tribe, band, nation, pueblo, vil age, or community
that the Secretary of the Interior acknowledges to exist as an Indian tribe under the Federally Recognized Tribe List Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. §§479a et seq.; also see 42
U.S.C. §5122(6)). Other programs not authorized by the Stafford Act may have different tribal definitions.
CRS-41

Dam Removal and the Federal Role

Author Information

Anna E. Normand

Analyst in Natural Resources Policy

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R46946 · VERSION 1 · NEW
42