Dam Removal: The Federal Role

October 27, 2021 – March 15, 2024 R46946

Dam Removal: The Federal Role
March 15, 2024
Dam owners and other stakeholders sometimes consider dam removal as a policy option to
address dam safety, ecosystem restoration, or other concerns. For example, dams often affect
Anna E. Normand
ecosystem processes and aquatic species mobility; these effects may be costly to mitigate and
Specialist in Natural
may prompt consideration of dam removal. The National Inventory of Dams (NID) lists more
Resources Policy
than 91,000 dams in the United States, many of which function as part of the nation’s water

infrastructure and provide benefits such as flood control, hydroelectric power, recreation,
navigation, and water supply. According to a database that tracks dam removals maintained by

the nonprofit environmental advocacy organization American Rivers, over 2,000 dams were
removed in the United States from 1912 to 2022, with over 40% of those removed from 2013 to 2022. Small, nonfederal
dams accounted for most of these removals; removal of federally owned or regulated dams was less frequent during the
1912-2022 period (e.g., approximately 80 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’s consideration. 97% of
dams in the United States are owned by private entities, state or local governments, or public utilities; the federal government
owns 3% of dams listed in the NID. Stakeholders—such as communities, policymakers, river-dependent industries (e.g.,
barge companies), tribes, nongovernmental organizations, scientists, and academics, among others—also may participate in
the dam removal consideration process. Dam removal may be one potential option among other alternatives to address
specific concerns relating to the dam. Alternatives to dam removal may include changes to dam operations, dam
rehabilitation or repair, modifications to add or improve fish passage, 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 from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE), a National Environmental Policy Act review process, and consultations with government agencies to meet
requirements of federal laws. The Federal Power Act regulates nonfederal hydropower projects. 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 USACE and the Bureau of
Reclamation, removal generally requires specific congressional authorization following a feasibility study that selects dam
removal as the preferred alternative. By contrast, other federal agencies generally may remove federally owned dams at their
discretion without specific congressional authorization, based on agency policies and in adherence to state and federal law.
For example, federal land management agencies may consider removal of dams that they manage when seeking to reduce
operation and safety costs or when 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 concerns). 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 2021, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58), an omnibus authorization and appropriations act, included
new authorizations related to dam removal and emergency appropriations under new and existing authorities related to dam
removal. Congress may consider the federal government’s role in studying and executing specific projects for dam removal
and whether to change the level 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

link to page 30 Dam Removal: 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 federal government’s involvement in dam removal varies based on whether the federal
government owns the dam, pertinent federal law and associated regulations related to the dam and
removal activities, and availability of appropriations that may fund dam removal activities.
Recent Congresses have provided new authorities, expanded existing authorities, and increased
funding for dam removal activities, particularly for nonfederal dam removal projects. One
example is the enactment of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L. 117-58), which
included new authorizations related to dam removal and emergency appropriations under new and
existing authorities related to dam removal. In more limited cases, Congress has authorized and
funded specific dam removal projects, including those involving federal dams and federally
regulated dams. Congress also has debated whether to prohibit dam removal projects.
The nonprofit industry organization 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 the nonprofit environmental advocacy organization American Rivers’ Dam Removal
Database shows an increase in dam removal in the last 10-year period of record compared with
the previous two 10-year periods of record: 819 dams removed between 2013 and 2022, 554
dams removed between 2003 and 2012, and 254 dams removed between 1993 and 2002.2 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, major water users, tribes, nongovernmental organizations, scientists, and academics,
among others.
The federal government’s role in dam removal varies based on ownership (e.g., federal versus
nonfederal), purpose (e.g., federally regulated hydropower), location (e.g., 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 (the Appendix lists selected federal
resources for nonfederal dam removal). In addition, it provides examples of prior federal
involvement in dam removal projects. Finally, the report concludes with some considerations for
Congress on the federal role in dam removal.

1 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. United States Society on Dams (USSD),
Guidelines for Dam Decommissioning Projects, July 2015, https://www.ussdams.org/about/white-papers/. Hereinafter,
USSD, Guidelines.
2 American Rivers, “American Rivers Dam Removal Database,” February 2023, https://doi.org/10.6084/
m9.figshare.5234068. Hereinafter, American Rivers, “Database.”
Congressional Research Service

1

link to page 26 Dam Removal: The Federal Role

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 in removal of larger dams.3 In recent years,
some hydropower companies and interested parties have agreed to remove larger dams as part of
decommissioning Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licensed hydropower projects,
such as the Potter Valley Project and Klamath Hydroelectric Project.4 Where dam removal has
been pursued, considerations in favor of doing so have included benefits such as the 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 accumulated 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
potential dams).6 Thousands of dams across the United States do not meet these criteria and are
not included in the NID. As of January 2, 2024, the NID included 91,894 dams.
Most dams in the United States are owned by private entities, state or local governments, or
public utilities. The federal government owns 3% of dams included in the NID.7 States have
regulatory authority for more than 71% of NID-listed dams. Federal agencies regulate dams
associated with hydropower projects, certain mining activities, and nuclear facilities and
materials.8

3 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,” February 2021, https://www.americanrivers.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/
DamsRemoved_1999-2020.pdf.
4 For the Potter Valley Project, see “Pacific Gas and Electric Company Potter Valley Project (FERC Project No. 77)
Surrender Application and Decommissioning Plan Stakeholder Website,”
https://www.pottervalleysurrenderproceeding.com/. For the Klamath Hydroelectric Project, see herein the gray box in
the Section “Congressional Intervention in Nonfederal Dam Removal” and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC), H-1 P-2082-063, November 17, 2022, https://www.ferc.gov/media/h-1-p-2082-063.
5 The NID can be accessed at USACE, “National Inventory of Dams,” https://nid.sec.usace.army.mil. Online National
Inventory of Dams (NID) data from January 2, 2024 update are used throughout this report unless otherwise specified.
Hereinafter, January 2, 2024, NID.State and federal agencies self-report dam information to the NID. 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.
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 January 2, 2024, NID.
8 For more information, see CRS Report R45981, Dam Safety Overview and the Federal Role, by Anna E. Normand.
Congressional Research Service

2

Dam Removal: The Federal Role

The most common type of dam is an earthen dam, which is made from natural soil or rock, while
some dams are made primarily of concrete. Some dams create reservoirs, which store water for
various uses. Other dams that have limited storage, or pondage, are called run-of-the-river dams.9
(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, industrial, and agricultural water supply; hydroelectric power
generation; navigation; mining, and others.10 Some dams serve specialized purposes, such as
tailings dams that store mining byproducts, overflow dams that regulate downstream flow, and
dikes at a low point of a reservoir of water.11 Some dams serve multiple purposes.
Nearly half of dams listed in the NID–over 43,000—were built between 1950 and 1980.12 After
this period, construction of new dams slowed; the NID lists 4,850 dams built since 2000. Given
that dams are built to the engineering and construction standards and regulations that apply at the
time of their construction, some dams may not meet current dam safety standards, which have
evolved over time as scientific data and engineering have improved.13 These older dams may not
operate properly or may be vulnerable to failure due to certain flooding and seismic events that
are now known to be possible at a given site based on improved understanding of weather and
flood data, such as probable maximum flood, and seismic data.
Federal guidelines set a hazard potential rating to quantify the potential harm associated with a
dam’s failure or misoperation.14 The three hazard ratings (low, significant, and high potential) do
not indicate the likelihood of failure; rather, the ratings reflect the amount and type of damage a
failure could 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’s responsibilities to address
Of the dams listed in the NID, 18% are classified as high hazard potential.15 Since 2000,
thousands of dams have been reclassified, increasing the number of high hazard potential dams
from 9,921 to 16,598.16 According to FEMA, the primary factor increasing the hazard potential of
dams is development upstream and/or downstream of a dam.17 Reclassification from low hazard

9 International Hydropower Association, “Types of Hydropower,” https://www.hydropower.org/iha/discover-types-of-
hydropower.
10 January 2, 2024, NID.
11 USSD, “Types of Dams,” https://www.ussdams.org/dam-levee-education/overview/types-of-dams/.
12 January 2, 2024, NID. Some dams were built before the 1900s (approximately 2,300 of the dams listed in the NID).
18,303 dams listed in the NID had no age of construction reported.
13 American Society of Civil Engineers, Infrastructure Report Card: Dams, 2021,
https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/dams/; hereinafter ASCE, Infrastructure Report Card.
14 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety: Hazard Potential
Classification System for Dams, 2004, https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/fema-333.pdf.
15 As of January 2, 2024, 4% of dams listed in the NID did not have a hazard classification.
16 January 2, 2024, NID; FEMA, The National Dam Safety Program: Biennial Report to the United States Congress,
Fiscal Years 2016-2017, May 2019, https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-08/national-dam-safety_biennial-
report-2016-2017.pdf; ASCE, Infrastructure Report Card.
17 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.
Congressional Research Service

3

Dam Removal: The Federal Role

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.
The NID also includes condition assessments—assessments of relative dam deficiencies
determined from inspections—as reported by state agencies.18 As of January 2, 2024, 15% of the
nonfederal high hazard potential dams listed in the NID had a poor or unsatisfactory condition
assessment and 20% were not rated.19
Dam Removal by the Numbers
Removal of dams in the United States has occurred primarily for environmental, dam safety, and
economic reasons.20 These dam removal projects have been driven by local coalitions of nonprofit
organizations, community groups, and government agencies. Most dam removals have involved
small, nonfederal dams, including run-of-the-river dams, with costs ranging from thousands to
hundreds of millions of dollars.21 Fewer federally owned or regulated dams have been removed.
According to the American Rivers’ Dam Removal Database, which tracks dam removals, over
2,000 dams were removed in the United States from 1912 to 2022.22 Due to reporting challenges,
particularly for the early 20th century, this database is likely incomplete.23 Of those dams listed in
the database, approximately 80 were federally owned. Of these federally owned dams, 55 were
U.S. Forest Service (FS) dams removed between 2015 and 2022. Although a majority of existing
dams listed within the NID are concentrated in the Plains states and the Southeast, most dam
removals have occurred elsewhere. According to the Dam Removal Database, Pennsylvania has
removed the most dams of any state (367); California has removed the second-largest number
(181), with nearly half of these from the Cleveland National Forest;24 and Wisconsin has removed
the third-largest number (158), with assistance from a long-running state grant program for dam
removal.25 In 2022, 65 dams were removed across 20 states, with the most dam removals in Ohio

18 FEMA, The National Dam Safety Program: Biennial Report to the United States Congress, Fiscal Years 2012-2013,
2014, https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/risk-management/dam-safety/progress-report.
19 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. January
2, 2024, NID.
20 USSD, Guidelines.
21 Jeffrey J. Duda et al., “Patterns, Drivers, and a Predictive Model of Dam Removal Cost in the United States,”
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, vol. 11 (2022), https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2023.1215471. (hereinafter, Duda et
al., “Dam Removal Cost”); Headwater Economics, Dam Removal: Case Studies on the Fiscal, Economic, Social, and
Environmental Benefits of Dam Removal, October 2016, https://headwaterseconomics.org/economic-development/dam-
removal-case-studies/; H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment, Dam Removal: Science
and Decision Making, 2002, https://semspub.epa.gov/work/01/273439.pdf (hereinafter, Heinz Center, Dam Removal).
22 This database is separate from the NID, which does not track dam removals.
23 American Rivers, “Database.”
24 U.S. Forest Service (FS), “Dam Removal on the Cleveland NF,” https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r5/landmanagement/
?cid=fseprd583291.
25 American Rivers, “Database”; Vincent Gonzales and Margaret A. Walls, Dams and Dam Removals in the United
States, Resources for the Future, October 22, 2020, https://www.rff.org/publications/reports/dams-and-dam-removals-
united-states/ (hereinafter, Resources for the Future, Dam Removals).
Congressional Research Service

4

Dam Removal: The Federal Role

(11), Pennsylvania (10), and Virginia (6).26 A 2018 study projected the removal of thousands of
NID dams by 2050.27
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.28 A 2017 review found studies that assess the physical and
ecological responses of rivers to dam removals have occurred at less than 10% of dam removals.
Most of these studies were conducted over fewer than four years and often without pre-removal
monitoring.29 Such studies may provide less information than studies designed for long-term
monitoring and comparison between pre-dam removal and post-dam removal.
Considerations for Dam Removal
Dams may be removed for various reasons. Many dams continue to operate beyond their design
lives. If these dams are not properly maintained and rehabilitated as necessary, safety issues may
arise or sediment buildup in their associated reservoirs may affect their performance.30 In some
cases, a dam’s original purposes are no longer necessary. In other cases, dam removal may
provide environmental benefits. Dam removal may be a viable option when the existing benefits
(e.g., hydropower) lost by removing a dam or reservoir could be achieved through alternative
means (e.g., other sources of power). However, some existing benefits that dams provide, such as
water storage and flood control, may be difficult to replace.31
Most dam removals have been in the Northeast, upper Midwest, and western coastal states.32
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.

26 American Rivers, “69 Dams Removed in 2020,” February 18, 2021, https://www.americanrivers.org/2021/02/69-
dams-removed-in-2020/.
27 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.”
28 U.S. Geological Survey, “Dam Removal Information Portal (DRIP),” Version: 2.3.2, https://data.usgs.gov/drip-
dashboard/.
29 The majority of studies focused on hydrologic and physical responses to dam removal rather than biological and
water quality responses. 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.
30 Most dam infrastructure is designed with expected operating life of 50 years for the dam’s purpose; however, proper
maintenance and necessary rehabilitation and repair may extend operating lives. ASCE, Infrastructure Report Card;
Duminda Perera et al., Ageing Water Storage Infrastructure: An Emerging Global Risk, UNU-INWEH Report
Series 11, 2021, https://inweh.unu.edu/ageing-water-storage-infrastructure-an-emerging-global-risk/ (hereinafter,
Perera et al., Ageing Infrastructure).
31 Advisory Committee on Water Information, Subcommittee on Sedimentation, U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI),
Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), Dam Removal Analysis Guidelines for Sediment, December 2017,
https://rsm.usace.army.mil/initiatives/other/DamRemovalAnalysisGuidelines2017_508.pdf. Hereinafter, Reclamation,
Sediment Guidelines.
32 Melissa M. Foley et al., “Dam Removal: Listening In,” Water Resources Research, vol. 53, no. 7 (2017), pp. 5229-
5246; Heinz Center, Dam Removal.
Congressional Research Service

5

Dam Removal: The Federal Role

Dam removal may be one potential option among other alternatives to address specific concerns
relating to the dam. Alternatives to dam removal may include changes to dam operations, dam
rehabilitation or repair, modifications to add or improve fish passage, or a “no action” option.33 In
some cases, 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.34 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, or abandoned). Below are tradeoffs that owners and other stakeholders may
evaluate when considering dam removal.
Fish Passage, Aquatic Migration, and Fisheries
A dam may hinder or prevent the passage of anadromous fish (e.g., salmon) and other aquatic
species.35 Blocked passage may affect migration upstream to historic spawning or nursery
grounds and downstream during various seasons important to fish migration.36
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).37 Fish passage
alternatives for large dams, such as fish ladders or trap-and-haul operations, can be expensive and
may be less effective than restoring more natural fish passage by dam removal.38 Dam removal
may rejuvenate certain riverine fisheries near and upstream of the former dam location; however,
if there is another dam downstream of the removed dam, fish migration may remain limited.39

33 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, https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/52/8/669/254910.
34 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, https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00267-017-0835-2.pdf (hereinafter, Magilligan,
“Contingencies of Dam Removal”).
35 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.
36 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries, “Reopening Rivers to Migratory Fish in the
Northeast,” https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/c7dfb5ea18da4c7db9eb77848b827b6f; USSD, Guidelines.
37 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), “What Is Fish Passage?,” https://www.fws.gov/story/what-fish-passage.
38 For instance, a news article from the Associated Press determined that two-thirds of the $1.2 billion per year spent on
endangered and threatened species goes toward recovery of fish. Mathew Brown and John Flesher, “Most Money for
Endangered Species Goes to a Small Number of Creatures, Leaving Others in Limbo,” Associated Press, December 30,
2023. USSD, Guidelines.
39 FWS, “Dam Removal: An Opportunity for Our Rivers,” fact sheet, https://www.oregon.gov/ode/students-and-family/
equity/NativeAmericanEducation/Documents/SB13%20Curriculum/
Dam%20Removal%20An%20Opportunity%20for%20Our%20Rivers.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, https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/69/1/26/5285462 (hereinafter, Bellmore, BioScience).
Congressional Research Service

6

Dam Removal: The Federal Role

Although dam removal may benefit riverine species, it may jeopardize recreational fisheries for
species supported by the reservoir habitat created by the dam.40 Further, reservoirs created by
dams may provide reliable fish refuge habitat under reduced rainfall and flow conditions in
regions where climate change may be affecting precipitation trends or where water withdrawals
have affected water levels.41 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
surrounding populations of native or managed fish species.42
River Restoration
Waters impounded by a dam may result in a lake-like habitat of warmer water or stratified water
temperatures, while dam removal may result in more free-flowing cold water habitat found in
undammed riverine environments.43 In addition to lower water temperatures, dam removal may
result in increased dissolved oxygen and improved aquatic habitat diversity and availability.44 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. Dam removal projects also may include planting programs and erosion
protection measures to accelerate desired revegetation, preserve water quality, and prevent dust
hazards.45 Although limited studies on dam removal have provided evidence that dammed
ecosystems 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.46
Sediment Management
Sedimentation behind a dam may require intensive dam maintenance or may diminish the dam’s
benefits because it reduces the water storage capacity of the associated reservoir over time.47 Dam
removal may reestablish the natural sediment transport and deposition that occurred prior to dam
installation. However, sediment management also may represent a significant portion of the total
dam removal project cost because sediment release following dam removal may affect
downstream conditions.48 The sudden release of fine and coarse sediments may, at least
temporarily, increase the suspended sediment concentration, possibly creating lethal conditions
for fish. This 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.49

40 Leandro E. Miranda, Reservoir Fish Habitat Management, 2017, https://www.friendsofreservoirs.com/wp-content/
uploads/2017/01/Reservoir-Fish-Habitat-Management-_Manual.pdf.
41 Stephen Beatty et al., “Rethinking Refuges: Implications of Climate Change for Dam Busting,” Biological
Conservation, vol. 209 (2017), pp. 188-195, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.02.007.
42 For example, dams throughout the Great Lakes states prevent sea lamprey from migrating upstream into tributary
streams and rivers. Bellmore, BioScience.
43 Angela T. Bednarek, “Undamming Rivers: A Review of the Ecological Impacts of Dam Removal,” Environmental
Management, 2001, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 803-814.
44 Katherine Abbott, Allison Roy, and Keith Nislow, Restoring Aquatic Habitats Through Dam Removal, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Cooperator Science Series FWS/CSS-148-2022, 2022,
https://doi.org/10.3996/css92498424.
45 USSD, Guidelines.
46 Bellmore, BioScience.
47 Perera et al., Ageing Infrastructure.
48 Bellmore, BioScience.
49 USSD, Guidelines.
Congressional Research Service

7

Dam Removal: The Federal Role

In addition, the potential of sediment being contaminated with potentially toxic concentrations of
mineral or organic chemicals (e.g., mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls [PCBs]) is a consideration
for a dam removal project.50 If removing a dam releases 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 contamination. These mitigation
measures also may increase the cost of a dam removal project.
Public Safety
Dam owners are responsible for meeting relevant regulatory requirements related to dam safety.51
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
through nonstructural measures, such as lowering water storage, and structural measures, such as
rehabilitation and repair.52 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.53
Outside of potential structural concerns, dams also may pose public safety hazards, such as
hazardous currents, to recreational users.54
Conversely, removing a dam may increase the potential flood risks to downstream areas by
removing a structure that reduces flood risk.55 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 in conjunction with dam removal to provide protection from
uncontrolled high flows no longer regulated by the dam.
Costs
A decision to pursue dam removal can be driven by the costs of ongoing maintenance, the need
for dam safety rehabilitation or repairs, or ecosystem mitigation required because of effects of the
dam on living resources. These costs may exceed the dam’s benefits, particularly if the dam is no
longer serving its original designed purpose (e.g., hydropower). For example, regulatory agencies
may require modifications, such as the construction and operation of fish passage structures or
structural modifications to accommodate larger floods or stronger earthquakes.56 Costs of these
modification may exceed overall costs for dam removal by the owner.

50 Bellmore, BioScience; Reclamation, Sediment Guidelines.
51 Association of State Dam Safety Officials (ASDSO), “Roadmap to Reducing Dam Safety Risks,” 2024,
https://damsafety.org/Roadmap.
52 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.
53 USSD, Guidelines.
54 ASDSO, “Public Safety Hazard,” 2024, https://damsafety.org/public-safety-hazards.
55 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.
56 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.
Congressional Research Service

8

link to page 23 link to page 26 link to page 26 Dam Removal: The Federal Role

The cost of dam removal varies based on numerous factors. A 2023 study found that dam height,
annual average discharge of water at the dam site, and project complexity were the predominant
drivers of removal cost.57 One stakeholder group estimated that, keeping all other factors
constant, the cost of dam removal increases by 10% as dam height increases by 10%. Concrete
and cement dams have higher removal costs than earthen dams.58
Dam removal considerations also include (1) who will pay for dam removal, (2) who will pay
compensation for lost benefits of the dam and reservoir, and (3) who will be compensated for
those lost benefits.59 These issues may 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
unforeseen complications (e.g., projects involving contaminated sediments) could add expenses
beyond original estimates and may require supplemental funding. Some states, nongovernment
organizations, and companies have provided funding for dam removal, including for abandoned
dams.60 In some cases, the federal government has provided funding for dam removal.61
Benefits and Associated Value of Operating Dams
Dam removal may affect the benefits provided by the dam, such as hydropower, agricultural
production, recreation, nearby property values, and cultural history. Considerations may include
whether those benefits would remain after dam removal, perhaps through alternate means, or
whether stakeholders would be compensated for lost benefits.62
• Hydropower. Dam removal halts hydropower generation.63 Removing small or
obsolete hydropower dams may have a limited impact on communities utilizing
hydropower, particularly if other sources can substitute for the small amounts of
power lost from these dams. In communities where there are no viable
alternatives to dams which supply most of the electricity, hydropower dam
removal may have major impacts on power supply.
• Agricultural Production. Dams and their reservoirs may provide a steady water
supply source to the agricultural sector. However, the agricultural sector also may
benefit from dam removal if it would provide an opportunity to farm lands
previously underwater and if there were viable alternatives to water supplies
instead of a reservoir.64
• Recreation. Recreation is the most common primary purpose of dams in the
United States.65 Dam removal and the resulting change from a reservoir to a river
system may provide new recreational opportunities for boating on river currents

57 Authors also developed an application for estimating dam removal costs, which could be used for exploratory
analyses and potential dam removal planning. Duda et al., “Dam Removal Cost.”
58 Resources for the Future, Dam Removals.
59 Reclamation, Sediment Guidelines.
60 American Rivers, Paying for Dam Removal: Guide to Selected Funding Sources, October 2000,
https://mde.maryland.gov/programs/Water/DamSafety/Documents/Paying-for-Dam-Removal-American-Rivers-
2000.pdf. Hereinafter, American Rivers, Paying for Dam Removal.
61 See sections herein “Federal Assistance for Nonfederal Dam Removal” and “Congressional Intervention in
Nonfederal Dam Removal.”
62 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.
63 Perera et al., Ageing Infrastructure.
64 Perera et al., Ageing Infrastructure.
65 Recreation was the primary purpose of 33% of dams listed in the January 2, 2024, NID.
Congressional Research Service

9

Dam Removal: The Federal Role

(e.g., rafting and paddling), but may reduce water activities that require more
stable and deep pools (e.g., motorboating and sailing).66 Dam removal and
draining of the reservoir also may leave a reservoir footprint of exposed mud,
which could diminish aesthetic value and be a source of dust when the mud dries.
Alternatively, this newly exposed zone may establish new ecosystems, create
green space, and spur riverfront revitalization.67 Recreational facilities, such as
public boat ramps and campgrounds, located along the former shoreline of a
reservoir may need to be removed or relocated closer to the new river channel.
• Property Values. “Lakefront” properties would no longer be near the water
following dam removal and draining of the reservoir, which could diminish those
property values.68 However, dam removal may be attractive for those who seek
riverfront properties.69 Some dam removal considerations for property value may
include the value of added land once the reservoir is drained, changes in tax rates,
and property buyout options due to the loss of reservoir storage and the reduced
level of flood protection.70
• Cultural Heritage. Dam removal may impact the cultural 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.71 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.72
• 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.73 Users of water from reservoirs or slack water behind dams may need to
modify intake structures, develop alternative water resources, or adopt water
conservation measures following dam removal.74 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

66 USSD, Guidelines.
67 USSD, Guidelines.
68 William L. Graf, Dam Removal Research: Status and Prospects, Heinz Center, 2003, http://www.riversimulator.org/
Resources/NGO/DamResearchFullReport.pdf.
69 Heinz Center, Dam Removal.
70 USSD, Guidelines.
71 Magilligan, “Contingencies of Dam Removal.”
72 Perera et al., Ageing Infrastructure; USSD, Guidelines.
73 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.
74 For example, see U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), “Green River Dam No. 5 Removal Work Temporarily
Halted While Crews Perform Additional Surveys,” July 21, 2022, https://www.lrl.usace.army.mil/Media/News-
Releases/Article/3082131/green-river-dam-no-5-removal-work-temporarily-halted-while-crews-perform-additi/; and
Lenhart, Christian F. “A Preliminary Review of NOAA’s Community-based Dam Removal and Fish Passage Projects.”
Coastal Management, 31, no. 1 (2003): 79-98.
Congressional Research Service

10

link to page 17 link to page 26 Dam Removal: The Federal Role

navigation, and dam removal may eliminate a river crossing.75 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.76 A dam removal project could
include mitigation of some or all of these effects.
Federal Role and Resources for Dam Removal
The federal government’s involvement in dam removal varies based on dam ownership,
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 some federal agencies (e.g.,
USACE, the Bureau of Reclamation [Reclamation]), in most cases requires specific congressional
authorization.77 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.
The Federal Power Act (FPA; 16 U.S.C. §§791-828c) provides the statutory authority for the
regulation of nonfederal hydropower projects that usually include dams. 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 limited cases, has authorized and
funded federal involvement for specific nonfederal dam removal projects.78
Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
Federal law and associated regulations may require the involvement of applicable federal
agencies for a proposed dam removal project.79 The following are selected federal laws that
commonly require federal agency regulatory actions for dam removal projects.
Clean Water Act and Rivers and Harbors Act
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).80
USACE may issue two types of Section 404 permits for a dam removal project: (1) individual
permits or (2) general permits, including nationwide permits (NWPs). Larger, more complex
projects may be reviewed under the individual permit process, whereas general permits, such as

75 USSD, Guidelines.
76 USSD, Guidelines.
77 Removal of congressionally authorized dams owned by USACE or by Reclamation has been rare. See herein section
on “Federal Dams.”
78 See herein “Congressional Intervention in Nonfederal Dam Removal.”
79 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.
80 For more information, see Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “Permit Program Under CWA 404,” March 11,
2024, https://www.epa.gov/cwa-404/permit-program-under-cwa-section-404; and CRS Report RL30030, Clean Water
Act: A Summary of the Law, by Laura Gatz.
Congressional Research Service

11

Dam Removal: The Federal Role

NWPs, or regional permits may be issued for smaller, less complex dam removals.81 In January
2017, USACE published a new NWP specifically for low-head dam removal.82
In conjunction with a CWA Section 404 permit, most dam removal projects also require a Rivers
and Harbors Act of 1899 (RHA) Section 10 permit from USACE for activities affecting a
navigable waterway (33 U.S.C. §403).83
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.84
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 FERC
hydropower project license, application for a CWA Section 404 permit, and use of federal funds
for a dam removal project.
Under NEPA, a dam removal project could trigger three actions: (1) federal issuance of a
categorical exclusion (CATEX), (2) development of an environmental assessment (EA), or (3)
development of an environmental impact statement (EIS).85 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
EIS.86 The development of an EA or EIS may require the federal agency to evaluate “no action”
and other feasible alternatives and to conduct analyses to support conclusions regarding
environmental impacts.87
Agencies may develop programmatic EAs and EISs for conducting environmental analyses of
similar federal actions.88 For some comprehensive restoration projects across a landscape or

81 EPA, “Frequent Questions on Removal of Obsolete Dams,” EPA-840-F-16-001, December 2016,
https://www.epa.gov/cwa-404/frequent-questions-removal-obsolete-dams. Hereinafter, EPA, “Frequent Questions.”
82 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 has since
updated the nationwide permits. Nationwide Permit 53, “Removal of Low-Head Dams,” has an effective date of
February 25, 2022, and an expiration date of March 14, 2026. USACE, Nationwide Permit 53 - Removal of Low-Head
Dams, https://www.swt.usace.army.mil/Portals/41/docs/missions/regulatory/2021%20NWP/NWP-53.pdf.
83 American Rivers, Obtaining Permits to Remove a Dam, August 2007, http://scrcog.org/wp-content/uploads/
hazard_mitigation/background_material/dam_removal/Obtaining_Permits_to_Remove_a_Dam.pdf. Hereinafter,
American Rivers, Obtaining Permits.
84 The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 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.
85 EPA, “Frequent Questions.”
86 For example, 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,” June 7, 2021, https://www.fs.usda.gov/emc/nepa/restorationCE/index.html.
87 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,” October 3, 2023, https://www.epa.gov/nepa/national-
environmental-policy-act-review-process.
88 NOAA’s Office of Habitat Conservation completed programmatic NEPA documents in 2002, 2006, and 2015
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

12

Dam Removal: The Federal Role

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.89 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.90
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.91 The following are selected examples of consultations that are
commonly required for dam removal projects.
• 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.92
• The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA; 16
U.S.C. §§1801 et seq.) may require consultation to ensure a dam removal project
would not adversely affect essential fish habitat established in any fishery
management plan developed by a fishery management council.93
• 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).94
• 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 (54 U.S.C. §§300101 et seq.).95
In addition to these consultations, removal activities may require a 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

(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,” February 14, 2024, https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
habitat-conservation/environmental-compliance-office-habitat-conservation.
89 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, https://www.fs.usda.gov/
project/?project=41140&exp=overview.
90 EPA, “Frequent Questions”; USSD, Guidelines.
91 USSD, Guidelines; American Rivers, Obtaining Permits.
92 For more information, see CRS In Focus IF12423, Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 Consultation, by Erin H.
Ward and Pervaze A. Sheikh.
93 16 U.S.C. §1855(b)(2); USSD, Guidelines; American Rivers, Obtaining Permits.
94 For more information, see CRS Insight IN11606, Tribal Consultation: Administration Guidance and Policy
Consideration, by Mariel J. Murray.
95 For more information, see CRS Report R47543, Historic Properties and Federal Responsibilities: An Introduction to
Section 106 Reviews, by Mark K. DeSantis.
Congressional Research Service

13

Dam Removal: The Federal Role

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.96 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 plan.97
Federal Dams
Federal dams are owned by the federal government and managed by one or more federal
agencies. According to the NID, federal agencies managed 2,844 federally owned dams, or 3% of
the dams listed in the NID.98 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 management agencies).99 For
individually authorized dams, the authorizing statute for each dam or project including a dam
provides the primary guidance for the dam’s management to satisfy authorized purposes;
subsequent acts may provide additional operating authority.100
Removal of Authorized Federal Dams
Removal of a federal dam that was constructed or acquired under a project-specific authority may
require authorization by Congress.101 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.102 If the agency selects removal as the

96 For more information, see section “Permits, Regulations, and Enforcement” in CRS Report RL30030, Clean Water
Act: A Summary of the Law, by Laura Gatz.
97 For more information, see CRS Report R45460, Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA): Overview and Issues for
Congress, by Eva Lipiec.
98 January 2, 2024, NID.
99 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.
100 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, https://www.publications.usace.army.mil/portals/76/
publications/engineerregulations/er_1110-2-240.pdf.
101 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, https://www.nalms.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/38-1-3.pdf. Hereinafter, Oliver et al., Corps Dam
Removal.
102 For an explanation of this process by USACE, see CRS Report R47946, Process for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) Projects, by Nicole T. Carter and Anna E. Normand. 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, https://www.lrl.usace.army.mil/Portals/64/docs/CWProjects/Green%20and%20Barren%20dispo/
Main%20Report.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

14

Dam Removal: The Federal Role

preferred alternative, then it may recommend that Congress authorize removal.103 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. For example, if a federal dam were removed under the authority for USACE
aquatic ecosystem restoration (33 U.S.C. §2213), then the nonfederal cost share of the dam
removal project would be 35%.104
Removal of a congressionally authorized dam has been rare.105 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.106
In 2016, a court order in litigation by nonfederal groups over operations plans for dams in the
Columbia River Basin required the federal government to consider as an alternative in its
environmental review the possibility of removing four hydroelectric dams on the lower Snake
River, WA, to improve fish passage.107 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).108 However, after mediation between certain
parties involved in the ongoing litigation, the parties requested and the court ordered, in February

103 For example, 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 began in 2017 and 2021, respectively. USACE, “Conservation Partners Celebrate
Green River Dam Removal,” September 20, 2021, https://www.lrl.usace.army.mil/Media/News-Releases/Article/
2781999/; USACE, “USACE Announces Emergency Removal of Remaining Portions of Green River Lock and Dam
6,” August 29, 2022, https://www.lrl.usace.army.mil/Media/News-Releases/Article/3143196/usace-announces-
emergency-removal-of-remaining-portions-of-green-river-lock-and/.
104 As a specific 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,” September 25, 2023,
https://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/Home/Projects/Article/571148/marsh-lake-ecosystem-restoration-project/.
105 The American Rivers’ Dam Removal Database lists only seven USACE-managed dams and no Reclamation-
managed dams removed between 2000 and 2022. American Rivers, “Database.”
106 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
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. Stakeholder opposition due to potential
changes in incidental benefits currently provided by the lock and dam has resulted in litigation between stakeholders
and USACE over USACE’s preferred alternative for the project. USACE Savanah District Website, “SHEP Fish
Passage at New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam,” https://www.sas.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Savannah-
Harbor-Expansion/SHEP-Fish-Passage/; Steve Byerly and Craig Allison, “Lock and Dam’s Fate in Question after New
Ruling from Appeals Court,” News 12 26 Augusta, April 19, 2023, https://www.wrdw.com/2023/04/19/corps-can-tear-
down-lock-dam-appeals-court-rules/.
107 National Wildlife Federation (NWF) v. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), No. 3:01-CV-00640 (D. Or.
May 4, 2016).
108 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, https://www.nwd.usace.army.mil/CRSO/.
Congressional Research Service

15

Dam Removal: The Federal Role

2024, a five-year stay of the litigation.109 During that five-year period, the parties have stated an
intention to implement a memorandum of understanding that includes commitments by the
federal government to support a restoration initiative developed by tribal and state parties.110
Removal of Other Dams Managed by Federal Agencies
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.111 For example, federal land management agencies may
pursue dam removal as an alternative to reduce costs for operation, maintenance, and safety work
of dams in poor or unsatisfactory condition and/or to improve fish passage and watershed
restoration.112 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.113
Funding for dam removal activities from federal land management agencies’ 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,114 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

109 Eighth Supplemental Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, NWF v. NMFS, No. 3:01-CV-00640 (D. Or.
Jan. 20, 2021). Joint Motion to Stay Litigation Through 2028, NWF v. NMFS, No. 3:01-CV-00640 (D. Or. Dec. 14,
2023).
110 The federal government did not commit to removing the dams as part of its commitments, as such an action would
require authorization by Congress. However, a key element of the Columbia Basin Restoration Initiative, which the
federal government commitments are to advance, is to make investments necessary to enable removal of the lower
Snake River dams. Joint Motion to Stay Litigation Through 2028, Ex. A, NWF v. NMFS, No. 3:01-CV-00640 (D. Or.
Dec. 14, 2023).
111 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, https://www.blm.gov/sites/
blm.gov/files/uploads/mediacenter_blmpolicymanual9104.pdf. Among other projects, in 2021, BLM completed an EA
proposing to remove two dams 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,” September 13, 2021, https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/
2011409/510).
112 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,” January 1, 2023, https://www.nps.gov/yose/learn/nature/dam-removal.htm.
113 16 U.S.C. §1604. For example, in the Environmental Assessment Trabuco District Dam Removal Project: Silverado,
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,”
https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=41140.
114 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, http://files.fasab.gov/pdffiles/original_sffas_42.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

16

link to page 14 link to page 14 Dam Removal: The Federal Role

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).115
Dams on Indian Lands
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (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.). BIA manages 126 dams listed in the
National Inventory of Dams (NID) on Indian lands, in addition to unclassified dams not listed in the NID. (The
agency reports that it is not aware of all low-hazard dams under its jurisdiction.) BIA has no policies and
procedures specific to dam removal, likely because the IDSA does not authorize BIA to conduct dam removal.
The 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,” which could be interpreted as including dam
removal as a maintenance option to address unsatisfactory conditions (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.”
Sources: DOI, Reports Required by The Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act of 2016, Title III,
Subtitle A—Indian Dams Safety Subtitle B—Irrigation, April 15, 2017, Appendix A1. 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.
Restricting Funding for Federal Dam Removal
At times, Congress has considered prohibiting federal agencies from using appropriations for
activities related to the removal of certain federal dams. For example, the House of
Representatives passed H.R. 3144 (115th Congress) in 2018 to prevent any structural
modification, action, study, or engineering plan that might have hindered electrical generation
from the Federal Columbia River Power System or navigation along the Snake River unless
authorized by Congress.116 The House of Representatives also passed a provision in H.R. 5895
(115th Congress) 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. In 2021, the IIJA
provided supplemental appropriations to certain agencies for dam removal projects that
specifically excluded federal hydropower dams.117
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 under “Statutory and
Regulatory Requirements,” above), and 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.

115 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. As an example, 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).
116 The previously mentioned lower Snake River dams are part of the Federal Columbia River Power System.
117 Such appropriations with this prohibition were provided to FS, FWS, NOAA, and USACE. The FWS and NOAA
appropriations also required written consent of the dam owner for dam removal projects, if ownership was established.
Congressional Research Service

17

link to page 21 link to page 21 Dam Removal: The Federal Role

Nonfederal Dams on Federal Land
The NID, as updated January 2, 2024, reports there are 1,914 nonfederal dams on federal lands.118
These dams are mostly located on Bureau of Land Management and FS land. Except for
nonfederal hydropower projects on federal lands, Congress has not passed legislation providing
most federal agencies with authorities for specifically regulating nonfederal dams, though some
agencies may have policies outlining operating responsibilities established through agreements.119
For example, FS may allow nonfederal entities to use National Forest System lands for dams
through an agreement called a special use authorization, which establishes the terms under which
the authorized activity must be conducted.120 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.121 Licenses, which establish
operating parameters for nonfederal hydropower projects, typically are issued for 30-50 years.122
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.123 In December
2023, FERC reported that 112 licensed projects (11% of the total licensed projects in 2023) are
set to expire between FY2024 and FY2028.124 The relicensing process provides an opportunity to
periodically reassess the relative benefits and impacts of hydropower projects.125
A hydropower project must adhere to several requirements to be relicensed. In the FPA, Congress
gave certain conditioning and recommendation authorities to federal land management and

118 January 2, 2024, NID.
119 For BLM, see 43 C.F.R. Part 2800; for FWS, see 361 FW 2.14. Congress has enacted specific conditions related to
nonfederal hydropower projects on federal lands (see herein “Relicensing of Nonfederal Hydropower Projects Under
the Federal Power Act”).
120 Land management agencies generally are responsible for monitoring whether the holders of special use
authorizations comply with these requirements.
121 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, https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-05/hydropower-primer.pdf (hereinafter, FERC, Hydropower
Primer).
122 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. In general, most dams are built
for a design life of 50 years. FERC, Hydropower Primer.
123 FERC, Hydropower Primer.
124 FERC, “Licensing, Complete List of Active Licenses,” https://www.ferc.gov/licensing, updated December 2023.
FERC provides relicensing data that include the number of projects with license applications expected to be filed for
each fiscal year from FY2024 through FY2038. See FERC, “Licensing, Expected Relicense Projects FY2024-
FY2038,” https://www.ferc.gov/licensing.
125 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.”
Congressional Research Service

18

Dam Removal: The Federal Role

resource agencies; BIA, representing Indian tribes; and state agencies. These authorities include
the following:126
• 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
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 or waterways 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.127
FERC can make various decisions once a relicense application has been filed. Following the
filing of a license application, relevant agencies submit their recommendations and conditions.
FERC considers the agencies’ recommendations and incorporates the requirements into its final
NEPA document, such as an EA or 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 its dam(s).128 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.129

126 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, https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/
AgencyRecommendations%2CConditions%2CandPrescriptionsunderPartIoftheFederalPowerAct.pdf.
127 These prescriptions are mandatory and must be included in the license. The licensee, however, may appeal these
prescriptions to the Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior. FERC, Hydropower Primer.
128 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,” https://www.nrcm.org/programs/waters/kennebec-restoration/history-edwards-
dam/.
129 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, DOI (BIA, FWS, NPS), and five nonprofit conservation organizations. Opperman et al.,
“Penobscot River”; 69 Federal Register 41799.
Congressional Research Service

19

link to page 30 Dam Removal: The Federal Role

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).130 Once a
licensee files an application to surrender, FERC reviews the application and issues an order
approving or denying the request for surrender.131 FERC may prescribe conditions for disposing
of project works and restoring project lands that FERC and relevant federal and state fish and
wildlife agencies may require.132 Licenses may be surrendered only after fulfilling any obligations
under the license order. Although some surrenders of nonfederal hydropower projects to date have
included dam removal as part of the process, not all include dam removal as some licensees leave
dams in place.133 In certain cases, FERC can terminate a license for specific reasons.134
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, generally for
nonfederal dams, 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 barriers to fish passage.135 As another example, in 2021, the IIJA included
new authorizations related to dam removal and emergency appropriations under new and existing
authorities related to dam removal (see the gray box, below).136
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., Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Interior, and Homeland

130Where 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.
131 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. For
instance, see “Pacific Gas and Electric Company Potter Valley Project (FERC Project No. 77) Surrender Application
and Decommissioning Plan Stakeholder Website,” 2023, https://www.pottervalleysurrenderproceeding.com/. If
appropriate, a NEPA document is prepared before an order is issued. FERC, “How to Surrender a License or
Exemption,” https://www.ferc.gov/administration-and-compliance/how-surrender-license-or-exemption.
132 For instance, see FERC’s order for modifying and approving surrender of license and removal of Klamath
Hydroelectric Project facilities (FERC, H-1 P-2082-063, November 17, 2022, https://www.ferc.gov/media/h-1-p-2082-
063).
133 Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Hydropower Relicensing and License Surrender Data and Metadata, 2023,
https://hydrosource.ornl.gov/dataset/us-hydropower-relicensing-and-license-surrender-data-and-metadata-2023. Out of
the 51 hydropower projects listed as having received FERC approval for surrender through 2022, 16 of these included
dam removal. For example, see the case history of the Burnham Creek Hydroelectric Project, WA in which the licensee
proposed to leave the project “in place” in its current condition, with no ground-disturbing work, and without removing
the dam and other facilities. No entity filed an objection to the proposed surrender and FERC issued the surrender
without requiring dam removal. Todd Griset, “FERC License Surrender with Facilities in Place,” January 6, 2018,
https://casetext.com/analysis/ferc-license-surrender-with-facilities-in-place.
134 Reasons may include if the licensee fails to begin construction of the project within the prescribed time (18 CFR
§6.3); if the licensee fails to maintain and operate the project (18 CFR §6.4); or if the licensee fails to comply with the
terms and conditions in the license and FERC has exhausted other avenues for bringing the licensee back into
compliance with its license.
135 Section 1109, Title XI, Division FF of P.L. 116-260.
136 In addition, P.L. 117-169, commonly referred to as the Inflation Reduction Act, provided funding to federal
agencies for restoration activities. Federal agencies could potentially fund dam removal activities with certain funding
from the act.
Congressional Research Service

20

Dam Removal: The Federal Role

Security; Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]). 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.137 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.138
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and Nonfederal Dam Removal
On November 15, 2021, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L. 117-58), an omnibus authorization
and appropriations act, was signed into law. The IIJA included new authorizations related to dam removal and
emergency appropriations under new and existing authorities related to dam removal. Section 40804 authorized a
new $80 mil ion col aborative, landscape-scale restoration program for FY2022 through FY2026. Administered by
the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior, the program’s aim is to restore water quality or fish passage.
Under the program, the Secretaries are to solicit proposals for up to $5 mil ion in funding for five-year projects to
restore fish passage or water quality on federal and nonfederal land. Section 40901 also authorized $250 mil ion
for FY2022 through FY2026 for the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) for the design, study, and construction
of aquatic ecosystem restoration and protection projects in accordance with 33 U.S.C. §2330c, which may include
removing barriers to fish passage. Division J of the IIJA includes emergency appropriations that may fund dam
removal, such as the fol owing:
•
$250 mil ion for FY2022 through FY2026, as authorized in Section 40901, for Reclamation to design, study,
and construct aquatic ecosystem restoration and protection projects, which may include removing barriers to
fish passage.
•
$585 for FY2022 for the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s High Hazard Dam Mitigation Grant
Program (33 U.S.C. §467f–2), of which $75 mil ion is for the removal of nonfederal dams.
•
$400 mil ion for FY2022 through FY2026 for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s
Community-Based Restoration Program (16 U.S.C. §1891a) to restore fish passage by removing in-stream
barriers and providing technical assistance. The provision also provides that up to 15% of this funding is to be
reserved for projects pursued by Indian tribes or partnerships with Indian tribes.
•
$465 mil ion for FY2022 for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (USACE’s) Continuing Authorizations
Programs (CAPs). Of that amount, $115 mil ion is for Section 206 CAP activities (33 U.S.C. §2330) to restore
fish and wildlife passage by removing in-stream barriers and providing technical assistance to nonfederal
entities carrying out such activities. The provision directs USACE to execute these projects at ful federal
expense (instead of the typical 35% nonfederal cost share) and without a federal cost limit (normally limited
to $10 mil ion).
•
$64 mil ion for FY2022 to support credit assistance and $11 mil ion for FY2022 for program administration
for the USACE Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Program account, which funds the agency’s
Corps Water Infrastructure Financing Program (CWIFP). Through CWIFP, USACE provides credit
assistance—direct loans or loan guarantees—to specified eligible nonfederal entities for their water resource
projects. IIJA appropriations limit CWIFP to nonfederal dam safety projects; USACE identifies dam removal
as an eligible dam safety project.
•
$200 mil ion for FY2022 through FY2026 for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Fish Passage
Program to restore fish and wildlife passage by removing in-stream barriers and providing technical
assistance.
•
$4.0 bil ion for FY2022 through FY2026 for the U.S. Forest Service (FS) to carry out activities authorized in
Sections 40803 and 40804, and $905 mil ion for FY2022 through FY2026 for the Secretary of the Interior to
carry out activities authorized in Section 40804. Sections 40803 and 40804 authorize various forest
management and ecosystem restoration activities on federal and nonfederal land. As described above, this

137 NOAA Fisheries, “Providing Technical Support for Habitat Restoration Efforts,” January 20, 2022,
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/habitat-conservation/providing-technical-support-habitat-restoration-efforts.
138 National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, “Five-Star and Urban Waters Restoration Matching Grant Program,”
https://www.nfwf.org/programs/five-star-and-urban-waters-restoration-grant-program.
Congressional Research Service

21

link to page 14 link to page 14 Dam Removal: The Federal Role

includes the col aborative, landscape-scale restoration program to restore water quality or fish passage
authorized in Section 40804.
Notes: Some of the provisions above specify assistance for nonfederal dam removal. Other provisions do not
specify eligibility based on dam ownership. Agencies that implement these provisions for dam removal are likely to
assist most or exclusively with nonfederal dam removal. Not listed above is an IIJA appropriations provision
specific to federal dam removal: $10 mil ion for FY2022 through FY2026 for FS’s Capital Improvement and
Maintenance account for the removal of non-hydropower federal dams and for providing dam removal technical
assistance.
Natural Resource Damages Financial Assistance
In addition, dam removal activities may receive financial assistance from payments associated
with natural resource damages.139 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.140
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.141 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.142
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 and 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.143 EPA has stated that in certain circumstances, dam removal projects
have the potential to meet the conditions for SEPs.144
Mitigation Credit145
Another potential incentive for dam removal in certain scenarios may be the opportunity for the
project proponent to receive mitigation credit for the project.146 Under CWA Section 404 and
RHA Sections 9 and 10, USACE has authority to issue permits (see “Statutory and Regulatory
Requirements,” above). USACE may require these permits to include compensatory mitigation to

139 American Rivers, Paying for Dam Removal.
140 For more information, see CRS Report R43251, Oil and Chemical Spills: Federal Emergency Response Framework,
by David M. Bearden and Jonathan L. Ramseur.
141 American Rivers, Paying for Dam Removal.
142 NOAA, Office of Response and Restoration, “$2 Million in Aquatic Restoration Projects Proposed for Polluted
Housatonic River in Connecticut,” February 22, 2013, https://response.restoration.noaa.gov/about/media/2-million-
aquatic-restoration-projects-proposed-polluted-housatonic-river-connecticut.html.
143 EPA, “Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs),” January 26, 2024, https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/
supplemental-environmental-projects-seps.
144 EPA, “Frequent Questions.”
145 This section was written by Laura Gatz, Specialist in Environmental Policy.
146 The Nature Conservancy, Environmental Markets and Stream Barrier Removal, 2017, https://www.nature.org/
content/dam/tnc/nature/en/documents/2017_Stream_Barrier_Removal_and_Mitigation_Report.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

22

link to page 21 link to page 21 Dam Removal: The Federal Role

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, 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.”147 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 USACE and
other applicable federal and state agencies.
Congressional Intervention in Nonfederal Dam Removal
Although there is no general underlying statutory authority for federal involvement in nonfederal
dam removal, Congress has authorized federal involvement in some individual dam removal
projects when it has found a compelling reason to do so. These reasons include a federal nexus,
such as proximity to federal land or project, tribal responsibilities, listed species, and possibly
others. The “Case Histories” box below 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.
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 were operated to provide hydropower, and neither had fish passage
facilities. Dam construction impacted the Elwha River’s fish resources, which historically sustained the Lower
Elwha Klallam Tribe. In 1938, Congress established Olympic National Park (16 U.S.C. §251), which included the
Elwha Dam within its boundaries. The park’s boundaries expanded in 1940 to include the Glines Canyon Dam.
The tribe now resides in the Lower Elwha Klallam Reservation at the mouth of the river, outside of the park
boundary.
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.) to require FERC to consider impacts on 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 to halt relicensing proceedings by FERC and require removal of the dams. FERC prepared 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 and legal 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 cost of $29.5 mil ion and required the Secretary of the Interior to prepare appropriate EISs. The

147 USACE, Regulatory Guidance Letter 18-01, September 25, 2018, https://www.nap.usace.army.mil/Portals/39/docs/
regulatory/regs/RGL-18-01-Determination-of-Compensatory-Mitigation-Credits-for-Dams-Structures-Removal.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

23

Dam Removal: The Federal Role

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 of 1973 (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 of 2009 (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 (USGS), 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,
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.
Many of the provisions of the Klamath settlement agreement 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 laid 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 commenced removal of the Copco No. 2 dam in 2023. The plan is
to remove the remaining dams and pertinent facilities by the end of 2024 and to commence with restoration
initiatives around the sites.
Sources: DOI; FERC; KRRC; NPS; PacifiCorp; USGS; 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
Congressional Research Service

24

Dam Removal: The Federal Role

more information on Klamath River restoration and dam removal, see CRS In Focus IF11616, Klamath River Dam
Removal and Restoration, by Charles V. Stern and Pervaze A. Sheikh.
Congress also has authorized and funded less complex and less expensive removal of nonfederal
dams compared with 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.148 Congress also authorized and
funded Reclamation to remove the Savage Rapids Dam in Oregon, which was owned by an
irrigation district, for $39 million.149
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.150 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.151
Conclusion
Dam removal is a policy option to address dam safety, operation and maintenance costs,
ecosystem restoration, or other concerns. The federal government’s role in dam removal varies
based on ownership, purpose, location, and other factors. Congress may consider the federal
government’s role in studying, regulating, and executing specific projects that include dam
removal. This consideration may include whether to authorize the removal of federally authorized
dams and the relative importance of dam removal as a policy option for federally managed dams.
Also, Congress may consider whether to become involved in dam removal deliberations,

148 USACE, “USACE Sets the Rappahannock River Free,” 2004, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA596489.pdf. P.L.
106-53 authorized the removal of the Embrey Dam.
149 Reclamation, “Reclamation Starts Savage Rapids Dam Removal,” 2009, 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.
150 For an explanation of this process, see CRS Report R47946, Process for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Projects, by Nicole T. Carter and Anna E. Normand.
151 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
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, 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, https://www.nwp.usace.army.mil/Missions/Current/Sandy-River-Delta/.
Congressional Research Service

25

Dam Removal: The Federal Role

particularly those regarding federally regulated nonfederal dams (e.g., dams that are part of
nonfederal hydropower projects).
Recent Congresses have provided new authorities, expanded existing authorities, and increased
funding for dam removal activities, particularly for nonfederal dam removal projects. Congress
may consider whether to authorize more programs with dam removal as an eligible activity or to
amend existing authorities related to dam removal. Congress also may consider whether the
appropriations for new or existing programs that fund dam removal activities are sufficient to
meet congressional intent. Congress could, for example, appropriate funding specifically for dam
removal activities under programs where dam removal is a possible activity, among other
alternatives. In addition, Congress may oversee agency implementation of new or amended
authorities and funding for dam removal projects and may review the effectiveness, efficiency,
and priorities of agencies funding dam removal activities.
Congressional Research Service

26

link to page 31 link to page 31 Dam Removal: 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.152 The table provides general information,
if available, on program authorities, eligible entities or dams, eligible activities and uses,
applicable cost share, relevant authorizations of appropriations, recent funding,153 and relevant
government websites. The list provides an overview of relevant assistance and authorities; it may
not include all potential sources of federal assistance.154

152 The federal assistance for dam removal described in Table A-1 is generally applicable to nonfederal dams located
on nonfederal lands.
153 Recent funding may refer to recent appropriations or funding announced by agencies. Funding announced by
agencies refers to the most recent announcement of funding by the agencies as of the end of January 2024. Funding
announcements by agencies may include one or more appropriations provided by Congress (e.g., a funding
announcement may include appropriations provided by both an annual appropriations act and supplemental
appropriations, such as those provided by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act [P.L. 117-58]).
154 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-programColumbia 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/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

27

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)
Bureau of
Eligible entities
On the request of
An eligible entity is to 33 U.S.C. §2330c(d)
Up to $95 mil ion
https://www.usbr.gov/
Reclamation Aquatic
include states; tribes;
any eligible entity, the provide no less than
authorized $15
for FY2024
watersmart/aquatic/
Ecosystem
irrigation districts;
Secretary of the
35% of the costs of
mil ion annually for
funding
index.html
Restoration Program
water districts; water Interior may
project construction
FY2022 through
opportunity.
(Anna Normand)
(33 U.S.C. §2330c)
or power delivery
negotiate and enter
and 100% of any
2026. In addition,
authorities;
into an agreement to
operation,
Section 40901 of P.L.

organizations that
fund the study,
maintenance, and
117-58 authorized
own a facility eligible
design, and
replacement and
$250 mil ion for
for upgrade,
construction of an
rehabilitation costs
FY2022 through
modification, or
aquatic ecosystem
with respect to the
FY2026.
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 and
land; and agencies
certain territories) if
established under
the Secretary of the
state law for the joint Interior determines
exercise of powers.
the project is likely
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-28

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
$200,000 annually for $175 mil ion
https://www.epa.gov/
Protection Agency
eligible for grants for
grants to states and
grant to a state or
FY2023 through
appropriated for
nps/319-grant-program-
(EPA) Clean Water
projects consistent
tribes to implement
tribe requires a 40%
2027.
FY2024.
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
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-29

Program
Eligible
Eligible Activities
Cost Share
Authorization of
Recent Funding
Website
(Authority)
Entity/Dams
Appropriations
(CRS Contact)
EPA Clean Water
Grants to states to
Assistance in
80%/20% for grants
$3.0 bil ion for
Annual
https://www.epa.gov/
State Revolving Fund
capitalize loan funds.
constructing and
to states to capitalize
FY2024; and
appropriations for cwsrf
(SRF) Loan Program
SRF loans made by
upgrading municipal
SRFs.
$3.25 bil ion for
FY2024 provided
(Jonathan L. Ramseur)
(33 U.S.C. §§1381-
states to local project wastewater

FY2025 and for
$851 mil ion to
1387)
sponsors, including
treatment,
FY2026
the SRF program
any municipal,
stormwater
0%/100%b (project
(33 U.S.C. §1387).
and $788 mil ion
intermunicipal,
infrastructure, and
loans are repaid
for similar
interstate, or state
other eligible
100% to states).
projects through
agency.a
projects and
the community
activities, such as
project funding
implementing
and
nonpoint pol ution
congressionally
management
directed spending.
programs. An EPA

report on SRF eligible
activities lists dam
The Infrastructure
removal as an eligible
Investment and
activity under habitat
Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L.
protection and
117-58) provided
restoration.
$2.4 bil ion for
FY2024.
EPA Water
Loans or loan
A broad range of
In general, WIFIA
$50 mil ion annually
P.L. 118-42
https://www.epa.gov/
Infrastructure
guarantees to state
drinking water and
funding cannot
for FY2022 through
wifia
Finance and
infrastructure
wastewater projects
exceed 49% of
FY2026.
provided $72
(Elena H. Humphreys)
Innovation Act
financing authorities
with costs of $20
project costs.
million for
(WIFIA) Program
for a group of
mil ion or larger (or
FY2024;
(33 U.S.C. §§3901-
projects and
$5 mil ion for rural
Congress
3914)
individual project
areas), including
capped the
sponsors, which may
projects eligible for
include a
SRF assistance.
amount
corporation; a
assistance that
partnership; a joint
this
venture; a trust; or a
appropriation
federal, state, local,
or tribal government
could provide
(or consortium of
at $12.5
tribal governments).
billion.
CRS-30

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 mil ion
https://www.epa.gov/
Program
governments,
nonfederal
appropriated for
wetlands/wetland-
Development Grants interstate
governments with
FY2024.
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
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-31

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
$185 mil ion for
https://www.fema.gov/
Management Agency
may submit
with technical,
share of no less than
for FY2021 through
FY2024 fall
emergency-managers/
(FEMA) High-Hazard
applications to FEMA
planning, design, and
35%.
FY2026.
funding
risk-management/dam-
Dam Rehabilitation
on behalf of sub-
construction
opportunity.
safety/rehabilitation-
Grant Program
recipients for eligible
activities toward the
high-hazard-potential-
(33 U.S.C. §467f–2)
dams and then may
repair, removal, and
dams
distribute any grant
structural/
(Anna Normand)
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-32

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

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-33

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 IIJA
https://www.fema.gov/
Resilient
include states,
BRIC are the same as cost share of no less
disaster declaration
appropriated $1
grants/mitigation/
Infrastructure and
territories, DC, and
those described
than 25%. However,
under the Stafford
bil ion for BRIC,
building-resilient-
Communities (BRIC)
federally recognized
above for HMGP.
small, impoverished
Act, the President
with $200 mil ion
infrastructure-
(Section 203 of P.L.
tribes. Tribes have
The priorities for the
communities (as
may set aside from
for each of
communities
93-288, as amended;
the option to apply
BRIC program in
defined in 42 U.S.C.
the Disaster Relief
FY2022 to
(Diane Horn)
42 U.S.C. §5133)
for BRIC funding
FY2023 were to (1)
§5133(a)),
Fund (DRF) an
FY2026. This is in
directly to FEMA as
incentivize natural
economically
amount equal to 6%
addition to the 6%
an applicant or
hazard risk reduction
disadvantaged rural
of the estimated
set-aside in the

through a state as a
activities that mitigate communities, and
aggregate amount of
DRF.
sub-applicant. Eligible
risk to public
communities in
the grants to be

sub-applicants include infrastructure; (2)
designated
made pursuant to the
state agencies,
incorporate nature-
Community Disaster
fol owing sections of
The notice of
federally recognized
based solutions,
Resilience Zones are
the Stafford Act: 403, funding
tribes, and local
including those
eligible for an
406, 407, 408, 410,
opportunity for
governments/
designed to reduce
increase in the
416, and 428.
BRIC posted on
communities. Any
carbon emissions; (3)
federal share up to
October 12, 2023,

states or territories,
enhance climate
90% of project costs
stated a total of
or federally
resilience and
on request. The
$1 bil ion
recognized tribes
adaptation; (4)
nonfederal cost share
available.
that are entirely or
promote equity and
may be waived for

partially located in a
prioritize
insular areas if the
As of December
state or territory,
disadvantaged
nonfederal share is
31, 2023, there
that have had a major communities; and (5)
under $200,000.
was $4.577 bil ion
disaster declaration
increase funding to
set aside in the
in the seven years
applicants that
DRF for the
prior to the
facilitate the adoption
program (see CRS
application start date
and enforcement of
Report R45484,
are eligible to apply.
the latest published
The Disaster Relief
All states, territories,
editions of building
Fund: Overview and
and federally
codes.
Issues, for more
recognized tribes had
information on
COVID-19 disaster
the Disaster Relief
declarations in 2020.
Fund).
CRS-34

Program
Eligible
Eligible Activities
Cost Share
Authorization of
Recent Funding
Website
(Authority)
Entity/Dams
Appropriations
(CRS Contact)
FEMA Flood
Eligible applicants
Eligible activities
Generally, federal
The program is
The IIJA
https://www.fema.gov/
Mitigation Assistance
include states,
include localized and
funding is available
funded from NFIP
appropriated $3.5
grants/mitigation/floods
Grant Program
territories, tribal
non-localized flood
for up to 75% of
policyholders’
bil ion for FMA,
(Diane Horn)
(Title XIII of P.L. 90-
governments
risk reduction
eligible costs. FEMA
premiums, fees, and
with $700 mil ion

448, as amended; 42
(federally
projects, which may
may contribute up to
surcharges. No
for each of
U.S.C. 4104c)
recognized), and local include the
90% for repetitive
funding is
FY2022 to
communities, as
construction,
loss properties and
appropriated for the
FY2026.
defined in 42 U.S.C.
demolition, or
up to 100% for
program. Congress

§4003(a)(1) and 2
rehabilitation of
severe repetitive loss
allows FEMA to
U.S.C. §4104c(h)(1).
dams. Modifications
properties, as defined withdraw funds from
The notice of
Sub-applicants
must be for the
in 42 U.S.C. §4014(h)
the National Flood
funding
include communities
purpose of increasing
and 44 C.F.R.
Insurance Fund and
opportunity for
and tribal
the capacity for risk
§79.2(h).
to use those funds to
FMA posted on
governments
reduction of the
operate the NFIP,
October 12, 2023,
(including federally
existing structures.
but the spending
stated a total of
recognized tribes
Non-localized flood
authority to use
$800 mil ion
that choose to apply
risk reduction
these offsetting
available.
as sub-applicants). All
projects such as dam
col ections for the
sub-applicants must
removal are only
program must be
be participating in the eligible if the FEMA
authorized in
National Flood
Administrator
appropriations acts.
Insurance Program
determines in a

and must not be
mitigation plan that
withdrawn, on
such activities are the
probation, or
most cost-effective
suspended.
mitigation activities
Structures identified
for the NFIP.
in the sub-application
Mitigation projects
must have an NFIP
are required to meet
policy in effect when
minimum standards
applying and must
set by the NFIP.
maintain it through
the life of the project.
FMA funding does
not require a Stafford
Act declaration.

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.
The notice of
https://www.grants.gov/
Atmospheric
institutions of higher
projects providing
matching
funding
search-results-detail/
Administration
education;
sustainable and
requirement for this
opportunity
352093
(NOAA) Atlantic
nonprofits;
lasting benefits for
program. NOAA
posted on January
(Anthony Marshak)
Salmon Habitat
commercial (for-
Atlantic salmon.
typically leverages its
31, 2024, was for
Restoration
profit) organizations;
Proposals that
federal funding with
3-year projects

Partnership Grants
U.S. territories; and
incorporate proven
matching
ranging from
(16 U.S.C. §661; 16
state, local, and tribal
restoration
contributions from a
$100,000 to $1.5
U.S.C. §1891a; 16
governments.
techniques and focus
range of sources in
mil ion. In FY2024,
U.S.C. §1535)
Applicants must
on removal of
the public and private
up to $700,000 is
propose work within
barriers receive the
sectors to implement
anticipated for
one or more Salmon
highest priority. Dam
restoration.
supporting the
Habitat Recovery
removals receive
Applicants are
first year of
Units in the state of
higher priority than
encouraged, but not
selected projects.
Maine.
installation of
required, to
structures that
demonstrate a
require operations
commitment of 1:1
and maintenance.
federal funding to
nonfederal match.
NOAA considers
cost sharing in the
evaluation criteria.
CRS-38

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
NA.
Awards depend
https://www.fisheries.no
Fish Habitat
institutions of higher
planning and/or on-
matching
on the amount of
aa.gov/grant/noaa-great-
Restoration Regional
education;
the-ground
requirement for this
funds made
lakes-fish-habitat-
Partnership Grants
nonprofits;
restoration activities.
program. NOAA
available to
restoration-regional-
(16 U.S.C. §661; 16
commercial (for-
Projects can include
typically leverages its
NOAA for this
partnership-grants
U.S.C. §1891a)
profit) organizations;
fish passage barrier
federal funding with
purpose by the
https://www.grants.gov/
U.S. territories; and
removal.
matching
EPA (through the
search-results-detail/
state, local, and tribal
contributions from a
Great Lakes
336437
governments. Eligible
range of sources in
Restoration
applicants may be
the public and private
Initiative—see
(Eva Lipiec, Anthony
located anywhere but
sectors to implement
33 U.S.C.
Marshak)
must propose work
coastal and marine
§1268c(7)(d)(i )).

within the Great
habitat restoration.
$10 mil ion for
Lakes Basin and
NOAA considers
FY2022.
within one of the
cost sharing in
eight U.S. Great
evaluation criteria.
Lakes states (New
York, Pennsylvania,
Ohio, Michigan,
Indiana, Il inois,
Wisconsin, and
Minnesota).
CRS-39

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
Expired.
Up to $106
https://www.grants.gov/
Coastal Salmon
available funding to
include projects that
required to match or
mil ion for the
search-results-detail/
Recovery Fund
the states of
address factors
document in-kind
FY2024 funding
351310
(16 U.S.C.
Washington, Oregon, limiting the
contributions of at
opportunity.
(Anthony Marshak)
§3645(d)(2))
Idaho, Nevada,
productivity of Pacific least 33% of received
California, and Alaska salmon and steelhead
federal funds. Indian

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.
CRS-40

Program
Eligible
Eligible Activities
Cost Share
Authorization of
Recent Funding
Website
(Authority)
Entity/Dams
Appropriations
(CRS Contact)
NOAA Restoring
Eligible applicants are
Eligible activities
There is no non-
Expired.
Approximately
https://www.fisheries.no
Fish Passage through
institutions of higher
include locally led fish federal matching
$175 mil ion for
aa.gov/grant/restoring-
Barrier Removal
education; non-
passage efforts
requirement for this
the notice of
fish-passage-through-
Grants (including the
profits; commercial
through removals of
funding. Non-federal
funding
barrier-removal-grants
Tribal Priority
(for profit)
dams and other in-
match funds may be
opportunity
https://www.fisheries.no
opportunity) organizations; U.S.
stream barriers for
optionally included in
posted on July 31,
aa.gov/grant/restoring-
(P.L. 117-58; 135
territory, state, local,
native migratory or
an application to
2023, with an
tribal-priority-fish-
STAT. 1356; P.L.
and Native American
sea-run fish.
demonstrate
additional
passage-through-barrier-
117-169; 16 U.S.C.
and Alaska Native
Proposed activities
stakeholder support
approximately
removal-grants
1891a)a
tribal governments.
may include future
for the proposed
$85 mil ion for
Applicants must
project development
work.
the Tribal Priority
(Anthony Marshak)
propose work in
and feasibility studies,
funding
areas that benefit
engineering and
opportunity.
U.S. migratory fish.
design, permitting,
For the Tribal
on-the-ground fish
Priority opportunity,
passage restoration,
eligible applicants are
pre- and post-
Indian tribes (as
removal
defined in 25 U.S.C.
implementation
§5304(e)) and
monitoring,
organizations that
stakeholder
represent Indian
engagement, among
tribes through formal
other activities.
legal agreements.
Proposals may
Other institutions
support hydroelectric
and organizations
license surrender to
may partner with
remove dams that
Indian tribes and
are no longer
representatives.
economically viable
or provide significant
public benefits.b
CRS-41

Program
Eligible
Eligible Activities
Cost Share
Authorization of
Recent Funding
Website
(Authority)
Entity/Dams
Appropriations
(CRS Contact)
U.S. Army Corps of
CWIFP-eligible
The program is
Maximum amount of
Expired.
$104 mil ion in
https://www.usace.army.
Engineers (USACE)
entities include state,
authorized to offer
CWIFP credit
enacted funding
mil/Missions/Civil-
Corps Water
local, and tribal
credit assistance (i.e.,
assistance is 49%
from FY2021
Works/Infrastructure/
Infrastructure
government entities
loans and loan
percent of eligible
through FY2023,
revolutionize/CWIFP/
Financing Program
and various private
guarantees) to
project costs or up
of which $81
(Nicole T. Carter)
(CWIFP; 33 U.S.C.
entities (e.g.,
projects (or groups
to 80% for projects
mil ion is
§§3901-3914)
corporations,
of projects) with
serving economically
specifically to
partnerships, and
costs greater than
disadvantaged
support dam
trusts) that are
$20 mil ion with the
communities (88
safety projects for
publicly sponsored;
fol owing purposes:
Federal Register
nonfederally
federal entities are
reduction of riverine
64892).
owned dams, and
ineligible.
or coastal storm
the remainder for
flood damage;
program
restoration of aquatic
administration.
ecosystems;
USACE may be
improvement of the
able to provide
inland and
$7.5 bil ion in
intracoastal
loans with the
waterways navigation
appropriations
system; improvement
available through
of navigation at a U.S.
FY2023. $7.2
harbor; or a
mil ion enacted in
combination of
FY2024, of which
purposes.
$2.2 mil ion is to
Appropriations
nonfederal dam
through FY2023 have
safety and
limited CWIFP to
nonfederal levee
nonfederal dam
projects, and the
safety projects;
remaining $5
USACE identifies
mil ion is for
dam removal as an
program
eligible dam safety
administration.
project.

CRS-42

Program
Eligible
Eligible Activities
Cost Share
Authorization of
Recent Funding
Website
(Authority)
Entity/Dams
Appropriations
(CRS Contact)
USACE Section 206
A nonfederal sponsor Aquatic ecosystem
The nonfederal
$63 mil ion for
$8 mil ion
https://www.nae.usace.ar
Aquatic Ecosystem
(e.g., a local
restoration projects,
sponsor is
FY2021 through
appropriated for
my.mil/Missions/Public-
Restoration
government or
including dam
responsible for 50%
FY2024.
FY2024.
Services/Continuing-
Continuing
nonprofit entity, with
removal, are eligible if of funding for studies
Authorities-Program/
Authorities Program
local government
they improve the
above the initial
Section-206/
(33 U.S.C. §2330)
consent) is eligible to
quality of the
$100,000 in federal
(Anna Normand)
request assistance for environment, are in
funds. Unless
an ecosystem
the public interest,
otherwise waived by
restoration project.
and are cost effective. statute, the
Unless otherwise
nonfederal sponsor is
waived by statute,
responsible for 35%
the federal cost may
of total project costs
not exceed $10
during the design,
mil ion.
implementation, and
monitoring periods.
The nonfederal
sponsor must
provide all lands,
easements, rights-of-
way, relocations, and
disposal areas
required for the
project.
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
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-43

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
$1 mil ion in
https://www.nrcs.usda.go
Agriculture
constructed under
financial assistance is
account for 65% of
for FY2008 through
discretionary
v/programs-initiatives/
Watershed
the Watershed and
available to project
the total cost of a
FY2024.
appropriations for watershed-rehabilitation
Rehabilitation
Flood Prevention
sponsors for the
rehabilitation project.
FY2024.
(Megan Stubbs)
Program
Operations (WFPO)
planning, design, and
Local project
An unspecified

(16 U.S.C. §1012)
program and the
construction of
sponsors must
portion of $50
Resource
rehabilitation efforts
provide 35% of the
mil ion annually in
Conservation and
addressing health and
total cost of a
mandatory funds
Development
safety concerns of
rehabilitation project
authorized for
(RC&D) program are
eligible dams.
and must obtain
WFPO may also
eligible. WFPO
Upgrading or
needed land rights
be used for
consists of projects
decommissioning may and permits. Federal
rehabilitation
built under two
be considered.
funds cannot be used
work under the
authorities—the
for operation and
Watershed
Watershed
maintenance.
Rehabilitation
Protection and Flood
Program.
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.).
CRS-44

Program
Eligible
Eligible Activities
Cost Share
Authorization of
Recent Funding
Website
(Authority)
Entity/Dams
Appropriations
(CRS Contact)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
The program works
Fish passage projects
Pursuant to FWS
NA.
The estimated
https://www.fws.gov/
Service (FWS)
on a voluntary basis
are to restore
policy related to the
amount available
fisheries/fish-
National Fish Passage
with federal, state,
unimpeded flows and
Fish Passage
for the FY2024
passage.html
Program
local, and tribal
fish movement by
Program, FWS seeks
funding
(Pervaze Sheikh)
(16 U.S.C. §§757a-
agencies, as well as
removing barriers or
to secure at least
opportunity is

757g; 16 U.S.C.
with private partners
bypass options.
50% of total project
$70 mil ion.
§§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-45

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.
The estimated
https://www.fws.gov/
Fish and Wildlife
incentive-based
assist with
required in statute,
amount available
partners/
(16 U.S.C. §3771; 16
program provides
modernizing fish
but FWS states that
for the FY2024
(Pervaze Sheikh)
U.S.C. §742a-c; 16
direct technical and
passage structures to
it strives to achieve a
funding

U.S.C. §742e-742j; 16 financial assistance in
allow safe travel by
minimum cost share
opportunity is
U.S.C. §§661-667e)
the form of
aquatic resources
of 1:1 on selected
$15 mil ion.
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.
U.S. Forest Service
Restoration of
Fund proposals of up
Varies; cost sharing
$80 mil ion for
$26 mil ion in
https://www.fs.usda.gov/
(FS) Col aborative
priority habitats on
to $5 mil ion for five-
not required in
FY2022 through
funding for the
managing-land/natural-
Aquatic Landscape
federal lands.
year projects to
statute.
FY2026.
first round of
resources/col aborative-
Restoration
restore fish passage
proposals selected aquatic-landscape-
(Section
or water quality on
from the FY2022
restoration
40804(b)(10) and
federal and
solicitation.
(Anne Riddle)
Section 40804(f) of
nonfederal land and
P.L. 117-58)
to prioritize for
selection proposals
that would result in
the most miles of
stream restoration
for the lowest
amount of federal
funding.
Source: CRS, using federal agency websites and public laws.
CRS-46

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.
a. This ratio does not account for additional subsidization. Under certain conditions, states may provide additional subsidization, including principal forgiveness,
negative interest loans, or a combination. In addition, appropriations acts in recent years have required states to use minimum percentages of their allotted funds to
provide additional subsidization, including grants.
b. In some cases, privately owned projects are eligible for certain types of activities.
CRS-47

Dam Removal: The Federal Role

Author Information

Anna E. Normand

Specialist 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 5 · UPDATED
48

Download PDF

Revision History

Mar. 15, 2024

HTML · PDF

5% changed

Oct. 27, 2021

HTML · PDF

Metadata

Topic areas

Environmental Policy

Economic Policy

Energy Policy

Report Type: CRS Report

Source: CRSReports.Congress.gov

Raw Metadata: JSON