Letters to the editor can be submitted by sending an email to tuletters@timesunion.com or completing this form. See our guidelines on letters.

The health of aquatic ecosystems is under fire due to the continued existence of outdated dams across the United States. Policymakers and the public must support the removal of obsolete and degrading dams as a practical and effective way to restore our rivers and protect biodiversity across the country.

Across the United States, only about one-third of our rivers run their length unimpeded, primarily due to dams. Dams can block migrating fish routes, alter aquatic ecosystems, and degrade water quality. This can create serious harm to native species, particularly migrating fish such as salmon.

Dam removal has effectively produced impressive ecological benefits. In Washington state, the Elwha dam was removed in 2012 and the Glines Canyon Dam in 2014. Afterward, migratory fish such as salmon returned to the upper Elwha River for the first time in just over a century.

Dams also pose a threat to a multitude of critically endangered, endangered, and vulnerable species. According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature's Red List, 336 different threatened species are at increased risk.

Dam removals can also reduce long-term upkeep and maintenance expenditures on degrading structures. Many dams are more than decades old and, in some cases, pose serious risks of failure.

Instead of continuing to fund outdated infrastructure, we should invest in legitimate ecological restoration and modern water management practices.
Supporting dam removal is a serious and achievable action that can directly help local communities, aquatic wildlife, and our shared environment.

The writer is affiliated with the University of Albany Environmental Science Ecosystem Department.

Published xxx

Beyond Plastics has said implementing the Packaging Reduction and Recycling Infrastructure Act in New York “would save the state $1.3 billion over the next decade,” without including the significant cost it would incur for consumers. And when the cost of living is higher than ever, putting New Yorkers on the hook for another bill would be asking many to do the impossible.

The reality is that, if implemented, the expected costs in New York would fall between $2.19 billion and $2.6 billion over five years. The cost of extended producer responsibility in New York is much higher than Beyond Plastics suggests and will undoubtedly exacerbate the impacts of inflation on consumer goods at a time when many New Yorkers are already facing an unmanageable affordability crisis. In February, the nonprofit Robin Hood released data that revealed more than two million New Yorkers live in poverty, including an unprecedented one in four New York City residents, attributable, they said, to the rising costs of living.

The assumption that consumers could or should absorb these costs is disingenuous and dangerous to the New Yorkers trying to live their lives.

Durant is President and CEO of the Food Alliance of New York. Hewitt is senior vice president of packaging and sustainability, Consumer Brands Association.

Published May 26, 2025

Faced with a full-blown climate emergency and chaos at the federal level, New York state has the responsibility to take action yet Gov. Kathy Hochul seems to be only concerned with getting reelected.

As Katherine Nadeau points out in “Cap-and-invest will get N.Y. back on track with clean energy," April 28, the cap-and-invest program makes polluters pay for environmental damage.

Hochul promised that the cap-and-invest program would be a cornerstone of the state’s climate strategy. Now she seems to be reneging on her pledge.

In light of dangerous weather and out-of-control executive orders, it’s a no-brainer to move ahead........

© Times Union