For nearly a century, two United States governmental agencies, the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation, have constructed dams to store water and to generate electricity. Building these dams provided cheap electricity, created jobs for workers, stimulated regional economic development, and allowed farming on lands that would otherwise be too dry. But not everyone agrees that big dam projects are entirely beneficial. Their storage reservoirs stop the flow of rivers and often submerge towns, farms, and historic sites. They prevent fish migrations and change aquatic habitats essential for native species. The tide may have turned, in fact, against dam building. In 1998 the Army Corps announced that it would no longer be building large dams. In the few remaining sites where dams might be built, public opposition is so great that getting approval for projects is unlikely. Instead, the new focus may be on removing existing dams and restoring natural habitats. In 1999 Bruce Babbitt, then the United States interior secretary, said, "Of the 75,000 large dams in the United States, most were built a long time ago and are now obsolete, expensive, and unsafe. They were built with no consideration of the environmental costs. As operating licenses come up for renewal, dam removal and habitat restoration to original stream flows will be among the options considered." The first active hydroelectric dam in the United States to be removed against the wishes of its owners was the 162-year-old Edwards Dam, on the Kennebec River in Augusta, Maine. For many years, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service had advocated the removal of this dam, which prevented migration of salmon, shad, sturgeon, and other fish species up the river. In a precedent-setting decision, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ordered the dam removed after concluding that the environmental and economic benefits of a free-flowing river outweighed the electricity generated by the dam. In July 1999 the dam was removed and restoration work began on wetlands and stream banks long underwater. The next dams likely to be taken down are the Elwha and Glines Dams on the Elwha River in Olympic National Park in the state of Washington. Built nearly a century ago to provide power to lumber and paper mills in the town of Port Angeles, these dams blocked access to upstream spawning beds for six species of salmon on what once was one of the most productive salmon rivers in the world. Simply removing the dams will not restore the salmon, however. Where 50-kilogram king salmon once fought their way up waterfalls to lay their eggs in gravel beds, there now are only concrete walls holding back still water and deep beds of muddy deposits. Removing the mud, uncovering gravel beds where fish spawn, and finding suitable salmon types to rebuild the population is a daunting task. Congress will have to appropriate somewhere around $300 to $400 million to remove these two relatively small dams and rehabilitate the area. Environmental groups, encouraged by these examples, have begun to talk about much more ambitious projects. Four giant dams on the Snake River in Washington State, for example, might be removed to restore salmon and steelhead fish runs to the headwaters of the Columbia River. The Hetch Hetchy Dam in Yosemite National Park might be taken down to reveal what John Muir, the founder of the prestigious environmental organization Sierra Club, called a valley "just as beautiful and worthy of preservation as the majestic Yosemite." Some groups have even suggested removing the Glen Canyon Dam on the Colorado River. In each of these cases, powerful interests stand in opposition. These dams generate low-cost electricity and store water that is needed for agriculture and industry. Local economies, domestic water supplies, and certain types of recreation all would be severely impacted by destruction of these dams. How does one weigh the many different economic, cultural, and aesthetic considerations for removing or not removing these dams? Do certain interests, such as the rights of native people or the continued existence of native species of fish or wildlife, take precedence over economic factors, or should this be a utilitarian calculation of the greatest good for the greatest number? And does that number include only humans or do other species count as well?