t only the complete removal of the dam could restore the river environment and aquatic species therein (Duane,Morris&Hecksher, Dec.1997). The economic analysis found, although it was already quite apparent, that the dam produced an insignificant amount of power at almost five times the average cost that could easily be procured elsewhere. Also, the removal of the Edwards Dam would cost only one-third of the price of the fish passages, and would be a hundred times more effective. If the dam was relicensed and environmental conditions were imposed upon it, the dam would be rendered uneconomic in addition to the failure of lessening its damaging environmental impact. Therefore, on November 25, 1997, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission voted 2-1 and for the first time ever denied a license of operation and ordered the complete destruction of a functioning hydroelectric dam. The Edwards Manufacturing Company reacted to this decision by stating that they would appeal for a rehearing, and at the same time go to court to ask for reimbursement of the cost of removal and restoration. They also intended to demand just compensation for the dismantling of their only dam (Daily Record,Nov.1997). Under the order of destruction imposed by FERC the owner/licensee is required to develop a plan for the removal of the dam, including the estimated cost and a schedule for the execution of the removal, within one year after the date the order was issued. Six months after the order for the decommissioning of the Edwards Dam, the Edwards Manufacturing Company had put together a settlement agreement in accordance with various interested parties. This action was thought to be very gracious of them, considering they had plenty of grounds to keep the case in court for a prolonged amount of time. On May 26, 1998 the company announced its plans to turn over their project license to the State of Maine by January 1, 1999, who would then ask for FERCs aut...
