What the Susquehanna River Brawl is and why it matters to anglers

The Susquehanna River Brawl is a decades-long legal and political dispute over water rights and dam operations on the Susquehanna River, which flows through New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland. The fight centers on how much water the Conowingo Dam (in Maryland) should release, how that affects fish populations and water quality downstream, and who gets to decide. For people who fish the Susquehanna, this matters because the dam's operation directly controls water levels, temperature, and the health of the shad, smallmouth bass, and catfish that make the river worth fishing.

The core conflict pits hydroelectric power generation against environmental restoration and downstream water needs. The dam's operators want to keep water levels high for power production. Environmental groups, fishing advocates, and downstream communities want more water released to flush out sediment, cool the river, and restore fish passage. Pennsylvania sits in the middle—it has the most to gain from restored shad runs and cleaner water, but it also depends on the power the dam generates.

Key Takeaways

  • The Conowingo Dam, operated by Exelon, controls water flow on the Susquehanna and has been the center of a multi-decade dispute over environmental and power generation priorities.
  • Sediment buildup behind the dam has degraded water quality and blocked fish migration, reducing shad and herring populations that once supported a major fishery.
  • Pennsylvania, Maryland, and New York have conflicting interests: power generation, water supply, fish restoration, and downstream flood management all depend on how the dam operates.
  • The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) oversees dam licensing and has become the main arena where the dispute plays out through permit renewals and conditions.
  • Fishing communities and conservation groups have organized to push for dam removal or major operational changes that would restore the river's ecological health.

How the dam created the problem

The Conowingo Dam was built in 1928 to generate hydroelectric power. For decades it worked as designed—producing electricity and creating a reservoir. But the dam also blocked fish migration upstream and trapped sediment that would normally flow downriver. Over time, the reservoir filled with silt, sand, and organic material, turning the water murky and reducing oxygen levels. Fish that once migrated up the Susquehanna to spawn—American shad, hickory shad, and river herring—could no longer reach their spawning grounds.

By the 1970s and 1980s, the shad fishery had collapsed. Water quality declined. Downstream communities in Pennsylvania and Maryland began experiencing flooding and water supply problems because the dam's operation prioritized power generation over flood management. The river that had supported commercial and recreational fishing for centuries became degraded. Local anglers and commercial fishermen watched their livelihoods disappear, and the ecological damage became impossible to ignore.

The players and their competing interests

Exelon Corporation operates the Conowingo Dam and owns the license to generate power from it. Exelon's primary interest is maintaining profitable power generation. The company argues that the dam provides reliable, carbon-free electricity and that major operational changes would be costly and disruptive.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is the federal agency that licenses hydroelectric dams and sets the conditions for their operation. FERC renewed Conowingo's license in 2018 for another 50 years, but only after adding environmental conditions that Exelon has contested. FERC's role makes it the main battleground for the dispute.

Pennsylvania, Maryland, and New York have different stakes. Pennsylvania wants fish restoration and cleaner water but also depends on power generation. Maryland wants flood management and water supply reliability. New York wants the dam to help manage water levels in the lower Susquehanna. These three states often disagree on what the dam should prioritize.

Conservation and fishing groups—including the Susquehanna Riverkeeper Foundation, American Rivers, and local fishing organizations—have pushed hardest for change. They argue that the dam should be removed or operated in ways that restore fish passage and water quality. These groups have become the public face of the fight and have organized anglers and community members to testify at hearings and support restoration efforts.

Sediment and water quality: the core environmental problem

The Conowingo Reservoir now holds an estimated 500 million tons of sediment. This trapped material includes silt, sand, and organic matter that would normally flow downriver and nourish floodplain ecosystems. Instead, it sits behind the dam, decomposing and consuming oxygen. The result is a murky, low-oxygen reservoir that is poor habitat for fish and poor water for downstream communities.

When heavy rains occur, the dam operators sometimes have to release large volumes of water quickly to prevent flooding. These releases stir up the sediment, sending murky, low-oxygen water downstream into Pennsylvania. This "flushing" event can kill fish and make water unsafe for drinking water intakes. It also demonstrates the dam's fundamental problem: it was designed for power generation, not for managing the environmental consequences of trapping sediment.

Restoring the river means either removing the dam or operating it in ways that allow sediment to move downstream naturally. Both options are expensive and complicated, which is why the dispute has lasted so long. Exelon argues that removing the dam would be prohibitively costly. Environmental groups argue that the cost of not removing it—in lost fisheries, degraded water quality, and ecological damage—is even higher.

Fish passage and the collapsed shad fishery

Before the dam was built, American shad migrated up the Susquehanna River each spring to spawn. The river supported a commercial fishery that employed hundreds of people and fed thousands more. Recreational fishing for shad was also popular. The fish were abundant and reliable.

The dam blocked that migration completely. Fish could not get upstream, and the population crashed. By the 1980s, the shad fishery was essentially gone. Efforts to restore it through fish hatcheries and trap-and-transport programs have had limited success because the core problem—the dam itself—remained unsolved.

In the 2018 FERC license renewal, environmental groups pushed for fish passage improvements, including the installation of fish lifts or the removal of the dam. Exelon resisted, arguing that fish passage would be expensive and uncertain. The compromise that emerged included some funding for fish passage studies and restoration efforts, but not the major changes that conservation groups wanted. The shad fishery remains collapsed, and the dispute over how to fix it continues.

The 2018 FERC license renewal and what changed

In 2018, FERC renewed Exelon's license to operate the Conowingo Dam for 50 more years. This was the main opportunity for change, because FERC can impose conditions on dam operation as part of the licensing process. Environmental groups, fishing advocates, and state agencies all submitted comments urging FERC to require fish passage, sediment management, and operational changes.

FERC's final order included new environmental conditions: funding for fish passage studies, requirements for water quality monitoring, and some operational changes aimed at improving downstream conditions. But it did not require the dam to be removed or fundamentally restructured. Exelon got to keep operating the dam much as before, though with new constraints and costs.

The 2018 renewal disappointed conservation groups, who saw it as a missed opportunity to force real change. But it also established that FERC would require environmental improvements going forward. The next major opportunity for change will come when the license comes up for renewal again in 2068—or if political pressure builds enough to force earlier action.

What anglers and fishing communities are doing now

Fishing groups and conservation organizations have organized to keep pressure on Exelon and FERC. The Susquehanna Riverkeeper Foundation, based in Harrisburg, monitors water quality and dam operations and publishes reports on the river's condition. Local fishing clubs have testified at public hearings and supported restoration efforts. Some anglers have joined calls for dam removal, arguing that the long-term health of the fishery depends on it.

Restoration projects are underway, including efforts to reestablish shad populations through hatchery programs and trap-and-transport operations. These programs have had modest success, but they are expensive and labor-intensive—a reminder that without addressing the dam itself, full restoration is unlikely.

The fishing community's role in the Susquehanna River Brawl is important because anglers have direct experience with the river's decline and the most to gain from its restoration. When anglers testify about what the river used to be like and what it could be again, they give the environmental argument a human face and a practical grounding that technical reports alone cannot match.

Frequently Asked Questions

Could the Conowingo Dam be removed?

Removal is technically possible but would be extremely expensive—estimates range from hundreds of millions to over a billion dollars. It would also require agreement from multiple states, federal agencies, and Exelon. No removal is currently planned, though some conservation groups continue to advocate for it as the best long-term solution.

How does the dam affect water levels for fishing?

The dam maintains a reservoir that keeps water levels relatively stable for power generation. This means less natural variation in water levels, which affects fish behavior and habitat. Downstream, the dam's operation can cause sudden water level changes when water is released, which can strand fish and disrupt spawning.

What is being done to restore the shad fishery?

Hatchery programs raise shad and release them into the river. Trap-and-transport programs capture shad at the dam and move them upstream to spawning grounds. These efforts have increased shad numbers modestly, but without fish passage at the dam or removal of the dam, full restoration remains unlikely.

Why does this dispute involve three states?

The Susquehanna River flows through New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland, and each state has different water needs and interests. New York cares about water supply and flood management. Pennsylvania wants fish restoration and clean water. Maryland wants power generation and flood control. FERC must balance these competing interests when licensing the dam.

Where can I learn more about the Susquehanna River's condition?

The Susquehanna Riverkeeper Foundation publishes regular reports on water quality and dam operations. Local fishing clubs and conservation groups also share information about the river's health and restoration efforts. State environmental agencies in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and New York maintain public records of FERC proceedings and dam operations.