Natick Report

More than you really want to know about Natick, Mass.

Select Board votes 4-to-1 to remove South Natick Dam & waterfall

by 2 Comments

The Natick Select Board, after yet one more round of discussion and public comments, voted on Wednesday night against repairing the South Natick Dam and spillway (aka, waterfall) and in favor of removing the iconic structure.

The tally went 4-to-1, with only Michael Hickey voting against removal of the town-owned property, which he described as the “fabric of the community.”

“I think this is a place you really can’t undo,” Hickey said. “There’s hundreds of years of a community that’s built up around this location. Life decisions have been made for decades and beyond about this location, where streets are, where homes are built, where foundations are poured, where additions are added on…to me, that built environment is not something we can just take lightly and change after this amount of time.”

But he was outnumbered on this issue during the 2-plus hour meeting (see Natick Pegasus recording embedded below).

Among those voting for removal was Select Board member Bruce Evans, who acknowledged how this is an “emotional issue for pretty much anybody in this town.” But he took to heart the thorough work of the Charles River Dam Advisory Committee and its recommendation to remove the spillway.  Financial—including unclear liability issues—played a big factor in his decision. So did reviewing other dam removals that have worked out well.

Even having voted for removal, Evans stressed that “this is the first step in a long process,” and that as permitting takes place and new information emerges, the decision could be revisited by the town.

Board member Rich Sidney acknowledged that “one of the keys here is that aesthetics count,” but also pointed out that the look of this area would be changing under either scenario given the work that would have to be done for a repair. Responsible stewardship, he said, “is not only about the current state, it’s also about what’s good for the future of the town.”

Since 1934, when it was built to give people jobs and create a beautiful park on the Charles River, the dam and spillway have attracted people seeking recreation, relaxation, and great wedding or holiday photos. The town even recently gave its blessing to a TV film crew to shoot at the site.

By ditching the dam, the town expects to save money by avoiding ongoing maintenance and eliminates its liability if the high hazard dam were to be breached by a natural event as climate change takes its toll (the board early during its meeting held a closed-door session to discuss litigation related to the dam decision).

The numbers bandied about during this process have been roughly $2.6M for repair, plus ongoing maintenance costs, vs. $1.5M for removal, and detailed estimates were shared during this week’s Select Board meeting. There would be additional and likely similar costs for park construction and renovation under either scenario. While who knows how much any of this will cost by the time work takes place, grants are more readily available for removal. Spring Annual Town Meeting next year can expect to hear a plea for funds to get design going as soon as the summer of 2023.

South Natick dam, spillway

 

The town’s gut wrenching decision has been years in the making. It initially looked as though Natick would repair the structure, with Town Meeting voting in favor of funding such work twice in recent years. Much to the frustration of dam supporters, the town chose not to fund repairs when a possible alternative approach arose. Annual Fall Town Meeting recently shot down a citizen petition to get the town to revive that repair funding.

Once the prospect of removing the dam and spillway was raised at a public meeting in 2019, it became increasingly clear that the town would likely choose that option. Financial and environmental arguments gained momentum. We heard about all the other dam removals that have been happening in the name of river restoration (not that the public had much of an attachment to most of these). Impassioned pleas were made over the cultural significance of the river and dam, with questions raised by some about whose history mattered most. Such issues were discussed throughout a public process in 2021 and 2022 centered around the Charles River Dam Advisory Committee appointed by a former town administrator.

Residents—both abutters and not— as well as consultants, advocacy groups, and town officials all had their voices heard (disclaimer: we are river neighbors). A “Save Natick Dam” contingent became more vocal in making its case over the summer.

save natick dam

In September, the Committee issued its recommendation for spillway removal to the Select Board, which took things from there.

Over the past few months the Select Board has fielded countless emails and patiently listened to public comments at a handful of  meetings both from those in favor and against removal, and even a few who were on the fence. Those living above the dam fear how removal of the dam could leave them looking at mud flats and shallow water for parts of the year. Others in the area hope removal won’t turn into an aquatic version of the North and South Main Street construction project. All in all, the public discourse has been civil. Sometimes educational, sometimes repetitive, but civil.

This area of the river already teems with wildlife, from herons and kingfishers to turtles, muskrats, bass, and dragonflies. Those favoring dam and spillway removal pledge that even more animal species and plant life will thrive as water quality improves, and that unsavory blue-green algae won’t stand a chance. They also envision a more accessible park that will have its own attractions for years to come assuming that funding can be raised (maybe the town can sell off commemorative chunks of the spillway?).

For those of you who enjoy the sounds and sights of the dam and waterfall, you’ve got about another 6 years to do so, according to an estimated timeline issued by the town.

South Natick Dam Park, 9 Pleasant St. S

Download (PDF, 99KB)

South Natick dam decision won’t come until at least mid-November

by Leave a Comment

Natick Select Board Chair Paul Joseph said during Wednesday’s Select Board meeting that the town will not make a decision on the fate of the South Natick dam on the Charles River until at least mid-November. That town is trying to determine whether it should repair the aging dam and spillway (aka, waterfall), or remove it, with financial, environmental, historical, and cultural aspects all being taken into consideration.

It had earlier been understood that a decision could have been made as soon as this week, after months of Advisory Committee review and weeks of public discussion before the Board. No decision could be made this week in part because one Board member wasn’t present, but also because coming out of an executive session last week, Joseph said, “we are in the process of evaluating some legal and environmental aspects of the decision…” Board members have remaining questions as well, he added.

While we’re not privy to the details of that closed-door meeting, an attorney who said she represented a commercial property at 22 Pleasant St. down river of the dam next to the Hunnewell baseball fields raised the issue of riparian rights and touted the hydroelectric capabilities of the site during a public meeting over the summer.

A few members of the public did share their latest thoughts and questions about the dam during the Select Board meeting this week.

More: Bursting with anticipation over Natick’s dam decision? Binge on these dam disaster flicks

Latest Natick dam forum featured history & nature lessons—plus the guy who broached the breach question

by Leave a Comment

Natick’s public deliberation over whether to save or remove the Charles River dam continued at the Oct. 3 Select Board meeting (starting shortly after the 1-hour mark of the Pegasus recording), where members of the public did most of the talking over the span of more than 90 minutes on issues ranging from wildlife impacts to the dam’s history. Speakers included those who live in Natick or nearby, as well as those from special interest groups.

Notably, comments from the public included those of a Natick resident and Wellesley College professor whose question about possibly removing the dam back at a meeting back in November of 2019 has been cited by town officials as setting off the series of events that has brought us to where we are today.

Jay Turner, a Wellesley College professor of environmental studies who this year released a book about the history of batteries, said he and his family moved to Natick in large part because of the river, dam, and overall beauty of the area. He attended that 2019 meeting (as did my Natick Report co-editor) alarmed about the need to repair the dam, and then further concerned upon learning of the significant changes this would involve, such as removal of a bunch of trees and the possible adding of riprap rocks like those seen on along highways.

“At that meeting, I—and I think many people there—were really concerned about what seemed to be a big project that was moving forward at a rapid rate which really hadn’t been discussed much publicly at that point,” he said. “I was the person in the context of that meeting that did broach the possibility of whether the town had considered removing the dam. I didn’t ask that question with kind of a clear sense in my mind of what the town should do. It seemed to me that we had a very big decision ahead of us and it made sense to consider all the different possibilities before making a commitment.”

Turner called the process that has since taken place very meaningful given all the information gather and public feedback welcomed. He’s come to support removal based on a number of factors, including reduced liability for the town, environmental benefits, and honoring the indigenous community with ties to the river and land, while also providing an opportunity to reimagine the area.

Exactly what becomes of the dam and spillway (aka, waterfall) might not be known for months or years to come. But the Select Board could make a decision on removal vs. repair as soon as Oct. 19, according to Board Chair Paul Joseph (a decision Joseph admitted could anger half of the town). “We acknowledge the long-term implications that flow from here,” he said.

The Board has received a report from an Advisory Committee appointed by a former town administrator, plus an overwhelming amount of correspondence from the public. The board is now is discussing the matter amongst itself, publicly, but with input and questions from the public at meetings like this and the recent Sept. 28 meeting. An Oct. 12 meeting behind closed doors—an official executive session—will focus on legal matters that have arisen.

Historical perspectives

Joseph said one phrase that has jumped out to him from the dialogue to this point is “the only opinion that matters,” as in, whether concerns of the Indigenous community should outweigh those of abutters or others in town who are not part of that community. “Everyone’s perspective matters. I think each individual makes a decision as to what level that matters to them,” he said.

Later, Joseph acknowledged: “Look, if I had a house on the river I’d probably be the first one out there with signs and petitions myself…”

(Disclosure: We are river neighbors.)

Larry Slotnick, who lives across from dam, says the first such structure was built in that area of the Charles 260 years ago, and over time became “an enduring symbol of the town of Natick,” including on postcards that he had for show and tell. He raised concerns about dam removal creating mudflats and a stench, as was the case in the 1920s after a dam was carried away by bad weather.

“The dam is some of Natick’s oldest history, and we’re throwing it all away. I know people are well meaning and they want to restore the river to its natural state, and that all sounds great, but it’s impossible. After 260 years the natural state of that river is gone. What we are now doing is destroying the habitat that exists now for fish, turtles, herons, swans and all the other animals that have made that lake [above the dam] their home for over 250 years.”

The Natick Historical Society, which has been approached by people doing research about the dam’s history during this process, shared a letter with the board in September that Joseph read. It states: “Historical significance is a relative judgment.  What is historically significant to one generation may not be to another. Similarly, what is historically significant in one context such as time or place, may not be in another. The reverse is also true—what one generation overlooks, another may revere. What is obscured in one context may shine in another… To that end, we trust the Select Board will regard arguments of historical significance not as fixed and unchanging determinations, but as illustrations of values held by particular people in a particular time in a particular.”

Resident Diane Young, who urged the town to remove the grove of trees atop the earthen dam immediately to avoid possible liability, also applauded Natick Public Schools for teaching kids about the river’s history from the perspective of the Nipmuc Nation. Members of the Natick Nipmuc Indian Council were on the Charles River Advisory Committee, and shared their insights with fellow members, who included such considerations in the final report handed to the Select Board.

“It’s so important that we learn about the history of our river, but we can’t undo unfortunately history that was so shameful, we can’t bring the river back,” Young said, adding that students also need to know the history of the current dam. She described how it was built by 3,000 Natick residents after the Great Depression to create a community recreation area. “That dam is historic. It represents our Great Depression how our country got revitalized.”

Steve Dannin, an Eliot Street resident near the dam, said he bought his house because of its history. The home’s builder had a canoe and kayak livery along the shore of the Charles there, and the house is part of the John Eliot Historic District. Dannin said the town owes him the same assurances that it won’t change his view of the river as he owes the town and neighbors by not changing his house or property in certain ways.

Select Board Chair Paul Joseph said at the start of the Oct. 3 meeting that the town of Natick is “doing our best in an era of no local newspaper that is seen in the same way as local newspapers were many years ago” to get the word out about the dam decision process.  Please support our independent journalism venture.

Speaking up for wildlife

Speakers from special interest groups such as the Greater Boston Chapter of Trout Unlimited argued in favor of dam removal to try to restore the river to a more natural state. “We’re particularly interested that the removal of the dam will allow for the reconnection of two tributaries that hold native trout popular one above the dam and one below the dam,” said Mike Yeomans, who referenced restoration of Traphole Brook in Norwood as a recent example for people to look at.

The Charles River Watershed Association‘s Robert Kearns, a regular throughout the dam discussion process, returned to emphasize removal of the South Natick dam would be in line with removal of dozens of dams across the state and 10 on the Charles. Dam removals across the state have opened more than 300 miles of free flowing river, establishing a track record for this sort of change, he said.

Town officials, in response to numerous members of the public referencing expected significant water level declines above the current dam if the spillway is removed, emphasized that lower levels will not be ubiquitous. “The entire river will not change to a half an inch to a foot of water,” said Sustainability Director Jillian Wilson-Martin. “That’s in a very specific segment of the river. That’s an 860-foot stretch of river where the Stantec report predicts that change….” [See consultancy Stantec’s June 27 presentation to the Charles River Advisory Committee.]

Still, some who spoke aren’t convinced dam removal is going to restore South Natick’s chunk of the river to what it was back in the day. Candy Hulton, who cited an effort to restore Shaw Park across the street from the dam as an example of the town changing course, encouraged the Board (which, all repeat, “has not yet made a decision”) to continue being open minded about what should happen to the dam. She stated that without other downstream dams being removed, elimination of the South Natick structure isn’t really going to help the fish, and will leave upstream abutters with a “mucky mess.”

Some of those against dam removal, or at least against a near-term decision to remove it, argued for more studies to be done about the sediment that a removal could unleash and other possible impacts. Joseph and Claire Rundelli, planner and conservation agent under the town’s Community & Economic Development arm, assured the public that more studies would take place once whatever decision is made, and the permitting process gets underway. The town won’t have all the financial or environmental answers until things get going, Joseph said.

One property owner asked about the possible impact dam removal could have on animals and how much it would cost to research this and protect wildlife if need be.

Rundelli didn’t have figures to share about costs, but said the state’s Natural Heritage Endangered Species Program hasn’t identified the area as being an “estimated or priority habitat.” Having said that, she acknowledged some animals might need to be displaced up or down river, if say they require more of a pond-like habitat than a riverine one (the aquatic version of eminent domain?). Swans are an example of an animal that might make their way closer to the Mass Audubon’s Broadmoor sanctuary up river.

Mass Audubon, by the way, is all for dam removal, as indicated in a July letter to the Select Board read by Joseph during the recent meeting. The letter cites the release of methane and the breeding of algae blooms among the downsides attributed to a combination of the dam and drought.

(If we hear that dam removal will send Canada Geese on their way from this section of the Charles, then end the debate now and have at it Natick…)

South Natick Dam

While the Oct. 3 meeting gave those on all sides of this matter more to think about and research, the Select Board moves ahead with its schedule. That will include an Oct. 19 meeting during which it could make a decision.

Natick dam discussion: There’s more to say

by Leave a Comment

Voices quavered. Town employees had their honor defended. Facts were stated and dismissed.

Just another South Natick Dam discussion.

This latest entry into the growing collection of public forums about whether the town should repair or remove the Charles River dam in South Natick took place at the Sept. 28 Select Board meeting, about 2 hours in and lasted roughly 80 minutes. The Board has received a report from an Advisory Committee, and now is discussing the matter amongst itself, but with input and questions from the public at meetings like this. The Board has also been fielding dozens and dozens of emails, with Board member Michael Hickey crediting Board Chair Paul Joseph for his thorough replies (I’ve been on the receiving end of Joseph’s replies to questions about other topics and can vouch for his attentiveness.)

The schedule from here looks something like this:

I won’t get into a play-by-play account of the meeting, which featured some familiar faces saying familiar things, but also some new blood and new questions or points. About two-thirds of the 16 public speakers indicated support for the Advisory Committee’s recommendation to remove the spillway, better known as the waterfall. (Disclaimer: We’re river neighbors).

Among the questions raised were whether the town has had an arborist rate the health of the trees on the dam (yes, as they are part of the town’s shade tree inventory), whether just removing the trees would be the cheapest solution (perhaps not since other fixes would be needed to bring the dam’s condition from poor to good, says the town engineer), and how to quantify the probability of dam failure (the town’s looking into that one).

One speaker noted that the last forum on the dam seemed to include mostly public speakers on one side of the issue, and emphasized that there may be many more viewpoints that aren’t being seen by the public in the form of emails. So she felt compelled to show up and speak, stating “A lot of us feel extremely confident and respectful of the [Advisory Committee’s] time and their recommendation and we fully support it and don’t feel the need to be here because of that. So I am here because I have been speaking to people for many months just like everyone else and we firmly respect and request that the committee’s recommendations of not just removing the spillway but creating a new fun environment for us all…”

While one environmental organization rep stated removal is the clear choice for the health of the river, citing the Advisory Committee’s work and other removals or breaches along the main stem of the Charles, it was unclear how many of those involved dams that the public actually cared about whether they stayed. Another speaker pointed out that a couple of dams have been considered for removal, but were retained due to aesthetics (and as a town employee noted, because they were so close to other dams).

Perhaps the rarer speakers at this meeting were a couple of people who said they’d be fine either way. A longtime paddler said the river will have its low spots after dam removal, but getting out of the boat and wading for a bit is something he’s used to doing. “I’m easy with it either way,” he said, so very chill.  Another speaker said “I think we just have to move on, find out what the unknowns are by beginning the process… I think we’re arguing over something endlessly that basically is going to work out fine.”

In that vein, Joseph reminded all that the town has limited resources to manage many important issues today, from the dam to public health to affordable housing and transportation. While more discussion will be welcomed in the weeks to come, the town will also rely on the expertise of its staff and advisors as it zeroes in on a decision about the dam.

natick dam log

(Disclaimer: We’re river neighbors.)