4 minute read
While repair and removal projects are underway to address some of the state’s unsafe dams, repairs are often costly and determining the owner of a dam can be a challenge
FOCUS | ENGINEERING
Dam dangers remain, but awareness rises
Advertisement
BY CASSIUS SHUMAN | Shuman@PBN.com
PLANS to remove a deteriorating dam along the Pawcatuck River in Westerly and Hopkinton have riverfront residents in both towns upset that lower water levels after the dam is gone will dry out their wells and lower their property values. The Potter Hill Dam, first built in the 1780s and rebuilt in the early 1900s, also illustrates a problem that public officials in Rhode Island have wrestled with for a long time: what to do with hundreds of dams that are relics of the state’s industrial past and are now in disrepair. Often, they are costly to fix. Of Rhode Island’s 669 dams, 81 have been deemed unsafe, more than half of which would result in “probable loss of human life” if they failed, according to a report issued by the R.I. Department of Environmental Management in 2020. In the case of the Potter Hill Dam, built to power a mill on the Westerly side of the river, the structure is classified as a low hazard. But the nearby Wyoming Upper Reservoir Dam, a 300-year-old structure that crosses the Wood River in Hopkinton and Richmond, is a different story. The DEM has deemed it unsafe and a high hazard, and the state started repairs on the dam on June 30 at the cost of $2.9 million. The work will be paid for through the $47.3 million Green Economy and Clean Water Bond approved by voters statewide in 2018.
With repair and removal projects underway, the situation with the state’s dams has improved. David Chopy, supervisor of the DEM’s Office of Compliance and Inspection, said there is more awareness of the need to maintain dams, and owners are becoming more active in making repairs without being required.
Still, the high number of unsafe highhazard dams remains a worry.
“I am concerned about the condition of the dams. I think we have too many in poor condition or unsafe condition,” Chopy said. “We need to do more work to get those dams up to the standard that is, in my mind, protective.”
Chopy said many of the dams are hundreds of years old and determining the owner can be challenging. The dams that pose the greatest hazards are inspected every two years, and the state issues a report annually. This year’s report is still being finalized.
Chopy said the state would be better off without most of the dams.
“A lot of these dams were put in place for a specific reason and that reason doesn’t exist anymore,” he said. “So, now
POINT OF CONTENTION: State Rep. Brian Patrick Kennedy overlooks the Potter Hill Dam at the Pawcatuck River. The town of Westerly wants to remove the dam, but some residents in Westerly and Hopkinton are concerned about the aftereffects.
PBN PHOTO/ ELIZABETH GRAHAM
they’re just a liability.”
Westerly’s plans to remove the Potter Hill Dam are aimed at restoring the river to its natural condition, improving fish passage, reducing flood risk and increasing public access. The estimated cost: $1.7 million.
Westerly is expecting to receive $852,595 in grants from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration over three years. The town is also receiving contributions from The Nature Conservancy, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the Rhode Island Saltwater Anglers Association, the Southern Rhode Island Conservation District and the Wood-Pawcatuck Watershed Association.
The Hopkinton residents near the Pawcatuck River are concerned that removal would lead to their wells drying up as the river level drops, while Westerly residents worry about flooding downstream, a loss of river frontage and reduced property values.
Rep. Brian Patrick Kennedy, a Democrat who represents Hopkinton and Westerly, said the town of Westerly has its sights set on removal of the dam, as it moves to meet terms of the three-year NOAA grant agreement. Kennedy said removal appears to be imminent, with the project slated for an October start date.
Part of the problem is half the dam is in Hopkinton and half of it is in Westerly.
Kennedy said Westerly officials held two public hearings on Zoom per the terms of the grant application but have not been open to further discussion. “The amount of input that people have had has been minimal on this. It’s been ... frustrating,” he said.
Kennedy said estimates are that the river could drop between 2 to 6 feet, negatively affecting riverfront properties.
The current owner of the dam and mill property, Renewable Resources Inc., of Hopkinton, has expressed support for the dam removal. Kennedy said the mill building – abandoned in the 1950s – has become a hazard, slowly crumbling into the river.
Lisa Pellegrini, Westerly’s director of development services, said the town is reviewing public comments and determining its next steps, which may include additional studies. But she believes the removal of the dam is the best option.
“Partially removing or improving the existing dam would require continual maintenance of the dam,” she said. “Removing the dam eliminates future maintenance and repair – and returns the river to its natural state and that is always considered optimal.”
Since the dam removal project does not present the risk of loss of life, or any major economic impact, the DEM’s involvement is restricted to issuing permits, Chopy said. But, he added, if the dam is not removed, it will eventually fall prey to Mother Nature.
“If the town didn’t maintain it, eventually the dam would wash away,” Chopy said. “Nobody knows what storm is going to cause that to happen, but at some point, it will fail, and there will be flooding.” n
