Residents urge Westerly Council to reject Potter Hill Dam removal plan
October 28, 2024 | Westerly, Washington County, Rhode Island
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The future of the Potter Hill Dam is at a critical juncture, as residents voiced strong opinions during the recent Westerly Town Council meeting. Thomas Noll, a part owner of the dam, urged the council to remove it, citing a staggering $9 million in potential costs for maintenance and repairs that the town cannot afford. "The dam hasn't been used in years," Noll stated, emphasizing the need for decisive action rather than continued debate. He dismissed fears of flooding as unfounded and criticized those who threaten legal action to protect their interests.
Concerns about water quality and well safety were raised by residents Marie and Tim Ward, who live near the dam. They questioned the council's assurances regarding the impact of dam removal on their water supply, particularly in light of potential contamination from nearby Superfund sites. Marie Ward demanded clear answers about the implications for their wells, including maintenance costs and water quality guarantees.
Tim Ward echoed these concerns, highlighting the need for thorough research before any decisions are made. He referenced a study by Dr. Denise Burchstead, which argued that the dam plays a crucial role in maintaining local wetlands and should not be removed. He urged the council to consider alternatives that would enhance fish migration without compromising water levels.
Susan Rosen and Carl Rosen also expressed skepticism about the proposed dam removal, calling for a delay in decision-making until further studies are completed. They pointed to the dam's historical significance and its role in the local ecosystem, arguing that the focus should be on improving fish passage rather than dismantling the structure.
As the council weighs these perspectives, the community remains divided on the future of the Potter Hill Dam, with significant implications for local water quality, environmental health, and financial responsibility. The council's next steps will be crucial in determining the outcome of this contentious issue.
Concerns about water quality and well safety were raised by residents Marie and Tim Ward, who live near the dam. They questioned the council's assurances regarding the impact of dam removal on their water supply, particularly in light of potential contamination from nearby Superfund sites. Marie Ward demanded clear answers about the implications for their wells, including maintenance costs and water quality guarantees.
Tim Ward echoed these concerns, highlighting the need for thorough research before any decisions are made. He referenced a study by Dr. Denise Burchstead, which argued that the dam plays a crucial role in maintaining local wetlands and should not be removed. He urged the council to consider alternatives that would enhance fish migration without compromising water levels.
Susan Rosen and Carl Rosen also expressed skepticism about the proposed dam removal, calling for a delay in decision-making until further studies are completed. They pointed to the dam's historical significance and its role in the local ecosystem, arguing that the focus should be on improving fish passage rather than dismantling the structure.
As the council weighs these perspectives, the community remains divided on the future of the Potter Hill Dam, with significant implications for local water quality, environmental health, and financial responsibility. The council's next steps will be crucial in determining the outcome of this contentious issue.
View full meeting
This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.
View full meeting