Regional sewer district revises Lower Lake recommendation, urges dam removal and stream restoration

The Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District (NEORSD) told members of the Cleveland Heights and Shaker Heights councils on Aug. 11 that it has changed its prior recommendation for Lower Lake and now favors removing the Lower Lake dam and restoring Doan Brook, rather than rebuilding the dam to current state standards.

The change matters because NEORSD said its new, higher‑resolution 2‑D modeling and predesign work show Lower Lake reconstruction would be costly and would not materially reduce flooding in the University Circle area; the district also highlighted the dam’s classification as a Class 1 high‑hazard dam under Ohio Department of Natural Resources rules and the potential for catastrophic downstream flooding if the dam failed.

Kyle Dreyfus Wells, NEORSD’s president and CEO, said the district did not make the change lightly. “We changed that recommendation based on new information we gathered and analyzed in 2024 and 2025,” he told both councils. Dreyfus Wells said the district completed predesign work for a reconstructed Lower Lake dam and used that analysis, plus newly deployed sensors and updated local storm‑sewer inputs, to revise its position.

Matt Sharver, NEORSD director of watershed programs, walked council members through the modeling and the engineering challenges. He said the Lower Lake dam is an earthen structure that would need to be entirely replaced — essentially with a large concrete gravity section, new principal and auxiliary spillways, removal of many trees adjacent to Coventry and North Park and substantial flood walls — to meet ODNR’s probable‑maximum‑flood requirement. Sharver said the probable maximum flood for a Class 1 dam equates to roughly 24–26 inches of rain in 24 hours.

Sharver summarized the cost estimates NEORSD generated during predesign: approximately $44 million to reconstruct a dam that meets state standards, plus roughly $12 million more to remove and properly dispose of an estimated 140,000 cubic yards of sediment in Lower Lake if the cities also wanted a restored, high‑quality lake — a $55 million total. By contrast, NEORSD’s estimate for dam removal and stream restoration was about $37 million, and Sharver added another $6–7 million of culvert work at Coventry and Fairhill that NEORSD would expect to do as part of a restoration plan, bringing the district’s total dam‑removal price toward $45 million.

The district said its regional stormwater management program cannot justify paying to reconstruct a dam that, according to the updated modeling, does not materially improve downstream flooding in University Circle once an additional University Circle culvert is added. “Lower Lake Dam is not necessary to control or improve the flooding condition in University Circle,” Sharver said, noting that the additional culvert — a “sister culvert” to the existing one‑mile conveyance through University Circle — would markedly improve conveyance and reduce flooding at campus buildings and nearby properties.

NEORSD officials said the additional culvert alignment has become feasible through coordination with the Cleveland Museum of Art, which plans to reconstruct and drain Wade Lagoon as part of its renovation; that schedule would allow coordinated work on the culvert. Sharver said the feasibility study completed in 2023–24 established alignments and that dialogs are underway with the museum about a draft agreement for Phase 2 of the museum project.

NEORSD emphasized two problems that underlie the change: (1) repeated road and building flooding from stormwater runoff (including Coventry at North Park and parts of University Circle), and (2) public‑safety risk posed by the Lower Lake dam’s potential breach. Sharver said that the dam currently provides only a tiny fraction — about 2% — of the conveyance required by ODNR’s probable‑maximum‑flood standard and that repeated overtopping of the dam (overtopping occurs in relatively small storms) creates an erosion risk.

Council members pressed NEORSD on details. Councilman Maddox asked whether the $19 million figure shown for sediment management in one slide was a one‑time cost or an ongoing maintenance expense; Sharver said the $19 million (part of NEORSD’s accounting of moving and hauling sediments) reflects significant off‑site haul and management needs and is not merely an annual maintenance line item. Councilwoman Larson asked about liability and insurance costs to the cities as dam operators; NEORSD said it had no precise insurance premium estimate but warned that downstream incidents elsewhere in the region have produced damages in the tens of millions of dollars.

NEORSD also reviewed Horseshoe Lake work and confirmed the Horseshoe Lake restoration design remains in progress and that its estimated contribution to that project is about $24 million; Shaker Heights and Cleveland Heights had separately agreed to fund park amenities estimated at roughly $7.2 million.

Public comment at the joint session was extensive and largely opposed to dam removal or skeptical of NEORSD’s changed recommendation. Speakers included Friends of Lower Lake co‑founder John Barber, longtime neighborhood volunteers and many residents who described the lakes as community assets and historic parkland. Public commenters raised concerns about the reliability of NEORSD’s evolving models, asked for access to underlying modeling inputs and urged alternatives such as smaller or reclassified dams, offline ponds, or hybrid designs that retain a water feature while addressing safety.

NEORSD said it will hold three public information opportunities the week following the meeting: a virtual session on Aug. 19 (6–7 p.m.), and two in‑person sessions Aug. 20 (11 a.m.–1 p.m. and 5–7 p.m.) at the Lee Road Library, 2345 Lee Road, Cleveland Heights. Sharver said that if the cities agree to pursue dam removal and stream restoration, NEORSD would begin a new predesign process that would include “extensive public involvement and engagement” similar to the Horseshoe Park effort and that predesign would likely take about a year followed by at least one year of detailed design before construction could start.

NEORSD described the schedule for decisions and the urgency of dam safety: Horseshoe Lake dam shows visible deterioration and Lower Lake dam already overtops in relatively modest storms, Sharver said, and the district would prefer decisions and design work begin sooner rather than later to reduce the risk of an uncontrolled breach.

What the councils did: no formal action or vote was taken on the district’s recommendation during the Aug. 11 joint session. NEORSD’s revised recommendation is now part of the public record and will be discussed at the upcoming public forums and in future council deliberations.

Why this matters to residents: the choice between reconstructing a dam (with multi‑million‑dollar capital cost plus potential long‑term maintenance and liability) and removing it to restore a stream and floodplain affects public safety, parkland character, long‑term maintenance obligations for the cities, and how limited public dollars are allocated. NEORSD staff said it will fund dam removal and restoration under the regional stormwater program if the cities and the district proceed in that direction, but the district said it cannot justify paying to reconstruct the dam because the updated modeling shows the reconstructed dam would not provide the regional stormwater benefit NEORSD’s program requires.

Next steps: NEORSD will present the same slide set at the Aug. 19 virtual meeting and the Aug. 20 in‑person meetings. If the cities agree to pursue dam removal and restoration, NEORSD said it would begin a predesign process (approximately one year), continue public engagement and then move to detailed design, likely another year, before construction. No final municipal decisions were made on Aug. 11.

Provenance: topicintro excerpt — “Okay. Great. Well, good evening, everyone... I’m Kyle Dreyfus Wells, CEO of the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District... This change is something we have not taken lightly.” (NEORSD presentation opening, 1810.26–1815.70). topfinish excerpt — “Just to wrap up this evening... we will continue on including with the public meetings next week.” (meeting closing remarks, 9785.73–9806.68).