Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environment Dam Removal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public and council debate amendment to Fuss & O'Neil contract for Potter Hill Dam study
Summary
Speakers including Save the Wetlands said approving the amendment to the Fuss & O'Neil contract for a "modified option E" dam-removal study is premature because final data are not available and well impacts and PFAS risks are not resolved; councilors split over proceeding now and whether to attach a dedicated project manager.
The Westerly Town Council spent a large portion of its meeting responding to public concerns and council debate over an amendment to the town's contract with engineering consultant Fuss & O'Neil to continue work on a "modified option E" for Potter Hill Dam.
Elizabeth Noonan, an attorney representing Save the Wetlands and the Paugatuck River Association, read a letter urging the council not to approve the amendment at this meeting. Noonan said the study is incomplete, that the amendment omits a total dollar figure the town would obligate, and that the record provided to the public does not show that option E2 will deliver flood resilience or required state and federal approvals. "Approving the amendment now is not appropriate as no final study result exists," she told the council.
Noonan flagged technical and public-health worries, saying the amendment assumes no more than about 40 wells would be negatively affected but that the group believes that number is higher. She also warned that removing the dam could expose and mobilize sediments containing PFAS and other contaminants, and said the consultant itself acknowledges sediment management and further testing are required.
Speakers from neighboring towns and other residents echoed calls for more study. Carl Rosen read a Hopkinton resolution urging preservation of the river's head pond and warned that lowering the water level could harm drinking-water wells for upstream residents.
Councilors, however, were divided. Councilor Overton said he supports modified option E because it would enable fish passage, bring ecological benefits, keep water levels reasonable for public use and, he said, would include replacement wells for affected residents at no cost. "Federal government and other funding partners will pay the entire bill, which will be as high as $8,800,000," Overton said in support of continuing work on the option.
Other councilors pressed for clearer scope and oversight. One member said they would not approve further contracts until a project manager or "owner's rep" is attached to coordinate the multiple interlocking pieces of work (permitting, well replacement, demolition, design and potential construction). Town staff noted that Lighthouse Consulting was hired to coordinate stakeholders and outreach and that the pending amendment covers testing and design rather than construction.
After debate about a late-disclosed email alleging a possible conflict of interest for one councilor, the council proceeded to vote on the matter under consideration; the roll was announced as 4 in favor, 2 opposed. Several councilors said they would seek an advisory ethics opinion about the claimed conflict afterward.
What happens next: Council members emphasized more data and additional outreach will inform the next steps. The town manager and Fuss & O'Neil still have work to complete on sampling, sediment assessment and well testing before any construction decision is made.
