Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Dam Removal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents and commissioners clash over Metro Parks dam removal and county liability
Summary
Residents urged removal of a low-head dam to restore public access and address pollution, while commissioners warned of infrastructure, flooding and road‑repair liability and outlined state options and grant reallocation possibilities.
A resident from the Graville area told the Trumbull County Board of Commissioners that Metro Parks’ low‑head dam should be removed to restore public recreation access and to address long‑standing pollution and sedimentation issues.
"They admittedly meeting said they throw the world appliances in there and now they want somebody else to clean it up," the Graville resident said, summarizing documents distributed to the board including a DLZ report and court filings. The resident said removal would advance EPA and state cleanup goals and argued the dam’s benefits accrue mainly to a small group of lakeshore property owners.
Commissioners said they share public‑safety and environmental concerns but raised separate worries about how removal could affect local infrastructure. Several members pointed to studies and experience elsewhere suggesting that removing the dam can increase flow speed around a river bend and risk undercutting adjacent road and bridge foundations. One commissioner warned that repairing a damaged West Market Street could cost millions from county taxpayers.
County officials said they have discussed the matter with the governor’s office and the EPA and reported three options the state outlined: require repayment of certain funds; reallocate an existing grant toward a modification (for example rip‑rap) or other alternative; or fund another alternative if the county wants to pursue one. Commissioners said Metro Parks had declined to meet with EPA and the governor’s office staff when asked.
The hearing surfaced conflicting local viewpoints: nearby residents who value lakefront amenities and worry about lower water levels, neighbors who questioned long‑term maintenance costs for fixes such as rip‑rap, and public‑health officials who flagged potential short‑term hazards from exposed sediment or sewage if water levels change. Commissioners said those tradeoffs — environmental cleanup, public access, infrastructure risk and liability — must be weighed before any final action.
The board did not adopt a final decision on the dam during the session. Commissioners said they expect to continue studying options, to try to arrange conversations with state officials and Metro Parks’ board, and to consider more technical and legal analysis before authorizing any change.
