Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Dam Removal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Town hears objections as engineers recommend removing Stoddard Reservoir Dam over spillway and masonry failures
Summary
Consultants told a town information session that the Stoddard Reservoir Dam lacks sufficient spillway capacity and has masonry failures, recommending removal or a major rebuild; residents raised concerns about notice, historic value, wildlife and lower‑cost alternatives. The town will compile public comments for the board of selectmen before permits are filed.
Consultants presented engineering findings at a public information session on June 6, saying the Stoddard Reservoir Dam does not meet modern spillway requirements and shows collapsing and voiding stone masonry that could lead to failure and downstream damage to West Mountain Road and nearby properties.
The presentation, led by the town’s consultant team, summarized a decade of work: a 2016 phase‑1 inspection, a 2018 phase‑2 engineering study of hydrology/hydraulics and stability, and a 2023 reinspection that rated the dam in poor condition and recommended repair or removal. Consultants said the town authorized design work in November 2024 and has programmed design and multi‑phase construction in the capital plan (design starting in fiscal 2025 and construction staged in 2027–2028). The consultants told the meeting that removing the dam is the lowest‑cost way to eliminate failure risk and restore stream continuity, while rebuilding with a larger spillway would be more expensive and require ongoing maintenance.
Why it matters: state regulators require sufficient spillway capacity (presenters cited a 100‑year design storm plus freeboard) and increasingly stringent permitting and historic/archaeological reviews for dam work. Consultants said the present spillway is inadequate and overtopping has occurred; they argued that partial or cosmetic fixes would not meet regulatory standards and might leave the town liable if a failure later occurred.
Public concerns: dozens of residents and user groups questioned outreach, process and impacts. Several residents said they received no certified notice despite living adjacent to the reservoir; town staff responded that certified mailings were sent to property owners but acknowledged outreach could have been better and that comments would be compiled for the board. Members of the Simsbury Fish and Game Club and other residents urged alternatives including temporary draining, piling boulders or lowering the crest by smaller amounts to preserve the pond’s recreational and ecological functions.
On environmental and historic impacts, town staff and presenters said regulatory reviews are required before any construction permit is issued. Consultants reported a completed DEEP fisheries consultation and a State Historic Preservation Office review; DEEP staffers reportedly favor removal as a means to restore aquatic connectivity in this watershed, while SHPO input could affect the project’s scope and cost if historic features are identified.
Cost and timeline questions drew repeated attention. Presenters said dam removal or major reconstruction is expensive in part because qualified contractors are limited and dam projects require extensive dewatering, hydrologic work and risk management. Residents pressed for a detailed cost breakdown; the consultants said some high‑level estimates exist but a full cost estimate would follow in later design work.
Next steps and decision making: town staff said public comments from the session will be compiled and shared with the board of selectmen and the town manager. Staff and consultants said permitting steps (DEEP, SHPO, Army Corps and other required reviews) will proceed as the town advances design, but that decisions can still change before construction contracts are awarded. No formal vote or binding action was taken at the meeting.
Representative quotes from the meeting: "We will stay here as long as it takes to hear questions from everybody," the town official said at the session opening when explaining the meeting format. "There is insufficient spillway capacity," the consulting team said when summarizing the technical findings and failure risk. "We were never notified about this meeting," a Simsbury Fish and Game Club representative said, asking that the lack of notice be recorded.
What to watch for: a more detailed cost estimate during design, the town board of selectmen’s response to compiled public comments, and permit filings with DEEP and SHPO that will include environmental and historic reviews. The project timetable presented to the meeting anticipates phased work across several years pending design and permitting.
