Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Dam Removal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Preliminary study: Removing Mil Pond dam would lower the pond but not restore a continuous river, committee told
Summary
A preliminary feasibility review presented to Littleton’s Clean Lakes Committee shows removing the primary Mil Pond dam face would lower the pond by about four feet, not return the channel to an open river, and would leave other structures (culvert/bed humps) that continue to hold water. The state owns key culverts and will be involved in any next steps.
Members of Littleton’s Clean Lakes Committee were briefed on preliminary, not‑yet‑released results of a state‑conducted feasibility study examining removal of the Mil Pond dam.
The presenter told the committee the site includes three structures that affect water level, not a single dam, and that removing the 6‑foot dam face the study focuses on would likely reduce pond elevation by roughly four feet rather than the full six feet of the face. That is because downstream features — a concrete box culvert under Route 495 and a raised downstream hump in the riverbed — would continue to hold back water, limiting how much the pond would drain.
Committee members pressed the presenter on several practical and ecological implications: how much sediment might mobilize if the face is removed; whether the exposed bed would scour in an extreme (100‑year) flood; which state departments (including the Department of Transportation) would need to sign off; and who would pay removal costs. The presenter said the state’s engineers attended review meetings and noted that the culvert and highway abutments are critical infrastructure the state will not allow to be disturbed. Engineers described options that would cut the visible dam face while leaving key abutments in place to protect Route 495.
Members also discussed whether dam removal would meaningfully change flood risk; presenters said this is not a flood‑control dam and that, outside of a rare extreme event, flows through the corridor would be similar whether the dam face is in place or removed. Several committee members urged additional study of the downstream hump, which was not part of the state’s narrower feasibility scope, and asked whether the final report will include more analysis of sediment type (gravel versus soft organic material) and long‑term geomorphology.
The committee was told the state planned to release the final report to stakeholders imminently; the study group will hold follow‑up public meetings and the committee intends to request that the water department not make a final decision before the town and neighborhood stakeholders can review the data. The committee discussed potential next steps if the study recommends removal — applying for state removal grants and coordinating any design work with the DOT and other agencies — and noted that detailed cost estimates will be included in the final product.
The meeting closed the Mil Pond item with a call to await the published study, arrange public forums, and identify what additional local analysis would be needed before any advocacy or grant applications begin.
