By Chris Kirchen
First, some history:
Following the 1998 flood, the Warren Select Board endorsed investigation by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) and the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) to determine the impact of removing the Warren dam. Both concluded that removal would reduce the risk of upstream flooding and bank erosion. The ACE also drafted a plan to accomplish this and agreed to provide the necessary funding.
In 2004, under pressure from those who wanted to keep the dam, the Warren Select Board turned down the ACE’s project and funding. The key reasons were the dam’s historical value and its iconic beauty. The dam remained in place.
The result? When Tropical Storm Irene came through in 2011, extensive flooding again heavily damaged adjacent and upstream properties, including the western approach to the covered bridge and Covered Bridge Road. (The damage to The Pitcher Inn resulted from an overflow of Freeman Brook, not the Mad River.)
The current situation:
The dam is now deteriorated, cluttered with debris, slowly falling apart and in danger of collapsing. The millpond is completely filled with silt. Nevertheless, the Warren Village Dam Preservation Trust (the Trust) has continued its more than 10-year crusade to obtain a stream alteration permit from the ANR to rebuild the dam.
But, in an October 20, 2015, letter to the Trust, ANR Secretary Deb Markowitz described specifically how the Trust’s proposal fails to meet the standards set forth in Vermont law. Her letter concludes, “It is highly unlikely that the Agency would be able to issue a permit for a new or replacement dam of this reach of the Mad River.” This is a clear signal to the Trust that its efforts to reconstruct the dam will not succeed.
This response should not be a surprise. It is consistent with the message the Trust has received from the ANR in the past and with the ANR decisions on other dam reconstruction proposals in recent years. In fact, on the same day as the letter to the Trust, the ANR denied the town of Norwich’s application to rebuild its dam for the same reasons.
These decisions by the ANR are not the result of a political agenda, which might change with a new administration. Rather, they are a matter of law – specifically Vermont 10 V.S.A. § 1023 (a), a law that has been upheld by the Vermont Supreme Court (Town of Groton v. State of Vermont).
Furthermore, rebuilding the dam requires the adjacent landowners’ prior written approval, which shall not be “unreasonably” withheld. Given the extensive flooding damage to their property caused by the dam during Tropical Storm Irene, the landowners have indicated that they will not grant approval, which is not unreasonable given the risk of future flooding.
What is next?
It is clear that the dam will never be rebuilt because doing so would violate established Vermont law. And, given the force of nature, the dam will eventually be gone. Therefore, the only decision facing us is whether to (1) let the dam decay slowly or (2) remove the dam now and stabilize the riverbank.
• Let the dam decay slowly – There are several major problems with this alternative. First, the dam will continue to be a safety hazard to kids who can frequently be seen playing on the dam. Second, the dam will continue to cause flooding and erosion to adjacent and upstream properties. (All the evidence points to this conclusion: the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers’ Environmental Assessment [2003]; Friends of the Mad River’s Upper Mad River Corridor Plan [2008]; the DuBois & King study Hydrologic and Hydraulic Assessment for Proposed Bridge Rehabilitation [2013]; and recently exchanged emails with Patrick Ross, the Vermont river management engineer who used to be responsible for the Mad River.) Third, the debris-covered dam and silted millpond will continue to be an eyesore for Warren Village.
• Remove the dam now and stabilize the riverbank – With a good design, this alternative is highly likely to be approved by the ANR and grants are likely available to finance the project. In addition to eliminating the safety hazard and reducing the flooding and erosion risks, a restored river would be much more attractive and environmentally friendly than the current situation. The river would again become a healthy habitat for fish and an attractive natural setting with water flowing over boulders and through riffles and pools. Importantly, failure to pursue this alternative means that the opportunity to obtain grant funding will be foregone.
Where do you stand?
Many communities, in Vermont and elsewhere, have struggled with the question of whether to remove a dam that has always been there. Many of those dams have been removed and those communities discovered the scenic, recreational and ecological benefits of a free-flowing river.
The people in Warren have an opportunity to look toward the future while honoring all that we have learned from the past. We can work with government agencies and other organizations to develop a project that restores this reach of the Mad River and benefits the community for years to come. Or, we can continue to spin our wheels while nature takes its course and the dam continues to deteriorate. As a result, the opportunity to design and get funding for a project that restores the river will once again be foregone. In either case, the dam will eventually be gone. Which alternative do you choose?
Chris Kirchen lives in Warren.
