Natick’s local government on Wednesday voted to remove a dam that has sat on the Charles River for nearly 90 years. Select Board members called the vote a “first step” in what has already been a multiyear process to decide the dam’s future.
Environmental advocates celebrated the decision as a win for the river’s health and climate resilience. But the emotional process has suffered through persistent misinformation and divided the town, pitting factors like finances and environmentalism against aesthetics and historical significance.
“I can’t think that, in my time on this board, that I’ve had any matter that people have approached me one-on-one as much as this one,” said Select Board Vice Chair Michael Hickey. “And I really didn’t see that coming a couple of years ago. But I’m glad they have.”
The Select Board’s 4–1 vote this week came three years after the proposal to remove the dam was first raised. Town employees predict it will take another six years to complete the permits, designs and construction work.
More Local News
Natick’s decision to remove or repair the dam stemmed from a public meeting in late 2019 after the Town Meeting had already allocated the funds to repair the dam. It was, at that time, in “fair” condition; it has since been downgraded to “poor” by the state. An 18-person volunteer advisory committee convened for more than a year, consulting with experts and residents to ultimately issue a 28-page report on their findings and recommendation: that the town remove the spillway.
Since then, decision-makers and passionate residents lamented the misinformation — and, at times, lack of information — about the process and effects of removing the dam. Though the dam does not serve any flood control purposes, some residents who live downstream worried that their properties would be affected by future flooding.
“It’s an amazing theory, and I hate to have it proven at my expense — at my family’s expense,” said resident Roger Scott said before Wednesday’s vote.
Some experts have argued that the process of dam removal is straightforward, even when the details change. While the advisory committee’s work was still underway earlier this year, Nick Wildman told GBH News dam removal resulted in a “predictable” chain of events.
“It’s not a big mystery,” said Wildman, who then worked in dam removal at the state’s Division of Ecological Restoration.
Within hours of a dam being removed, he said, fish begin to travel upstream again. Within days or weeks, vegetation begins to sprout on the newly exposed banks, quickly taking over the earth that’s suddenly out in the open. And after two or three years, the river will settle into a new channel, forming and shaping the banks.
“It's really going to be something that's going to help build climate resilience for future generations and really improve the health of the river,” said Robert Kearns, a climate resilience specialist at the Charles River Watershed Association. The nonprofit is advocating for the removal of many of the river’s 19 dams.
Speaking before the vote, members of the Select Board laid out different motives for their own decisions: fiscal responsibility, climate change and making a lasting, responsible decision for future generations.
“This is all most of us have ever known. It’s a beautiful space. But in my opinion, we have an opportunity now to create the next hundred years or two hundred years,” said Select Board Chair Paul Joseph.
Hickey, the lone “no” vote to remove the dam, said he was compelled by the historical significane of the structure and the location. He called it the “soundtrack” and “fabric” of the town, and pointed out that its image is iconic in Natick.
Kathryn Coughlin pointed to financial concerns when she ultimately cast her vote to breach the dam, and said she had to make decisions for all residents, not just the vocal opponents.
“I’ve talked to seniors who can’t afford to stay in their homes. Taxes are going to go up,” Coughlin said.
It would cost the town roughly $1 million more to repair the dam instead of removing it — $2.6 million to $1.5 million, per town estimates. Those calculations do not include future park redesigns and construction for the area by the spillway, where there are paths, wooden benches and a couple of picnic tables.
“But if we do breach that dam, there’s nothing to stop us from putting in a beautiful park. A place for reflection, a place for contemplation,” Joseph said. “We have immense opportunities for ourselves to look at what could be, as well.”
Still, board members hedged their bets at Wednesday’s meeting, reminding residents that they could always return to the decision if new information arose as they moved forward with the removal plan.
“This is the beginning of a long process, and I encourage people to continue in the process,” Joseph said. “We just welcome the opportunity to continue this dialogue with the community, because we are all stewards of your space.”
