Clarksburg Meeting On Dam Postponed

By Tammy DanielsiBerkshires Staff
05:04PM / Wednesday, February 10, 2010Print Story | Email Story

CLARKSBURG, Mass. — The Conservation Commission meeting scheduled Wednesday night on the Briggsville Dam has been postponed because of weather forecast.

Representatives from the state's Riverways Program had planned to present the commission with a notice of intent to remove the nonfunctioning dam but had called off the trip from Boston on Tuesday, said Town Administrator Michael Canales.

A foot or more of snow had been expected to hit the state beginning early Wednesday morning, prompting widespread cancellations of schools and meetings. By late afternoon, the storm had moved far to the southeast and the region got barely a dusting.

The dam has been designated a significant hazard by the state because one side has moved off its footings. Engineers have estimated it would cost $700,000 just to make it safe.

The town had looked into the possibility of restoring it as a power source but the cost, condition and other factors, including an endangered habitat, had dissuaded officials from pursuing it. The dam's 15-foot drop also doesn't create a significant enough flow to make it worth restoring it.

"If the town of Clarksburg had $700,000, I'd be damned if I'd spend it on that," said Selectman Carl McKinney at a recent meeting. "I'd build a gymnasium for the school for the children."

Cascade School Supplies, which became the owner of the dam when it purchased the former Strong-Hewat mill, is not interested in investing the more $1 million to make it functioning.

The Riverways Program, in partnership with the town, Cascade, the Hoosuck Chapter of Trout Unlimited, several state and federal environmental agencies, National Grid and the Hoosic River Watershed Association, propose to remove the dam and restore some 30 miles of headwater along the North Branch of the Hoosic River.

The project received a waiver in 2008 from having to file an environmental impact report under the Massachusetts Environmental Police Act and the state Highway Department recently completed a review stating that the bridge just to the north of the dam would not be negatively affected during the removal process.

Canales said state and federal funding was ready to tear down the dam and that was how the town would proceed.

It was not yet confirmed if Riverways Program officials would appear at the next Conservation Commission meeting.

The Selectmen's meeting tonight has also been canceled.

iBerkshires.com Text Ads

Save & Earn with Greylock

3.30% APY 6-month certificate. Click to learn more! Insured by NCUA.

www.greylock.org

rk MILES Blding Materials

Are You Ready to Update Your Home? Start With rk MILES. 4 Locations (800)670-7433

www.rkmiles.com

If you would like to contribute information on this article, contact us at info@iberkshires.com.

Your Comments

iBerkshires.com welcomes critical, respectful dialogue. Name-calling, personal attacks, libel, slander or foul language is not allowed. All comments are reviewed before posting and will be deleted or edited as necessary.

"If the town of Clarksburg had $700,000, I'd be damned if I'd spend it on that," said Selectman Carl McKinney at a recent meeting. "I'd build a gymnaions for the school for the children." What a political statement. Is Mr. McKinney suggesting that the town has the $400,000 that has been projected to remove the dam? If a new school gym is so important, then why not spend the 400K on it? Simple answer, the town is not paying the total cost of removal, nor would they pay the total cost of refurbishing the dam. The big difference being that refurbishing the dam would be a 24/7/365 supply of green energy. What's the payback on removing the dam? How many times will the town have to request emergency funds to shore up or replace the river banks just down stream from the mill where the river makes a 90 degree turn against a clay bank? Or when unabated water flow washes out the footings of the bridge upstream? A small scale working hydro systems would reduce the amount of electricity the town has to purchase, could be used for educational purposes for local schools (including MCLA's new science building), and would provide flood control during high water times. 15 feet of head is not huge, but there are smaller systems working just fine. It's really a combination of height plus gallons per minute that is important. Surrounding towns are spending huge dollars for solar panels that don't work at night, don't work on cloudy days, and are only 10% efficient - because they see the value in working towards a green power supply. Too bad Clarksburg's leaders can't see that far! Editor: Nobody wants this dam. The owner doesn't want it. The town doesn't want - Clarksburg voters don't want it. Not even the state agencies charged with pursuing alternative energy want it. It's unstable, crumbling and hasn't functioned in more than a half-century.
from: No Foresight	on: 02-11-2010 12:00AM I Agree (0) - I Disagree (1)

Your headline writer missed the boat on this one. Wouldn't a catchier headline have been, "Clarksburg Postpones Dam Meeting"? Editor: Oh, I was tempted! :D
from: NA reader	on: 02-11-2010 12:00AM I Agree (1) - I Disagree (0)

"Editor: Nobody wants this dam. The owner doesn't want it. The town doesn't want - Clarksburg voters don't want it. Not even the state agencies charged with pursuing alternative energy want it. It's unstable, crumbling and hasn't functioned in more than a half-century." Then I expand my charge of lack of foresight to the voting population of Clarksburg and my apologies for singling out just the town leaders.
from: No Foresight	on: 02-11-2010 12:00AM I Agree (0) - I Disagree (1)

Greetings- I think some clarification is in order here. The Town of Clarksburg is NOT paying anything to remove this Dam. Nothing...NADA. The only investment we have is some time put into co-operating with the powers that be. And I do stand by my staement that if we had that kind of money (which we don't), it would be much better spent upgrading our Elementary School, which has been before the School Bldg. Authority and the Dept. of Education for over 3 years. Best- Carl W. McKinney, Selectboard Member
from: Carl W. McKinney	on: 02-12-2010 12:00AM I Agree (0) - I Disagree (0)

Clarksburg School Committee Considers Lowering Paid Time Off Payout Threshold

By Jack GuerinoiBerkshires Staff
06:27AM / Wednesday, October 07, 2026

CLARKSBURG, Mass. — The School Committee will review its paid time off payout policy and potentially lower the minimum service requirement for employees to collect a payout upon leaving.

The conversation began at an Oct. 1 meeting, where the committee requested that a recently retired employee receive his full payout even though he served 16 years rather than meeting the current 20-year threshold.

"I think 20 years is a lot for people," School Committee member Cindy Brule said. "I think we need a number that is more realistic."

Assistant Superintendent Tara Barnes noted that this is another instance where Clarksburg's municipal policy differs from the school's. Most municipal employees in Clarksburg can collect a payout after 10 years of service.

The employee in question was Mike Peters, a recently retired custodian who sought to cash in on 87 sick days and three personal days.

"If he had taken those days over the 16 years, it would have caused disruption," School Committee member Dan Haskins said after supporting the payout.

In Principal Kimberly Rougeau's report, she shared that the school year has started smoothly and that staff have completed several professional development sessions.

Rougeau added that the school is essentially fully staffed. She welcomed new physical education teacher Heather Gray as well as Pat Wood, the new Special Education and 504 Coordinator. She noted that Gray is also a speech-language pathologist who can assist with the school's caseload, adding that both hires have "hit the ground running."

View Full Story