Response to Robert Wasserstrom’s letter to the editor of Nov. 4

Mr. Wasserstrom is, of course, entitled to his opinion.

The first point he tries to make is that the Save the Dam Falls committee is using “delaying tactics,” which is certainly a strange conclusion and shows that Mr. Wasserstrom is an outlier on this issue. Most people are accusing us of being “premature!”

Had Mr. Wasserstrom attended the presentations by “experts” and other advocates offered by town officials over the past three years, as we have, he would have listened in vain for a presentation or discussion of a range of options. (The three options offered by Inter-Fluve are to take down Montgomery Dam, to preserve Montgomery Dam, or to half-way take it down). He would have looked in vain, as we did, for sketches showing a variety of options including preserving the dam.

Had he attended the town’s “conversations” in June, and had he had the temerity to suggest that there are viable alternatives to destroying the dam, he would have been told, as we were, that our remarks were not welcome.

As for the Oct. 14 outdoor session, we offered to participate so that we could contribute to the conversation — and were turned down.

He should be asking, as we did, when the decision was made to tear down the dam. Town officials, by word and deed, have acted to carry out the decision to destroy the dam, without ever admitting that the decision has been made.

We would like to point out, as often as necessary, that Montgomery Dam does not prevent building a fish passage. Ironically, if the dam is removed, the town will need to build not one but two fish passages to assist fish from sea level beyond the Main Street Bridge. And also, we will continue to note, as stated in multiple places in both Inter-Fluve reports, that Montgomery Dam does not contribute to upstream flooding, and hence is no barrier to flood mitigation.

Jean Brewer
Tom Rothwell
Bernice Berger
Robert Nichols
Karen Grove
Lee Montgomery
for the Save the Dam Falls Committee