Ipswich Select Board votes to remove historic dam, addressing environmental concerns

The Ipswich Select Board voted to remove the historic mills dam Monday night, moving forward on a project that's been debated for over a decade.

The board voted 4-1 in favor of removal, with Select Board Chair Linda Alexson the sole vote against.

"This is a huge step forward," said Neil Shea, restoration program director at the Ipswich River Watershed Association, which has worked with the town on removing the dam. "I think this is something that we've been waiting for to validate this project that we know is important and we know that other people — other entities, like state agencies, federal agencies — have recognized as being extremely important."

Residents voted 57% in favor of removal in a non-biding vote on May 21. The debate over whether to remove the dam has been tense at times; residents on both sides of the issue have strong ties to the river but opposing views over how to steward it into the future.

The dam was constructed in the 1600s, then enlarged in the 1880s to support a riverside mill and later decommissioned in the 1930s. Those who wanted to keep the dam say the area will be losing an important historic touchstone that also has enabled water sports and recreation.

"For recreation, for paddling, it's a really big detriment, and it's a big loss to the people that use it," said Eric Krathwohl, who's property abuts the mill pond created by the dam.

On the other side, removal advocates touted the importance of restoring the river's natural flow to allow migratory fish to move upstream more easily and to open up floodplains that will protect against climate change related flooding.

Ahead of her vote in favor of the removal, select board memeber Sarah Player reflected on the town vote, saying, “The message is clear to me that both the citizens and the science expect us to move forward with this project."

Player also said it was "powerful" to see support from state and federal government on the project. The removal is fully grant-funded, backed by money from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

In voting against the removal, Alexson cited concerns that sediment that's built up behind the dam is potentially toxic and could wash downriver onto clam flats.

"We have a very successful shellfish industry here in town. It's worth tens of millions of dollars every year," Alexson said. "I take very seriously the thought of the risk of any contamination hitting those shellfish beds."

Chemicals or heavy metals contaminating the sediment will be detected during sediment testing, according to Shea. That's part of the permitting mandated before the town can remove the dam. Results of the test will inform the way the town removes the dam, per state requirements, Shea said. But Alexson said she thought testing should have taken place before the Select Board voted on the removal, pushing her to vote no.

Along with sediment testing, there are a series of local, state and federal permits the watershed association, working in concert with the town, needs to secure before the dam can actually be removed. Shea said it will likely take a year at minimum to get through the permitting process.

In the meantime, Shea said his organization plans to continue public outreach about the benefits of removing the dam.

"Forty-two percent of people still obviously had some reservations about this project moving forward," Shea said. He hopes to change some of their minds.

Editor's note: This story has been updated to reflect that Linda Alexson is the current Select Board chair.