We give Councilor Emily Norton a bit of grief on this blog, because of her anti-green housing positions, but she’s doing some great work in her day job. From the Watertown News comes a report of Councilor Norton’s push, as head of the Charles River Watershed Association, to remove the Watertown Dam.
The Charles River Watershed Association organized the tour, and the group is advocating for the dam to be removed to allow more fish and wildlife to travel up and down the Charles River, and also because it poses a risk of failure in a major storm, said CRWA Executive Director Emily Norton.
The Watertown dam is just west of Watertown Square at the east end of California St. It is kinda neat to watch (as are other dams along the Charles), but it would be so much better to get rid of it and the rest of them. It won’t be easy. There’s the possibility of toxic silt that would have to be removed. But, it would make the Charles so much better.
Keep up the good work Councilor Norton.
Now, about denser housing …
You can’t just give her props for her hard work on this without including a dig?
I am skeptical that building new, more dense housing is more green. More and more cars will go electric and more and more generation will come from renewables. As a general rule, the best thing for the environment is not to trash old things so we can buy new stuff.
The Watertown Dam is not the only nearby dam ready for removal. The South Natick is currently under discussion: https://www.natickma.gov/1676/Charles-River-Dam
Joking about online bullying doesn’t make OK.
Norton is a disproportionate focus on this blog. The rhetoric has been extremely harsh at times. And out of line. No apologies have ever been offered that I can recall.
Sean just recently threatened to find video where she supposedly said something different than what he felt she was now saying. Besides the poor logic in being overly loose with language (the issue is a fake one), it’s another example of Sean targeting Norton disproportionately. Has Sean ever done this with any other City Councilor? Ever?
An overly vocal (in terms of posts and comments) white man targeting a woman in a leadership role. Have we heard this story before? Not OK.
Those condescending opening and closing sentences really make it hard to take you seriously. Unfortunately you seem to use this language against anyone you disagree with.
I haven’t agreed with many of Sean’s prior posts, but in this specific case it seems like the sharing of a nice story. I’ll take the small win and move on.
I understand a blog isn’t usually held to any standards….
But since this likely the “only” popular site for Newton residents, how much longer can it use the “blog” excuse to disprotionaly target/shame people/issues it disagrees with
Does v14 have any moral responsibility to be remain neutral to drive conversations instead of trying to direct a narrative?
@Bugek – V14 bloggers have quite a diversity of opinions. There are some bloggers I usually agree with, some where it’s 50-50, and a couple where I usually only skim their posts and avoid commenting. If you got Sean and me together, we’d disagree on many, maybe most, issues.
Village 14 doesn’t have editorial positions. Bloggers don’t run our posts by each other prior to posting to check what others think of what we plan to say. None of us officially represent V14’s views on Newton or the world. My guess is that there’s no local contested race where we’ve all voted for the same person.
Yes, Sean has strong opinions and posts about them. That isn’t V14 “trying to direct a narrative”; it’s Sean saying what he thinks.
Kudos, Sean.
Well done, Emily Norton, on this issue.
She still deserves opprobrium for claiming to be a environmentalist, while generally opposing added housing density, including in village centers. I give her a B+ on the former and a D- on the latter.
I don’t think “we” are giving Emily grief on this blog. 🙂
Keep up the great work, Councilor!
@Alec Wilson, I can think of another alderman/city councilor that Sean Roche gave endless shite to in person and on the blogs about the original Riverside special permit. At the time I was the chairperson of the Land Use Committee, and it was I who received a heaping dose of Sean Roche at every public hearing and working session, and on the blogs.
And you know what? He was absolutely right. The first Riverside special permit was a piece of high pork, high sodium, high nitrate, high nitrate sausage designed by a deeply divided Board of Aldermen intent on getting something approved–but not anything too good, let alone tasty. As chairperson of Land Use, I felt it was my duty to move the process along and get something approved, even if it did not satisfy all of my preferences. So, to my eternal shame, I cut a deal with the Devil to get the project approved. And I still ended up getting ash-canned by Board President Scott Lennon after I had a vociferous and loud argument with him and Councilor Lenny Gentile behind closed doors (and for having the audacity to run against a popular incumbent for Mayor). As it turns out, the recently approved project by Robert Korff et al. is far superior to the nasty sausage that was approved during my tenure on Land Use. Mea culpa.
So if I had it do all over again, Sean, I would have listened to you, even if it meant letting the proposed project go down in flames, and maybe (maybe, I have a lot of regrets) saved my soul. Alas, I did not. I should have listened to you. Sorry, my friend.
Thanks for posting Sean.
I attended the Charles River Watershed Association event referred to in the Watertown News on Saturday and it was an eye opener.
Even though our region has – so far — been spared an extreme weather calamity like much of the country has this year, it’s only a matter of when, not if.
And a hurricane or other storm could create calamitous flooding if this dam failed.
If breached, water could overwhelm the Galen Street Bridge and shut down roads and businesses along the river — including along Watertown Square, Charles River Road and Nonantum Road.
Meanwhile, removing the dam would be beneficial for the river’s health and wildlife, including river shad which have difficultly navigating its fish ladder, Lisa Kumpf, river science program manager at CRW, told our group Saturday.
Kumpf also suggested the sound of rushing water so many of us have come to cherish could be replicated by replacing the dam with large boulders. Thoughtful plantings could enhance the river banks to a more natural state.
I’m grateful to the Charles River Watershed, under Norton’s leadership, for calling attention to this.
For more about this and other dams (including the South Natick Dam, also considered at risk), I recommend watching this segment from Chronicle.
In the interest of truth and accuracy, Ted is too critical of himself and too kind to me.
Also, a “heaping dose of Sean Roche” does not sound appealing at all.
I do think “Heaping dose” would make a good V14 handle though
Cool topic! We frequently kayak upstream on the Charles from Nahanton Street, and most of the year we get stuck on sandbars at Millennium Park coming into Cow Island Pond (at the Needham Commuter Rail bridge), because the depth of the Charles there is about 6 inches.
I support the restoration of the natural course of the river, but in this case where the river depth is less than a foot, does anybody know what would be the impact of say, demolishing the next downstream dam (Mills Falls at Echo Bridge)? Would the upstream river become even more shallow or would it start to channelize itself? I can’t find any reliable elevation or depth information on the Upper Charles so it’s tough for me to grasp.
I presume that once you start demolishing any dams, you would need to demolish all of them, rather than just a few here or there, or else risk major disequilibrium? Is it possible to accurately forecast what will happen to a river after a specific dam is demolished?
Any insights into fluvial geomorphology would be greatly appreciated!
I studied hydrology extensively as a child (i.e. we had a stream in our back yard small enough for me to dam up here & there with rocks, sticks, and dirt). The effect of a dam is felt upstream for a short ways, until the natural level of the surface of the incoming running water reaches a little above the height of the dam. Below the dam, the water runs a bit quicker than it would have for a short distance due to the water’s extra momentum, but this is quickly spent. Except in times when the flow over/through the dam is actively managed, there is no net effect on the flow or depth of the water, above or below the dam, beyond this influence.
I am not a doctor, nor do I play one on TV. But I am here today to tell you about Sean .. he has an undiagnosed problem. If you have an undiagnosed problem, like Sean, seek help. Your former employers will be glad you did.
As the person who made the initial phone call to the MBTA about developing the Riverside site, I have been waiting for a bit for the mea culpa from Ted Hess Mahan. After almost 7 years of negotiations with various groups and alderman, we ended up with a development that could not be built. Thank you Ted for your honesty on this.